Go35Pro Footage - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

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

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 7th, 2006, 03:23 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
I think I'm not understanding you. The Go35 is fitted with step rings to your camera's lens. Provided you've got a camera with a metal housing and lens chamber, run'n'gun shooting with just the adapter and a short FL lens handheld is OK. For larger, bulky lenses and accessories, attaching a rod system is simply a matter of (as far as I know) mounting the rod system to your cam's underside and raising the support to the underside of the adapter. With Cavision's DV rods ($160), the support doesn't quite reach the underside of the adapter, so I would think it would be fine to simply wedge some stiff material between the support and the underside of the adapter.
__________________
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 With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 03:25 PM   #32
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
Here is that new footage: Reflections and Rack Focus (150mb)

Again, nothing done to the footage but the flip and on some clips, minor cropping. It seems the GL1's LCD does not show the full image area being recorded and consequently the zoom was off a little bit with rounded corners showing. I cropped that out. All shots with the SLR lens at f/4.0 again.
__________________
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 With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 01:02 AM   #33
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
Hi,

Can the size of videos being posted here be a little bit smaller, say in 20mb range. Unfortunately some of us still living in the ice age and its daunting to think we would have to sit in front of the computer for hours downloading. Sorry, just my thought.
Alex Chong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 01:15 AM   #34
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Chong
Can the size of videos being posted here be a little bit smaller,
Then rather both sizes... not only small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty
But I think it would need to move to a larger projection area.
What size You have right now?
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 02:05 AM   #35
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
(Then rather both sizes... not only small.)

Good call, didn't think of that. Ya, both sizes for choice. Thanks.
Alex Chong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 11:12 AM   #36
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 218
Images: 1
I think the large sizes are full res..that way no one can complain about too small of the resolution and bitch about how if you had a bigger size they could "really see" what the adapter is capable of.
Rich Hibner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 11:50 AM   #37
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Hool
What size You have right now?
Just about 36x24mm, or ~43mm round.

As for recompressing the files, I might get to that at some point (Rich hit the nail on the head, incidentally). In the meantime, might I suggest a download application like FlashGet or Download Accelerator that allows file resume? This way you will never need to babysit the d/l, and can let it run overnight. I'll make sure the files stay up until Friday.
__________________
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 With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 02:01 PM   #38
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
oh, thats nice. So, Your adapter won't eat lenes original FOV. 24x36 is framesize of 35mm photolens. If You going to use bigger target area for HD version, it'll be designed for what type of lens?
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 02:27 PM   #39
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ogden, UT
Posts: 349
I'll let Jim correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you get the full 36mmx24mm field of view. Generally this is caused by zooming in on the GG or other medium. Your thoughts Jim?
Mike Oveson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 03:27 PM   #40
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
You still can zoom on 24x36. If Your GG allows it. If You have round shaped GG it makes 45mm(in case You use 3:4). Anyway, Jims mentioned 43mm is very close to that.
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 04:30 PM   #41
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ogden, UT
Posts: 349
I may very well be wrong. I just thought it would be best to get clarification from Jim.
Mike Oveson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 05:04 PM   #42
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
I'm just guessing too, so Jim it's Your turn now.

but,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Jankis
I've actually been able to count the iris blades
I'm not sure theres anything to do with adapters hidden quality issues. If lens draw thus then must be very bad adapter which will hide them. Because if there is anything which will spoil it - it must be too strong hotspot or wrong backflange. But if there is anything like that then rather overall image looks very bad. So i think it's about lens. Jim, what lens You have there?
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 10:57 PM   #43
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Hool
I'm just guessing too, so Jim it's Your turn now.

but,

I'm not sure theres anything to do with adapters hidden quality issues. If lens draw thus then must be very bad adapter which will hide them. Because if there is anything which will spoil it - it must be too strong hotspot or wrong backflange. But if there is anything like that then rather overall image looks very bad. So i think it's about lens. Jim, what lens You have there?
I think we're getting mixed signals. "Counting the iris blades" seems to me intended as a complement. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the diameter needed for a full 36x24mm image, it's 43.26mm. All the original footage that's up for the Go35Pro was, believe it or not, from a unit with only a 37mm round imaging area. The imaging area of the beta units that a few people have their hands on are 40mm round. The final release will be just over 43mm, or something like 99.6% a full 36x24mm frame.

From here the only way to create a successful HD version of the adapter would be to move to medium format lenses, or else attempt some sort of optical trickery by magnifying the projected image onto the diffuser without changing the FL of the manual lens. I don't really think it's possible, but it's an idea someone like Bill Maxwell could fully grasp and layout in short notice.

- 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 With Quote
Old August 8th, 2006, 11:26 PM   #44
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Pete, FL
Posts: 223
My comment was a compliment. ;)

1. How big of an image area on the GG would be necessary for a "successful HD" image?

2. Do the current higher end adapters on the market (Movietube, Mini35) have a larger imaging area or is there something else they do that make them better for HD (assuming they would be considered "successful")?
Sam Jankis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2006, 04:14 AM   #45
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty
From here the only way to create a successful HD version of the adapter would be to move to medium format lenses, or else attempt some sort of optical trickery by magnifying the projected image onto the diffuser without changing the FL of the manual lens. I don't really think it's possible, but it's an idea someone like Bill Maxwell could fully grasp and layout in short notice.
Changing FL shouldn't drive to success. You can try it with extender unit. Result is like lens with longer FL but with extender eats even more light.
Enlarging target area? It means usually change backflalge distance as well.
It may work even very well. But it'll be optically difficult to build and even bigger problem is that 35mm lens give enough brightness only to 24x36. If You'll distribute that constant amount of light to larger area You'll get darker image overall. And i'm sure You'll experience very serious vignetting problems as well.
Frank Hool is offline   Reply
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

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

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

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network