Brett I am still waiting for an answer from you about testing your unit with the HD camera I am building..would you care to email me at

oolsen1@ec.rr.com


thanks a lot!

Sure thing. Sorry about that. Check you mail box.

Any sample footage yet, Brett ?

-Les

Sorry to leave you hanging. I've been busy working alot lately so I've been forced to put the project aside. The very day its showable I'll post it on here.

Final Consesus on the Design?
 

Folks,

I am about to go into a design meeting with a design and prototyping company here in Salt Lake City to see about developing CAD drawings and data files for CNC and 3D printing machines.

I have read every message on this thread, many twice (for you Brett!) -- However, I was not able to find a final concensus on the design regarding the use of Micro focus screens (without markings) and/or the need/quantity of condenser lenses and their orientation?

If anyone can help me out here in the next hour, I would appreciate it. If you have specifics, please email them to me directly. I will post later this afternoon or tomorrow the results from our meeting.

km

No go
 

After extensive experimentation and sizable investment into the test equipment/parts, I have come to the following conclusion:

- The quality of the video with even the best of the adapers (be it self-made or P+S pro system) is subpar to the extent that I consider unacceptable.

Note that I operate HDV cam, not SD DV. However I have the same opinion of the adapters in DV applications as well, sorry.

Therefore I stopped experiments. At this time, there seems to be no way to have a reasonably priced 35mm adapter for DV or HDV cams that produces no visible image degradation.

I guess the best bet is to wait for the HD/HDV cams that may feature large, 35mm-alike sensor areas so 35mm lenses (primes or zooms) could be used on their bodies interchangeably.

Until then, I'll just stick with the original lens system on my HDV cams. There's no room for further image degradation as introduced by the adaptors, in my opinion.

Thanks for your insight -- so long!

- jim

I've recently finished a feature length film to be exhibited at San Sebastian and Cannes.(official competition)
It was filmed with a Pana DVX100+Mini35.
It looks really nice.We couldn't find the image degradation you are talking about and it looks really amazing after transferred to 35mm.
Don't know about HD cameras with the pro adapter.It is always the same, some people say it is ok some other say it is a no go.
What really counts is what you see at the final stage I guess....

Re: No go
 

Alex, other than the slight vibration from my temporary setup, what was the image degradation you speak of from my mini35 type GG orbiter ?
My JVC HD 720P test , that I posted, didn't seem to reduce the resolution more than a few percent.
Perhaps you got burned out with all the grinding elixirs and magic methods that all show grain, especially on HD ?

It is interesting to note that the crazed postings from the 35mm adapter folks has faded away for the most part! Very few posts of working setups in high quality video.
Let me know if you need a link to my sample video.
-Les


<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :

Note that I operate HDV cam, not SD DV. However I have the same opinion of the adapters in DV applications as well, sorry. -->>>

My own subjective sense is that for HDTV, all the home-made flavours of MINI35 will fall short.

For MiniDV however, I am a little less jaundiced. The spinner version as primitive as I have made it yields 530 TV lines on a test chart which is the resolution wall as far as a PD150 is claimed for. With a better relay path than my telescope eyepiece, the result should be better.

The apparent resolution of normally aquired imaging direct into and from MiniDV appears to be sharper than an AGUS35 image.

How much of this is related to straight edges produced by the pixel rows? Put a highly contrasted finely textured MiniDV image up on a high resolution monitor and it looks dreadful.

What I have learned about the AGUS35 version I have made is that I need to pay far more meticulous attention to focus and the aperture setting/ND filters of the objective lens and relay path if I want the results.

Juan, Les and Bob: the pro adapters I've seen do introduce either grain, flicker, or both, at least under some conditions.

Static adapters introduce grain, light diffusion, or both.

No go.

I have to make the admission that subjective opinions from viewers totally not into the making of images have been that something was "wrong" with my Agus35 imaging. That does raise a flag for me.

Certainly, it doesn't remain consistent enough with non Agus35 imaging to intercut unless a different image style is deliberately chosen to distinguish certain portions or moods within a presentation. That then makes it a useful complementing tool.

It is also useful for creation of an entire presentation if a particular look is sought.

Horses for courses. From VHS through to 70mm motion film imaging.

Hi Les,

I'd be interested to see the sample footage if that was an open offer.

I was following this thread for a while back, there was talk of a holographic material for the GG but I never heard how it turned out. I guess it didn't work?

Cheers
Dan

For 35mm SLR still camera lenses, investigate the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses for Canon T50 or similar. The Jena-Zoom seems less inclined toward hotspotting than others.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but do I need to grind with anything BEFORE I start with the WAO 5?

Also, what's the general consensus on how long it takes of grinding with WAO 5 to get a good result?

Thanks.