DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Alternative Imaging Methods (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/)
-   -   DiGi35 Image Flipper (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/71399-digi35-image-flipper.html)

Tony Relph July 13th, 2006 09:50 AM

DiGi35 Image Flipper
 
What are everyones views on image flipping?

- Would you prefer an adapter with a prism inside to flip the image straight onto film with some light loss? Would also mean price increase for adapter.

or.....

- Have an adapter that comes with its own viewfinder that flips image H & V for you on screen but needs to be flipped in post, but less light loss then prisms?

I only ask as we MAY include a flipped viewfinder with the DiGi35 due to some problems with the prisms that we have used. This will include a mount to attach to the adapter either left or right side depending on preference. Only in prototype stage at the moment.

Flipping in post isn't really that big a problem is it? I'd chose quality over more work every time.

Mark Welsh July 13th, 2006 10:02 AM

I'm starting to see the real world back to front about now anyway: quality over convenience for me; but choice would triumph over both, commercially.

Bob Hart July 14th, 2006 08:41 AM

Tony.

What was the prism problem if you can tell without compromising design secrets?

65mm approx hypotenuse, 45mm approx sides, right-angled prisms, approx 32mm thickness across all faces, set in ninety degree opposition will flip a image 28mm wide, via a 7+ dioptre into a Sony PD150 and Sony HDRFX1.

With the FX1, the zoom can be set between 32mm and 54mm with 32mm giving the best field of view and sharper image for a given focal length f1.8 SLR camera lens.

Is is about as big as the prisms can be and still fit along with their clamping pieces within the available focal distance between the front of the +7 dioptre and the groundglass.

Justine Haupt July 14th, 2006 02:45 PM

I'm personally a proponent of image flipping, for one big reason -- as long as the mirrors or prisms used are of good quality, I can't see how they would degrade the quality, and I'd be surprised if someone said the light loss from the mirrors is even noticeable.

In a side-by-side comparison between an image that went straight through a mini35 and one that had been optically flipped, could anyone actually tell the difference? If not, than why create the added hastle of having to flip a viewfinder and flip the footage in post?

If anything I've said is innacurate, someone please correct me. I'm just finishing a mini35 with a flipper, and if anyone has evidence that flippers really degrade the image, than the next one I make probably won't include it.

Ben Winter July 14th, 2006 03:47 PM

There's definate evidence that flipping induces light loss. Flipping in post is of course simply a matter of moving 0's and 1's. Image flippers are bulkier to deal with on-set. Why bother when all that hassle can be summed up to the press of a button in post? Seems silly if you ask me.

Andy Gordon July 14th, 2006 07:16 PM

You'll get a little more light loss with a flipper, but the real problem is you just introdued an additional X number of stationary surfaces for dust to collect on. And it makes for a bigger bulkier adapter. I'd say flip the viewfinder or LCD.

Ben Winter July 14th, 2006 07:21 PM

How about this, for HD users: Buy AspectHD with the extra money you'd save from buying (or building) a non-flipped 35mm adapter. Then just check the box that says "180 degree rotate for use with M2 adapter" on the preferences menu and voila! You're capturing already flipped footage. But not only that, you're using Cineform's intermediate format that speeds up editing by allowing you real-time preview and greater resistance to generation artifacts. That seems like a more worthy solution to me.

I guess that sounded like a commercial pitch for Cineform. But that's just what I think.

Bob Hart July 15th, 2006 01:08 AM

The Aspect solution is a good one and deals with the de-interlacing problems associated with image flipping in one hit.

The camera-tape playback for on-set review is not flipped unless a capture path is also in place and the flip option enabled or a monitor is turned on its head.

My personal preference is to get the origination as good as it can be before introducing any effects.

CGI and other stuff can be conducive to unthorough camerawork. All manner of errors can be fixed in post but there is an added cost in time and equipment required.

You can't exhibit non-flipped footage after editing it by the most simple method of copying from one camera-recorder to another, which might be all some people can afford.

As good as it is with mainsteam movie production, origination which as gone from camera to print without digital interference still looks fresher. I guess I am just a bigot in that sense.

Flipping with mirrors or prisms might introduce weight and risk of dust specks but the simple fact is that adding any hardware, be it the flipping adaptor or an added monitor to flip the image for the operator, hampers the agile portability for which small cameras excel.

My personal preference is to keep the arrangement as simple and robust as possible. The flipping adaptors enable this.

In a more formal production environment with tripods, dollys, matte boxes, video taps etc., it doesn't really matter except that video city's displays also have to be turned upside down for a non-flipping device.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network