Ground Glass : reflective vs. transmissive - thoughts pls

Ben Winter · August 16th, 2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

You also left out not moving the ground glass at all. :)

I didn't think people were accepting of the idea of any noticable grain. I've had great results with static GG (check my "Possible Focusing Screen Alternative" thread) but I always thought it was well understood that moving GG got better results, period.

Quote:

Well:
Noise
Power Requirement
Image Softness
Maintenance
Bearing wear (will eventually cause focus issues)
Hot Spot
Grain--yes even with the $10K P+S device you have to be careful of f-stop setting or grain still becomes visible
Inverted Image (unless you add prisms or mirrors)

I completely admit I'm on a totally different (lower) level than you guys. For my purposes, I don't care if there's a bit of a hotspot, or a soft image, or a bit of grain, or an inverted image or if I need a few batteries here and there(what doesn't these days?). Half these things I can definately live with. Yes, there's room for improvement, but an IR remote still can't shoot around corners, can it? Computers still crash, right? My level of acceptable usage is, unfortunately, somewhere a lot lower than where yours is. I'm accepting the idea that DV cameras are cheaper for a reason ;).

Maybe it's just because I've gone the static route, and only the static route, and haven't encountered any results I didn't like (OK, maybe a few here and there but they've all been remedied).

Create an intensive and detailed enough GG design, and I'd really confident that a completely working and reliable adapter can be made.

Bob Hart · August 20th, 2005, 11:21 AM

Here follows a bit of useless info to add to the useless suggestion I made about a photocopier reflecting lens. The appliance used during WW2 was called an epidioscope. It enabled slide-shows from printed photographs or documents.

Bill Porter · August 20th, 2005, 01:49 PM

Ben,

I'd say you're just as accomplished as many of us here. Some are more experienced in messing with their adapters, some are less so (and less succfessful), and some are about on par. So, congrats! :) I wouldn't say "lower". Just newer to the club.

As far as static not being accepted as having noticeable grain, it's a matter of personal taste. But, the one manufacturer bringing static shallow-DOF adapters to market (Guerilla35) has published raw footage and plenty of people are lining up to get their product.

And Bob, that's not useless info! I found it intriguing and am curious to learn how it worked, since I assume it wasn't trying to treat the documents or photos as a translucent slide. Sounds very topical here.

Ben Winter · August 20th, 2005, 08:16 PM

The Guerilla35's static?! See, now that's awesome. What are they using?

I just recently bought one of Letus' vibrating adapters off ebay, and I look forward to trying it out and comparing the results.

Jim Lafferty · August 20th, 2005, 10:57 PM

Is that the Lettuce35? They use a cellulose focusing screen?

Alright, apologies for the cheap humor... it's late...

The G35 uses static, wax glass, we're all pretty sure. I'm one of the people trying to perfect that technique (check out the "Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?" thread here for more info). I'm also trying to find sub 3 micron alumina to grind glass with as a comparison. I've got a great 3 micron glass here that has proven to be far easier to reproduce consistently, but when compared with (e.g.) Frank Ladner's or some of the G35 footage, the 3 micron results are unquestionably more "grainy." Not that the "average" viewer would notice, but I am something of an optical perfectionist at heart -- never want it to "get in the way."

So, I'm waiting on a shipment of 1.4 micron alumina, having tested .3 and .05 micron (didn't prove useful -- too small), to see if the results from it will come within the same ballpark as the successful microwax tries. Meanwhile, also trying microwax and am getting closer and closer to a perfected protoype, but it is slow going -- figure on 1.5-3hrs and two $12 filters per try for microwax depending on how you cool and clean the glass, as compared with literally 15-20 mins start to finish and one $12 filter for aluminum ox.

I've got much more info up on my site: http://ideaspora.net/oldskool

- jim

August 20th, 2005, 10:57 PM	#20
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Is that the Lettuce35? They use a cellulose focusing screen? Alright, apologies for the cheap humor... it's late... The G35 uses static, wax glass, we're all pretty sure. I'm one of the people trying to perfect that technique (check out the "Microcrystalline Wax Techniques?" thread here for more info). I'm also trying to find sub 3 micron alumina to grind glass with as a comparison. I've got a great 3 micron glass here that has proven to be far easier to reproduce consistently, but when compared with (e.g.) Frank Ladner's or some of the G35 footage, the 3 micron results are unquestionably more "grainy." Not that the "average" viewer would notice, but I am something of an optical perfectionist at heart -- never want it to "get in the way." So, I'm waiting on a shipment of 1.4 micron alumina, having tested .3 and .05 micron (didn't prove useful -- too small), to see if the results from it will come within the same ballpark as the successful microwax tries. Meanwhile, also trying microwax and am getting closer and closer to a perfected protoype, but it is slow going -- figure on 1.5-3hrs and two $12 filters per try for microwax depending on how you cool and clean the glass, as compared with literally 15-20 mins start to finish and one $12 filter for aluminum ox. I've got much more info up on my site: http://ideaspora.net/oldskool - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

August 20th, 2005, 11:21 AM	#17
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Here follows a bit of useless info to add to the useless suggestion I made about a photocopier reflecting lens. The appliance used during WW2 was called an epidioscope. It enabled slide-shows from printed photographs or documents.

August 20th, 2005, 01:49 PM	#18
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Ben, I'd say you're just as accomplished as many of us here. Some are more experienced in messing with their adapters, some are less so (and less succfessful), and some are about on par. So, congrats! :) I wouldn't say "lower". Just newer to the club. As far as static not being accepted as having noticeable grain, it's a matter of personal taste. But, the one manufacturer bringing static shallow-DOF adapters to market (Guerilla35) has published raw footage and plenty of people are lining up to get their product. And Bob, that's not useless info! I found it intriguing and am curious to learn how it worked, since I assume it wasn't trying to treat the documents or photos as a translucent slide. Sounds very topical here.

August 20th, 2005, 08:16 PM	#19
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	The Guerilla35's static?! See, now that's awesome. What are they using? I just recently bought one of Letus' vibrating adapters off ebay, and I look forward to trying it out and comparing the results.