|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 21st, 2004, 08:46 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 48
|
Let me throw a dumb question in the middle here...
In going the non-spinning glass route,
what is the primary difference between using a homebuilt 'AgusTube' as opposed to Canon's EF Adapter for the XL1? |
|
|
|
January 21st, 2004, 12:33 PM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 389
|
The one major difference is depth of field. The larger 35mm image projected onto the ground glass (Agus's model) provides for a more shallow depth of field than the 1/3" ccds (1/3" = 8.5mm) of the Xl1. With the EF adaptor, you're just adding a lens (like looking through a window) but with the ground glass, you're actually looking at a much larger, flat surface projection of what's coming through the lens.
__________________
Nicholi Brossia |
|
|
|
|
January 21st, 2004, 12:43 PM
|
#3 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
another difference is that with the Ef adaptor or any mechanical adaptors, you will have a magnification effect of 7.2X due to the difference of size between 35 mm film and 1/3 " CCD. By using a ground glass as a projection screen like the Mini35 or Agus's version, you preserve all the caracteristics of the lens used.
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
