Why do most or all spinning adapters have the lens mount at the top & not the bottom? 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 12th, 2007, 07:08 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central, OH
Posts: 207
Why do most or all spinning adapters have the lens mount at the top & not the bottom?

I'm going to build my own adapter and would hate to make mistakes that others have already discovered. That being said, I have a question about the design of spinning-cd adapters.

I have a rectangular project box from Radio Shack and it seems to me that I should line up the camera so it mounts at the bottom of the box. In other words, when I sit the camera on a flat surface, the adapter box that holds the spinning ground glass will sit flat on the table as well.

This doesn't seem to be the norm. It seems like all the other spinning CD project box adapters have the camera attached at the top of the box, so there's a lot of the box hanging below the base of the camera. This kind of setup would prohibit sitting the camera down on a flat surface while the adapter box is attached. There must be some reason that people do this. What am I missing?

This is a pic of what I'm talking about:
http://www.makezine.com/blog/257902106_43c89d7477.jpg

All I can figure is that devices like the RedRock are made that way for their rail system and, therefore, other people do the same.
David Garvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 09:57 PM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
For one, having it on the top looks bulky and weird. Also, having it on the bottom allows for easier attachment to a rails support system.

It's mostly visual aesthetics, but I can't imagine having the bulk of an adapter sticking up from your camera would benefit you other than to have the ability to set it down evenly on a flat surface. Also, who knows what kind of strain you're putting on your camera threads by precariously balancing all that weight above the lens instead of hanging it below.

The main reason I didn't invest in a spinning adapter is because I couldn't stand the boxy, unmanageable shape of the thing. Good luck with whatever you figure out.
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2007, 11:09 PM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
Having gone through a design process with my own homemade spinning adapter, it is a simple matter of the logistics of mounting to the base on which camera is mounted, whether it be rails or a solid mount. Nothing else really makes sense, with the necessity of an oblong box.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 04:52 AM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Winter View Post
For one, having it on the top looks bulky and weird. Also, having it on the bottom allows for easier attachment to a rails support system.

It's mostly visual aesthetics, but I can't imagine having the bulk of an adapter sticking up from your camera would benefit you other than to have the ability to set it down evenly on a flat surface. Also, who knows what kind of strain you're putting on your camera threads by precariously balancing all that weight above the lens instead of hanging it below.

The main reason I didn't invest in a spinning adapter is because I couldn't stand the boxy, unmanageable shape of the thing. Good luck with whatever you figure out.
Ben I have to agree with you man, you'll never make one of these puppies look sleek, however good the picture.

With all the manufactures out there getting closer to each other in terms of picture, it will soon start coming down to how they look.
Stephen Pipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 04:56 AM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK
Posts: 938
Another reason is to keep with standards. If you have rods support, the rods centre should be 85mm up to lens centre to remain compatible with matte boxes for example, so this naturally places the lens in the upper half of the box.
__________________
Thanks,
Wayne.
Wayne Kinney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2007, 11:52 AM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,356
Second, the compatability with matte box etc..

Also lens closer to ground retains close to ground ability. You can always hold it high. But if the lens is high you cannot get as close to the ground unless you dig a hole or use mirrors.

Hand-held, the lens low designs seem more stable.
Bob Hart 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 01:17 PM.


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