Someone make me a wax screen? 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 June 21st, 2006, 11:45 AM   #1
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
Someone make me a wax screen?

I would pay someone $30 for a well-made wax focusing screen on glass with a minimum diameter of 50mm. Any takers?
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 01:45 PM   #2
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 45
Hehe, Ben is desperate to get that good Bokeh.

The whole bokeh thing seems to be the new hot thing with these adapters now. Year ago nobody seemed to think about it, all they wanted was just DOF no matter what it looked like.

Wonder what we want next year? I place my bet on auto exposure and focus! (Can I hear every adapter designer say "oh my god he is right! Back to the drawing board then..."?)
Mikko Parttimaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 06:56 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 103
From my own experimenting I think wax is not a good solution. It loses more light than you need to to get the bokeh. 1 tape layer of wax lost more light than two optosigma 1500s face to face, which lost more light than a 350 grit. Oscillating 350 grit is the way to go IMO. You may need more amplitude to hide the grain, my glass is 3mm thick so the extra weight takes care of that.
Andy Gordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 07:18 PM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
Bokeh was always a critereon of mine, I just didn't realize how crucial it was until I realized how much I didn't like the Beattie bokeh. I think most people have, by this time, perfected their adapter and said to themselves, "how can I improve this more?" Naturally the only unconquered aspect of this quest is bokeh.

About that 350 grit, do you have a source for that Andy? Optosigma has something like 120 and then 400, and Thorlabs jumps from 220 to 600 grit. Do you think I can go with the 400 grit Optosigma?
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 07:35 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 103
I wanted a 400 opto but they were out of stock so I tried a 600. Grain on the opto 600 was worse (think due to lighter weight, smaller amplitude) but the bokeh looked about the same as the 40micron knight optical I'm now using. Here's the link:

http://www.knightoptical.co.uk/acata...GBDiameter.htm

The DGP5000.

I think 40micron is equal to 350 or 400 grit, but it seems to vary from one supplier to the next. The thorlabs 600 grit looked more like an opto 1500 bokeh (i.e. terrible).

Opto's are 2mm thick, the knight one is 3mm thick (says 3 on the package not 3.75 as on the site) so depending on your adapter you may or may not be able to hide the grain. With mine the grain is just barely visible in the bokeh if you're really looking for it. But no normal human would notice it :)
Andy Gordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 07:41 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
Hows the bokeh on the 600 opto? Do the out-of-focus bright points show the aperture blades (ie a distant streetlight out of focus looks like a tiny octagon)? I might consider it if it diffuses properly.
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 07:49 PM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 103
Yes it varies depending on aperture. So with an f1.2 or f1.4 open you have an edge to the highlight but with a brighter area in the middle, as you stop down to f2 the blades pull in the edge as the highlight gets smaller, the edge is more distinct and the brightness of the disc is more even. Also if the highlight is infront of the focal plane it can be fuzzier than if it's behind the focal plane. Generally speaking the bokeh looks a bit fuzzy at f1.2 or 1.4, better at f2. Same goes for the 40 micron.

Your grain gets wore once you start stopping down, but mine looks ok at f5.6 and I wouldn't go past that anyway.
Andy Gordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2006, 10:50 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Saint John, CANADA
Posts: 633
ben, i know you sold your pimped out letus, what are you working with right now?
__________________
video : xl2 / letus35xl / bogen 503
photo- canon 1dmkII - bronica etrsi
Andrew Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 04:28 AM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
bokeh - nature

Bokeh is characteristic of lens. Focusing screen bokeh problem actually reduces to diffusing problem. It means You'll achieve better bokeh with better diffusing focusing screen. Just because You'll see natural lens created bokeh more clearly. Clearly - it means projected image is as little as possible mixed with lightrays going right through. Those rays are cause of hotspot and ghosting effect.
So unless you're not about breaking some basic optical rules you have to accept that fact: better bokeh(more natural - lens created) is nothing more than better diffusion and better diffusion takes more light(bigger lightloss).
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 06:10 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 103
The problem is you can't achieve full diffusion cos the gg would be opaque. With my setup the hotspot got worse as I increased diffusion, and the lens has a certain amount of light fall off you can see if you take some slr shots, so the hotspot is not just a function of gg diffusion.
Andy Gordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 11:28 AM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
Just a note on what you're willing to pay: two pieces of UV grade glass costs nearly $25 alone (two UV filters); then the wax is either a request a sample situation or bought by the pound (another $15-50); then there is the cost of labor -- they're very difficult to get right, without hairs or dust suspended in the emulsion. I make a decent living at about $25 per hour at my "real" job, and you can bet making a decent screen of any kind -- wax or ground glass -- will take the better part of one hour, and maybe two (assuming you're not including research time..)

So, $30 is very low.

I can offer you a custom static screen that will give you what I think are the best results currently possible, at the moment it is fitted to 50mm tubing and is not a full frame image (the optical window is 37mm instead of 43mm), but I would offer you a trade-up as a new (full frame) model becomes available.

My asking price is $120.
__________________
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 June 22nd, 2006, 04:38 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Barca Spain
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Gordon
The problem is you can't achieve full diffusion cos the gg would be opaque. With my setup the hotspot got worse as I increased diffusion, and the lens has a certain amount of light fall off you can see if you take some slr shots, so the hotspot is not just a function of gg diffusion.
Andy, are You talking about hotspot or vignetting. I am asking because hotspot means(for me) trace that is created from rays which going directly through gg and it's not part of the image on gg. In other words you see your photolens backglow which is round shaped. So if those rays were diffused you wouldn't see any hotspot. But vignetting part of the image on gg and caused of (too small)angle of the rays which are falling to gg.
Frank Hool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 07:15 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 103
I've been using the terms hotspot and vignetting interchangeably, I meant dark corners which I guess I should be referring to as vignetting.
Andy Gordon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 09:43 PM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Todd
ben, i know you sold your pimped out letus, what are you working with right now?
I have a Letus35 with rubber stoppers on the vibrating unit that have been pushed out to allow more vibration. The focusing screen is a Beattie Contax II. The achromat is a Century Optics 7+ diopter.
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2006, 09:48 PM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Saint John, CANADA
Posts: 633
i thought you sold that thing?
__________________
video : xl2 / letus35xl / bogen 503
photo- canon 1dmkII - bronica etrsi
Andrew Todd 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 07:14 PM.


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