Ground Glass : reflective vs. transmissive - thoughts pls - Page 2 at

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 16th, 2005, 10:56 PM   #16
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
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.

Power Requirement
Image Softness
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.
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2005, 11:21 AM   #17
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,299
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.
Bob Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2005, 01:49 PM   #18
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ventura, California, USA
Posts: 751

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.
Bill Porter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2005, 08:16 PM   #19
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.
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2005, 10:57 PM   #20
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:

- jim
Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G
Jim Lafferty is offline   Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

Omega Broadcast
(512) 251-7778
Austin, TX

(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

(800) 238-8480
Glendale, CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2015 The Digital Video Information Network