Review of Quyen Le's Letus35

Bill Porter · September 24th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Brown

Sorry if that's how it came across but, yes, that is not what I'm saying (at least about the not needing a lens part) It seems to me that the staging is as follows:

1)Camera body
3)35mm Adapter (with proprietary mount)
4)Still lens

Which would be nice as this would eliminate the "Pinocchio" effect from stacking lens, devices, on top of the XL series's already very long 20x lens.
Maybe I am reading it wrong but since Johnathan makes mention of both a "threaded" mount and a "bayonet" mount, this leads me to believe
that this is indeed what will appear in the production units.
If you read something else into it please straighten me out.
Just don't crush my spirits as I really want a bayonet mounted adapter! Ha Ha!

I'm not sure what Jonathan meant by "bayonet mount," myself. But the G35 as was shown in pics doesn't have a proprietary mount. It has a threaded mount that screws into the front of the XL-2 lens where a filter would go. It sounds like G35 guys may have a mount that is threaded on the camcorder side, and bayonet on the other, where the G35 tube mounts up. But if you are looking to replace the XL-2's lens I think you are out of luck (I hope Jonathan sees this thread and clears this up).

I don't know whether you're clear on the whole "35mm lens and GG" concept but you must have a lens on your camcorder which is filming an image projected onto a piece of ground glass (or fresnel, wax screen, focusing screen, or what have you). The camcorder is not filming through the ground glass so to speak, it is filming the ground glass itself. The camcorder is focused very close up. Imagine holding a 1.5" LCD monitor in front of your camcorder and filming that; this is what is going on with these adapters - you're filming a small image right in front of your camcorder.

So if you eliminate the XL-2's lens, the camcorder has no way to focus on the ground glass. If you are looking to eliminate the XL-2's already long lens, it would have to be replaced with some other lens.

The reason these adapters are as long as they are, between the ground glass and the camcorder, is that camcorders can't zoom in on the ground glass while having the ground glass be in focus. Minimum close focus on the models in question (XL-2, DVX, FX-1, Z1U, etc), while zoomed in on the GG, is still a couple inches away or so.

Michael Maier · September 24th, 2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obin Olson

GG is great, I don't see a way to make it better
achromat is easy to replace, really you can take the whole thing apart in about 10min or less..

How about the condensor? Do you feel it's up to the task of HD?

Eric Brown · September 24th, 2005, 11:18 PM

I don't know whether you're clear on the whole "35mm lens and GG" concept but you must have a lens on your camcorder which is filming an image projected onto a piece of ground glass (or fresnel, wax screen, focusing screen, or what have you).

Okay, I'm a little red in the face (embarrased) and a little enlightened. I think somewhere in the back of the walnut rattling around inside my head I knew that but was missing the too obvious piece of the puzzle and causing confusion.
I do understand the concept of how it works but for whatever reason was eliminating the lens and thinking the adapter mounted directly to the camera, which, yes, is impossible without a lens behind the adapter.
Guess I got a little too excited about shedding weight on an already heavy
rig.
Thanks for straightening me out on that, Bill.

Dan Diaconu · September 24th, 2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Brown

...which, yes, is impossible without a lens behind the adapter.

Sorry to turn you around again.... but... it is possible:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album24/IMGA0744
and will be available before the end of the year.

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Sorry to turn you around again.... but... it is possible:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album24/IMGA0744
and will be available before the end of the year.

Dan, you have it mounted on a DVX100 which clearly and obviously have a lens behind the adpter, since it's a fixed lens. How is that turning Eric around?

Dan Diaconu · September 25th, 2005, 10:33 AM

I may have misunderstood, but I though he was referring to a CU lens (achromatic or no) not to the actual lens of the camcorder (I only know of one beheaded Z1 in the whole video kingdom). Eric? What were you referring to?

Aaron McMath · September 25th, 2005, 02:34 PM

He originally meant the canon stock lens. But when Johnathan talks about the bayonett version vs. the threaded production version, he seems to mean a system that will let the adapter snap right onto the lens hood without screwing it in. That makes for quicker use, and guarantees that the lens will end up with focus marks etc. in the right spot, but it also makes the units camera specific, which I don't like. It was confusing at first read, and I think that they should clarify that up-front because it could easily be percieved as intentional misinformation, although I do not think that it is.

Your adapter looks pretty sharp - compact too. I've heard that fresnel screens have prominent grain patterns, but I don't see it on your' tests - even the static tests. You say it doesn't need an achromat? I've read elsewhere that some cameras don't need an achromat, but if yours' works on all of them without it that would be great.

I think you mean the beheaded FX-1. That guy got the cleanest results that I have seen from any of these adapters. I wonder how much his relay system cost him. I also saw no grain, moving or otherwise. I wonder if it had anything to do with his special (sounding) oscillator.

Is there a really good macro lens that could be adapted straight to the canons and used to focus on the GG? Probably expensive if there is. But it might be worth renting for productions that require crisp detail.

Dan Diaconu · September 25th, 2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron McMath

I've heard that fresnel screens have prominent grain patterns, but I don't see it on your' tests - even the static tests.

Look closer. Is there on static:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A_static?full=1
vs moving:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A2?full=1

<<<<<You say it doesn't need an achromat?>>>>
No, I only said: I do not use one (or, mine does not need one)

<<<<I've read elsewhere that some cameras don't need an achromat, but if yours' works on all of them without it that would be great.>>>
So it is.
<<<<That guy got the cleanest results that I have seen from any of these adapters. I also saw no grain, moving or otherwise.>>>

He is not using a GG and the SLR lens. He replaced the camcorder lens with another lens. Not an "adapter" as usually discussed around here.
<<< ....that require crisp detail>>>
Such as this?
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album12/felix5?full=1

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

He is not using a GG and the SLR lens. He replaced the camcorder lens with another lens. Not an "adapter" as usually discussed around here.

Yes, he's using a GG and a SLR lens. It is an adapter and it uses the very same principle of all those adapters around. How he got such great results, which is no doubt the best from all the adapters? I don't know.

Aaron McMath · September 25th, 2005, 04:37 PM

That is correct. He did two different mods to the FX-1.

Dan, you saw the page where he just replaced the Zeiss lens with a broadcast lens. Got rid of purple fringing in the highlights for one thing. But for the other mod he is using a GG and all the relevant pieces.

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 04:43 PM

Yes, and it's the cleanest, sharpest footage I ever seen from any adapter. Be it the M2, G35, Letus35 or Pico35. That footage just make all the footage from the other adapters look like Super-8 compared to 35mm film.

Eric Brown · September 25th, 2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

I may have misunderstood, but I though he was referring to a CU lens (achromatic or no) not to the actual lens of the camcorder (I only know of one beheaded Z1 in the whole video kingdom). Eric? What were you referring to?

I was getting delusions of putting the adapter directly to the camera body on my XL2 with no lens inbetween. In my case, I tend to get a tad Myopic at times and end up overlooking the smaller, obvious details.

Greg Bates · September 25th, 2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Yes, and it's the cleanest, sharpest footage I ever seen from any adapter. Be it the M2, G35, Letus35 or Pico35. That footage just make all the footage from the other adapters look like Super-8 compared to 35mm film.

C'mon now you might be overstating things a tad. There has been beautiful footage from all of the above. The true difference isRthe ability to bring it to market as my man Quyen has done, and the fellas at Redrock. All of these devices are in their infancy of wide spread use, but quite a few of the DIY devices have yielded nice footage as well. But to make such a sweeping statement based on web compression, and following some of your comments in this thread, to me it sounds like....haterade. The guys you mentioned are bringing about awesome tools that when applied to a project will increase your production value ten fold. Big up to Obin, I get inspired whenever you post your footage, it always looks great.

Michael Maier · September 25th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Ok, maybe I did go too far with the super-8 remark. But the intention wasn't to put down the other adapters, but express my admiration of how sharp that DIY looked.
There sure have been many incredible footage posted from other adapters. Obin's stuff springs to mind. But, none of it matched the sharpness and clarity of that DIY. As simple as that.
Don't want to take away from any of the other adapters. It's just a "fact" and I wonder what was the guy's secret ingredient.
By the way, what’s “haterade”? Couldn’t find it in the dictionary either. Did you just make that up?

Obin Olson · September 25th, 2005, 08:17 PM

C'mon Michael! calm down, have a drink and lets talk..I for one want to see the link that shows this amazing device your talking about! coudl it be better then ours? YESS if he killed the cheapo lens on the Sony and is using good glass I bet it's WAY sharper! so, like I said SHOW ME THE LINK! ;)

I will pull the lens off our dvx at some point in time(when I get more time?)

September 24th, 2005, 11:18 PM	#168
Eric Brown Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 427	D'oh!!! I don't know whether you're clear on the whole "35mm lens and GG" concept but you must have a lens on your camcorder which is filming an image projected onto a piece of ground glass (or fresnel, wax screen, focusing screen, or what have you). Okay, I'm a little red in the face (embarrased) and a little enlightened. I think somewhere in the back of the walnut rattling around inside my head I knew that but was missing the too obvious piece of the puzzle and causing confusion. I do understand the concept of how it works but for whatever reason was eliminating the lens and thinking the adapter mounted directly to the camera, which, yes, is impossible without a lens behind the adapter. Guess I got a little too excited about shedding weight on an already heavy rig. Thanks for straightening me out on that, Bill.

September 25th, 2005, 02:34 PM	#172
Aaron McMath New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 15	lens He originally meant the canon stock lens. But when Johnathan talks about the bayonett version vs. the threaded production version, he seems to mean a system that will let the adapter snap right onto the lens hood without screwing it in. That makes for quicker use, and guarantees that the lens will end up with focus marks etc. in the right spot, but it also makes the units camera specific, which I don't like. It was confusing at first read, and I think that they should clarify that up-front because it could easily be percieved as intentional misinformation, although I do not think that it is. Your adapter looks pretty sharp - compact too. I've heard that fresnel screens have prominent grain patterns, but I don't see it on your' tests - even the static tests. You say it doesn't need an achromat? I've read elsewhere that some cameras don't need an achromat, but if yours' works on all of them without it that would be great. I think you mean the beheaded FX-1. That guy got the cleanest results that I have seen from any of these adapters. I wonder how much his relay system cost him. I also saw no grain, moving or otherwise. I wonder if it had anything to do with his special (sounding) oscillator. Is there a really good macro lens that could be adapted straight to the canons and used to focus on the GG? Probably expensive if there is. But it might be worth renting for productions that require crisp detail.

September 25th, 2005, 04:37 PM	#175
Aaron McMath New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 15	Modified FX-1 That is correct. He did two different mods to the FX-1. Dan, you saw the page where he just replaced the Zeiss lens with a broadcast lens. Got rid of purple fringing in the highlights for one thing. But for the other mod he is using a GG and all the relevant pieces.

September 25th, 2005, 10:33 AM	#171
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I may have misunderstood, but I though he was referring to a CU lens (achromatic or no) not to the actual lens of the camcorder (I only know of one beheaded Z1 in the whole video kingdom). Eric? What were you referring to?

September 25th, 2005, 04:43 PM	#176
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Yes, and it's the cleanest, sharpest footage I ever seen from any adapter. Be it the M2, G35, Letus35 or Pico35. That footage just make all the footage from the other adapters look like Super-8 compared to 35mm film.

September 25th, 2005, 06:48 PM	#179
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Ok, maybe I did go too far with the super-8 remark. But the intention wasn't to put down the other adapters, but express my admiration of how sharp that DIY looked. There sure have been many incredible footage posted from other adapters. Obin's stuff springs to mind. But, none of it matched the sharpness and clarity of that DIY. As simple as that. Don't want to take away from any of the other adapters. It's just a "fact" and I wonder what was the guy's secret ingredient. By the way, what’s “haterade”? Couldn’t find it in the dictionary either. Did you just make that up?

September 25th, 2005, 08:17 PM	#180
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	C'mon Michael! calm down, have a drink and lets talk..I for one want to see the link that shows this amazing device your talking about! coudl it be better then ours? YESS if he killed the cheapo lens on the Sony and is using good glass I bet it's WAY sharper! so, like I said SHOW ME THE LINK! ;) I will pull the lens off our dvx at some point in time(when I get more time?)