re: Angenieux lens
 

Yes and no.

It would project an image on the ground glass. The image would be about a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, meaning you would have to zoom in much closer (which will create distortion problems) and have problems with graim on the GG.

Also, the DOF of 16mm format lenses is much deeper. The point of this project is to get a shallow DOF. To get a decent 35mm-like DOF you would have to zoom to at least 80mm which means standing WAY back from your subject.

One final thing: DO NOT spend $400+ on a lense for this project. I have the same Angenieux lense on one of my 16mm cameras and it is *wonderful*, but definately overkill for use with a video camera. Start of with something close to 50mm and as cheap as possible.

Alain
 

< Ps: Now what we should do is to start a thread against War and misery around the world and try to find a solution all togeter :-)

Alain Dumais >

Your (and everyone else's) best chance of making a difference in the world is through your video. Video that is looking better and better, more like what the general public will readily accept.

Paul
dvdof.com

Re:Angenieux.

I second Ryan. As I found out the hard way, the image off the 16mm format Angenieuxs is barely big enough to cover Super16 frame without cropping corners on zoom-through 25-35mm focal length. Good lens but wrong application in this project.

Re: Fixed Groundglass.

The image files agusday2.jpg and agusday3.jpg at www.dvinfo.net/media/hart were originated from a fixed groundglass (microscope slide) prepared with 300 grade aluminium oxide powder. In the centre hotspot of bright image, there is no grain but in low lit corners there is visible grain. If there is any grain to be seen, setting the SLR lens to as small an aperture as you can will make any grain visible.

Brainpick time. For the first time I have recorded without inverting the camera. (My ego won out over common sense as I did not want to be asked constantly why I was working the camera upside down.

Inverting the image in post seems to have made some problems, probably related to interlace. I've tried de-interlacing but it does not seems to have made any difference.

The .avi playback is fine but DVD-Video is dreadful, with jittering.

OS is Windows 98SE. NLE is Adobe Premiere 6.1. The computer (Pentium 1.6Ghz, plenty of hard drive space, 520Mb DDR) has been fine in all ways except for now.

Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Bob,

You have reversed the field order by flipping it upside down. DV is lower field first, and now you're going upper field first. One way to solve the problem is to nudge the footage up or down one pixel to get the lower field in the right place. I'm not 100% sure how else to fix it in Premiere; I know in After Effects you can just tell it to interpret the footage upper field first and then render it out lower field. I'm sure there's good instructions in the "help" file of Premiere, though.

Good luck,
Ryan Graham

I use Vegas, it allows you to choose which field first. I never understood why the option was there, I guess It could be for this type of scenerio

Field Order allows you to make your own progressive images, as well, by combining fields. I'm fairly certain there are other reasons that field order is offered as an option, but off the top of my head I can't tell you what they are.

Check out these images to point out what I mean about combining upper and lower-field renders, the results are quite good:

http://ideaspora.net/progressive

"Manual De-Interlaced" is a three-step process -- render two copies of the same file with the filed orders set to Upper and Lower, then place them in sync on your timeline, one above the other at 50% opacity, and render that out as a progresive file.

- jim

Sorry for the delay -- the latest from Bob Hart:

Attached are two .pdf files and two .jpg images. The .pdf files are a rough
and ready how-to for an adaptor for the Century Optics 16:9 with PD150
bayonet mount to 52mm front filter thread 25mm still-camera lens, in this
case the Micro Nikkor 55mm. The two .jpg images are an image of the finished
Agus35 Australian Plumber's Version complete with blue hammertone paint to
make it go faster and a sunset image with the 55mm lens."

Subject: Re: Agus35-PD150

www.dvinfo.net/media/hart/agus3516.pdf

www.dvinfo.net/media/hart/agus3516b.pdf

www.dvinfo.net/media/hart/Aguscam.jpg

www.dvinfo.net/media/hart/agus730p.JPG

Heres a test chart for the optical quality of all of our mini35 designs. Any promising designs should be put to this test to know for sure that its working as well as it can.

It tests for:
1)chroma aberration
2)barrel distortion
3)how much grain is apparent from the ground glass

How does it work?

Step 1: Print out the picture of the test chart on high quality glossy photo paper at 300dpi. You'll find a link at:
http://www.cinematographerreels.com/mini35info.htm

Step 2: Measure the image after it prints out. It should measure 24mm x 18mm.

Step 3: Videotape the image with only the diopter lens your using in front of your camera (diopters are also known as macros, closeup filters, achromats and apochromats) and make sure its in focus and that you are filling the viewfinder edge to edge with the image.

Step 4: Post a frame grab from your video here at full resolution (720x480). If you have straight lines in your frame grab and no color blurring then your mini35 system has pasted the test.

Now if you want to check for how much grain can be seen in your ground glass repeat the first 4 steps with your mini35 system put all together including your 35mm lens.

These tests will check, with precision, everything but resolution. You'll need to shoot a professional resolution chart for that. Post that too if you have frame grabs.

Link to mini35 test chart:
http://www.cinematographerreels.com/mini35info.htm

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

I can't help to have the feeling that the picture at that small a
size and compressed with JPEG is perhaps not going be a good
comparison between the camera's. I would take a larger resolution
one and give it in an uncompressed format. Does this only work
for people with colo(u)r printers?

Many thanks Ryan, John and Jim. I'll have a try at those solutions.

I did some massage on the clip with Premiere's version of de-interlace and it seems to have helped. Another complication has been a slight intensity strobing effect somewhat like a telecine not quite in sync.

With the clip filmlooked and contrast cranked up, the intense phases which have a period of about 3 seconds seemed to arravate the jitter. It looked fine on DVD software playback, just the TV itself did not like it.

The intensity variation is a result of a groundglass CD which has aquired some less opaque spots due to frequent handling. The glass disks should hopefully fix this.

The music video doesn't look all that great. One needs to pay a lot more attention to focussing and a larger screen is a necessity. The natural backlight was very strong and spill in the groundglass was aggavated. Due to impact on the amenity of the live performance I could not use any more than 1000w of bounced light.

The best Agus35 images so far have been in later PM or early AM light. The music clip lighting was a severe test and shows that more work is yet needed.

test chart details
 

The test chart above is at 300dpi and prints out at the proper size of 24x18. As far as a uncompressed image I can assure you that there was no difference in quality between the uncompressed .tif file and the .jpg Im sharing here. In fact I looked at the image at 1000% to make sure. Its the same. Besides this isnt a resolution chart. It simply important that it prints out the right size and the grid lines are all straight.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

dvx agus35?
 

i'm looking for anyone who has build agus 35 for dvx100 panasonic camera (or 72mm diameter lens). just want to know more about it. i did make 3 prototypes for 52mm and 58 mm diameter lenses and there are ok. but it looks, like 72mm is very difficult with that cd GG diameter.

any thougths?

thanks,

filip

To Brett.

(REVISED TEST IN THESE BRACKETS - Brett. I have not been able to send any messages or images to your email. The error message says the mailbox is full.)

Thanks for the miniature test pattern. I had to manually resize the image a few times in Canon BJC7100 printer preview but got it down to 24mm x 18mm. At that size it's got a few ink hairs on it but serves the purpose.

As I have previously mentioned, the telescope eyepiece lens-set in my homemade nightvision adaptor only just frames correctly on a 1.85:1 35mm projector gate without vignetting.

I found following tests with your life size chart that by closer coupling of the lens to the PD150 and reversal of the composite element of the lens, I could just frame the test pattern.

During this process I discovered a possible cause of some other problems I have had.

In the process of more thoroughly blacking out the interior of the Agus enclosure, I had re-installed the disk motor mount out of position by 5mm. This did not affect ability to backfocus the prime lens or focus on the disk but did reduce the image frame to just 15mm across which I did not pick up - the reason why definition fell through the floor on my music shoot the other day.

So thanks for the prompt. I was chasing other dead ends.

I'll re-build the adaptor and post a revised design and test images here if possible per favore of Chris.

DVX
 

Filip,
There has been alittle headway on the DVX check here latest posts:

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/Y...228577;start=0

Old junk email address. Sorry about that. You or anyone else that has any questions can send me email at:

BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

Hey Bob, keep sending images and I'll keep uploading -- that goes for anybody who has pics but no server space -- I'm more than happy to put 'em on dvinfo.net. Hope this helps,

Many thanks Chris. I have more on the way, the same set I was attempting to send to Brett.

The images when they arrive will be as follows :-

Sockimg2.jpg -- A "how-not" to use your Agus35.

Faults are soft image, background burnout due to thick cumulus clouds and blue bias which had to be subsequently graded out, severe vignetting into TV safe area due to operator distraction of explaining the Agus35 principle to a stills newscameraman who was also using Nikon. I had dismounted the Agus35 to enable the innards to be examined, remounted it and forget to reset the zoom.

Filmb&a.jpg -- a before and after demo of the filmlook process applied to Agus35-PD150P origination.

This filmlook process is the same process which is explained by two articles reproduced here at dvinfo.net. Zoom in close on the images and you will see the interlace artifacts produced by a CD which is not running true.

TEST2.2C.jpg -- This is a comparison of a home-made frosted CD, one frame with disk staionary, the other with disk spinning.

Testreq4.jpg -- This is a frame grab of Brett's test pattern before I re-adjusted the position of the groundglass disk which had become misplaced due to furthur work and reassembly.

Testreq5.jpg -- This is a frame grab of the PD150 view of the groundglass CD disk to show texture and all of the defects which are many. Until I am finished breaking the appliance open and tinkering this disk will remain is it is prone to damage from handling.

Testreq6.jpg -- This is a frame grab of the PD150 view of the microscope slide which was given the aluminium oxide treatment.

There is a finer grade of aluminium oxide which I am currently trying to get my hands on. I am also awaiting a piece of optical glass Ohara of Japan are kindly sending to me to test the aluminium oxide on.

If this test is okay I will be buying myself some 1.3mm thickness CD sized disks complete with 15mm centre hole to apply the groundglass finish to. If anyone else is interested in buying disks from Ohara please let your interest be known here.

My own tests with the Agus35 so far hint that whilst it is a handy facility for the video enthusiast, as a serious videographer's tool it has a way to go yet.

The SW5042 42mm 50mm (2 inch)telescope eyepiece in its unmarked box is apparently a Tasco accessory. The lens set extracted from this appliance enables close coupling of the Agus35 to the PD150 but does not yield an image which I would regard as meeting the professional standards otherwise obtainable from this camcorder.

Bob's images noted above are now up... see his directory at www.dvinfo.net/media/hart.

Here are my images:

http://www.visionengine.com/galleria...ls.php?album=1

Still not done. Have many things to add including a top handle, condenser lens, nice paint job, LCD mounted on the top coming off the side, 1/4 inch tripod nut, ect.

I took my mini50 (project-box design) out a few days ago and I have some images of it and the shoot, but no hosting. I've emailed Chris, but for some reason I haven't haven't recieved a reply. If any one has some hosting solutions/suggestions, I'd like to put them up.

Thanks

Isaiah's Mini 50 Pix
 

Isaiah's Mini 50 Pix
www.moorefilms.com/isaiah.htm

Thanks to Taylor for hosting my images.

Some info on my setup for the curious...
GL2
10x B+W Macro filter
Maxell frosted CD (with some nasty scratches near the center)
Minolta 1.7f 50mm MD 35mm lens on the front (open to 1.7 for the whole shoot)

There was a lot of light, Cam settings were:
autofocus on(dvcam was not manually focused on CD)
manual exposure
60i
f3.2 or there abouts
no gain

The images were deinterlaced using Jim Lafferty's "manual deinterlace" method in FCP 4.1.1, exported as an uncompressed, deinterlaced tif from FCP, and flipped h+v and saved as jpegs (with quality 100) in photoshop. Other than that, I did not manipulate these images in FCP or photoshop in any way.

About the video itself: all handheld, rather shaky and full of a lot of me fumbling with focus and shooting upside down and backward. Its not pretty, but if you really think it'd be informative, I'll put some of it up.

This is the first time I really got out and used my mini50 (Agus50?), so a lot of improvement is needed. Getting alignment/proper positioning of camera to cd-plane is critical to avoid vignetting/distortion. My rig is adjustable in this regard, but I failed to spend enough time beforehand so there is noticable vignetting, esp. in bright shots. Also my plastic CD is just not flat enough, and I think every time I use it it just gets worse. But I'm not looking for/don't need perfection (thankfully). Thanks to Agus and Daniel and everyone for their inspiration and ideas.

-Isaiah

Super crazy something
 

Is it possible to use the formula agus35 to make two, for even more focal length?

camera|agus35|agus35

I know that the light loss would be significant, but, it would be interesting to see just how shallow we could get it.

Is it possible to use the formula agus35 to make two, for even more focal length?

camera|agus35|agus35

I know that the light loss would be significant, but, it would be interesting to see just how shallow we could get it.



Why not just use ND filters.

Thanks Taylor for hosting the pics.

Really interesting stuff here--- seems like you are getting a good focal plane area and not a super shallow DOF.

isaiah video Mini50
 

Here is the video, looks good.

http://www.moorefilms.com/isaiahvid.htm

Isaiah-
Great looking footage. Real sharp in the middle. You can make your corners as sharp too if you switch to a ACHROMAT screw on macro of the same power. (Did someone hear a echo...? ;-)

What kind of camera are you using?

What was your target gate size?

Looks Great taylor!

A bit of darkness in the corners but overall Im impressed, great clarity.

what camera did you use?
what size UV filter?
what grit did you use on the GG?

Isiah. - Two cheap and mean methods of shooting with the Agus35. I'm assuming you are using a VX2000 or PD150 from your mention of DVCAM.

If not using the tripod turn the whole camcorder and Agus35 upside-down. The camera will tolerate this with one caveat. - Make sure the tape cassette enclosure is scrupulously clean so that the debris of projects past does not fall from dark bottom corners of the camcorder onto your tape and the moving guts of the camcorder.

About the only way to operate the whole assembly by this method is to use it a waist height like an olde box brownie using the LCD. Holding at eye height and using the eyepiece will have you shivering with fatigue in seconds. There is just too much outboard weight.

Another cheap method is to mount to the tripod as normal. Work the camcorder with your back to the subject, the lens and Agus assembly at your left under your shoulder and look at your LCD screen from this position. I have the advantage of being left-handed. (All cameras should be made that way.) By adjusting the LCD screen to face foward, it should be possible to have the image appear the right way up. As for the (CORRECTION) "rightway up method on tripod", waist to mid-chest height for the tripod is the most practical as higher means the LCD screen switches to inverted when you tilt it too far forward. It's a bit tricky to begin with but gets easier with practice. - Likewise with the camera controls.

However with both methods, people who stop and observe develop a confirmed belief that the camera operator is an idiot.

Experiments in a camera shop with erecting prisms for telescopes, both schmidt and roof type have not yielded anything so far. A Meade schmidt mated up to a 55mm prime lens projected the required image area but the cumulative optical path through the prism exceeded the focal length of the 55mm lenses onto the groundglass and was too narrow for the stage from groundglass to camcorder without extreme vignetting.

Seth. - There's nothing to stop you from trying but two generations of definition loss ??? Offtopic, they apparently did do this with early generation night vision, stacked the tubes to get more light amplification.

The image needs to be both flipped (U-D) AND mirrored (L-R) to appear correct to the operator. Heres a thread that has links to LCD's that can do just.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=20754

I'm using a GL2, sorry about about the dvcam reference.

I could have flipped the rack focus video h+v in post, but I haven't figured out a way to do it without slightly softening the image. As it is, I captured the footage, color corrected it, and exported it with quicktime conversion. If I want to flip it, I have to flip it, then deinterlace it to fix the fields, and color correct it, then export. This softens it up just a touch. So I thought I'd give you guys the sharper one. Using FCP4.1.1. I wish there was just a "reverse fields" option. The only such option I've found in FCP is tied to changing the clips speed.

As to my setup for this shot, its the same as last time. See my last post. Of note, I guess, is no fresnel. I took a lot of care to get the spinnning CD exactly the right distance from the 50mm lens. That distance is critical and you need to adjust the board while the CD is spinning (sp?), and eyeball the results on a big TV or at least the camera LCD to get it right

I'm confidant I can get rid of that vignetting by more carefully adjusting the camera to the exact center of the projection. The GL2 is so close to the CD (almost in the box), which I think is why I'm getting such good coverage from the 50mm. I'm stuck with the blurry edge/corner distortion until I shell out for an achromat.

I will get back to you on the gate dimensions.

Thanks for your advice and comments, and thanks again to Taylor for hosting my stuff.

ND filters
 

Even when you add the cost of making 2 agus' and the purchase of lighting equip. it would still be cheeper than trying to achieve this with ND filters. Unless anyone knows where to get a x16+ ND for under 200?

Seth you seemed to be throughing out and combining alot of terms here that dont have anything to do with each other. There is no such thing as a x16+ ND it you might be throwing alot of people off wth this information. Let me clarifty.

1)ND dont have power scale ratings like this

2)NDs alone will never give you even close to the DOF your looking for

3)+16 refers to the magnification rating for a screw on macro lens

4)x16 would be a much more powerful magnification rating than +16 because a +16 is closer to around 4x or 5x.

ND missunderstanding
 

I'm sorry Brett, you misunderstood..

When I was referring to X16+, I was just trying to say a "times 16 or greater" and that was probably my mistake.

I agree with your statement on "NDs alone will never give you even close to the DOF your looking for".

When I posted, I was just trying to make others understand that it wasn’t even an option, AT ANY LEVEL, for how much it costs. I didn’t even desire to debate on that topic of ND usefulness, but thank you nonetheless for understanding what I want to do.

Taylor.

Good looking pictures.

The blue band off edge of the white shirt? Is that an effect normal to your camera in high contrast situations or instead maybe an off-axis prime lens on your Agus. The lens should be guaranteed square-on due to the construction method if this has been carefully done, so that leaves only the centering of the lens relative to the camcorder lens.

Interestingly, the tripod base mount screw on the Canon camera in your construction image, appears that like the Sony PD150, it is offset to right relative to the camcorder lens centreline. I read somewhere that Canon make the PD150 lens sets. True or false I don't know.

It would be interesting to know if the centre axis of the camcorder lens falls on the centre of the CCDs or slightly off-centre like the Sony. To find out, zoom back until you get a vignette from the close-up lens if it does this.

If the vignette is offset in the viewfinder, then you might get a slightly better result if you re-align your Agus and camcorder for the centre of your projected image on the CD to be at the centre of your vignette before you zoom in, rather than at actual centre of your viewfinder image. This may help any smearing but might be at expense of having a stronger darker area down one side.

This is all only just a maybe and possibly unhelpful speculation so ignore at will.

Isaiah or taylor's pictures?

as i understan these are Isaiah's pictures, and taylor is just kind to host it. right?

filip

Isaiah's Pix and Vids
 

I am merely an observer a hoster...not creator.
The great images are Isaiah's.....

Bob the problem he's having is due to chroma aberration. To solve it you need a (....alright everyone say it with me again)...ACHROMAT macro!

Alright thats it! ;-) For the sake of my sanity Im not repeating myself again and again anymore.

From now on "RMPP" stands for Read My Previous Post.

Achromat macro
 

Brett have you had any luck finding a good inexpensive "Achromat macro" for the DVX yet/ Centurys is just so damn expensive...