Im familar with the macro setting, but, it is at widest setting, and you will see the entire ground glass rather than the projected image full frame.

Perhaps with some sort of telephoto in front of the lens, with the macro setting on it would be possible. I wouldnt know where to start without simply expirementing with different lenses, which I dont exactly have the opportunity to do.

Stephen

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen Birdsong : I wouldnt know where to start without simply expirementing with different lenses, which I dont exactly have the opportunity to do.

Stephen -->>>

You can adapt a cMount adaptor in to the camera body cap and attach a small macro lens for 16mm.
or get an adaptor for a 35mm Nikon macro lens from:
http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/XL1.asp
or
http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/active/200471117190AB9E85256B81000CB326.
You will get a lot of distortion and unpleasant focusing problems with various diopters and third party attachments.
Even an enlarging lens with a M39 thread will give a better result than the myriad of attachments suggested. Also the size of a rig of your XL1 with standard lens and adaptors will put a Panavision camera to shame.

Ok, I've started on my first prototype, and wanted to post on it.

I found that Hollywood Frost works great as a substitute for ground glass. If your not familiar with it, hollywood frost, also known as opal, is a gel used in production.

What I did was take a somewhat sturdy box resembling a shoebox (it held a iron at one point).
I cut it in half, and rigged it so that one end went into the other so I essentally had a box that I could shorten or lengthen.

I then measured my flange distance (im using an olympus OMG 50mm lense) and placed a large cut-out of hollywood frost at the flange depth.

When I pointed the box at an object, I got a very crisp image projected onto the hollywood frost.

Now, I took my camera, and inserted the lens into the other end of my box, and drew focus. Obviously, Im not going to have a full frame at this point, because Im required to use the macro setting which is equivilant to a 35mm focal length (i think).

So, my problems are this: Im getting a serious hot spot, with major vignetting, and I need to be able to fill the frame with the image.

Im not sure if I understand the difference between a close up filter and a tele.

I do know that I need to be able to focus at less than 3 inches (which I can already do), and I need to be able to zoom to something like 600mm.

Any ideas?

Stephen
Ill try to post pictures of what Im talking about soon.

To: Valeriu Campan

I might have misunderstood your post but:

Are you suggesting that you could build a relay lens (like the one the mini35 uses) out of a lens-mount and a macro lens?

I'm danish and I'm having difficulties interpreting what exactly a camerabody cap is? Do you mean the plastic dustprotector you can put directly in front of the ccd chip - where you would normally mount the lens??

I think I'm getting more and more confused every day on how to get started on my adaptor!

Thanks

To Anders,
Yes, I meant to get a spare llens cap and adapt a cMount. Start with palstic, get the flange distant and upgrade to metal later

Ok - that sounds great! Do you know where or how I can get a hold of a c-mount adaptor for the XL-1?

About the macro - do you mean a complete 16mm macro lens or just a macro glass for 16 mm??

Thanks

Anders,
I don't know of any Cmount > xl1 adapters. My suggestion was to make one from a spare camera body cap and a metal adaptor you will incorporate in it. You can find some info about the flange distance of various mounts here:
http://www.gregssandbox.com/gtech/filmfacts/flange.htm.
Also I suggest to get a macro lens for, let's say Bolex, a Kilffit Macro lens. It is better to use a lens that is designed to work at close range in flat field environement. You can even consider an enlarging lens with M39 thread, but I will incline for lenses made to cover a small format closer to the 1/3 sensor of the XL1.

So here is an update on my progress.

I bought some pvc pipe, and found that 2" fits my 35mm lense like a glove. 58mm thread size will fit inside the pipe, and I used 2 uv filters to sandwich a piece of 216 (a different kind of diffusion, which seems to work a little better than hollywood frost)

So, I have a decent image in my ground glass, still a little vignetting happening, hopefully using real gg will solve that problem.

As far as the relay lens goes, this is what I've discovered:
even with +7 close up lens in any setup, whether wide, or tele, it is not enough to fill the frame. Having that much glass between the still lens, and my ccd is just stupid. So, I scratched the idea of trying to find something to put inbetween my lens and the gg.

And I tried something new. if you grab a still lense, and remove your lens from your camera, holding the still lens in front of the cdd, you can actually get a clear image. Problem is, its magnified so much, that its useless. I used a 50mm macro lens to no avail. I was able to get a full frame, but it was so telephoto it was worthless.

So, I grabbed a 16mm motion picture lens. This yeilded much better results. Still somewhat telephoto, but not nearly as much as 35mm.

So, my problem is, I need to figure out what 16mm lens I need. im not sure if I need a macro, because the lens I used seemed to already be functioning like a macro.

Any suggestions?
Anyone know where I can find any 16mm motion picture lenses?

Stephen

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen Birdsong : Anyone know where I can find any 16mm motion picture lenses?

Stephen -->>>

Have a look on eBay. There are plenty. Also, EdmundOptics have a selection of close range lenses for 2/3 cameras.

Would an 8mm Bolex macro lens do? Or is it too small??

I don't know the size of the 8mm frame. If it is larger than 1/3 XL1 canon sensor, should be fine.

Actually wouldn't these lenses be perfect:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=1546&search=1

or

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=1281&search=1

Which size would then work to our advantage?

Thanks

I have no idea. Only real way to find out would be to buy one.

My first incling is to say no. But on second thought, if it is that wide, then maybe you could stick it less than 1 inch from the GG.

That would rock, because the length of the total lense is something that we really need to keep down.

Working distance:
The distance between a subject and the lens surface.
Field of View
the size of the image that is visible. (not to be confused with the Angle of view, which is measured both in mm's and degrees. for example a 50mm focal length is an angle of view of 45 degrees)

Im definately in over my head, but Im trying to tread water.

Im guessing that we need a minimum working distance of under 1ft and i dont understand what field of view we need.

http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/

if someone else can figure it out, go for it.

anders, i just wouldnt know which lense to buy.

Stephen

I would think that we need the widest lens, (the one with Angular FOV >43°)

But I have no idea nor the money to test several lenses!

You are right - we need help from somebody who really know optics!

Could somebody please help!!?

Thanks

One type of lens I saw used in capturing the groundglass for the video taps on 35mm movie cameras is a Cosmicar brand. Don't know the model number yet.
Also, this site will give a crash course in optics and how to calculate FOV and whatever...
http://www.1394imaging.com/resources...4b2e8d354d986f

I see stuff for most of the other cameras going on here but nothing on the XL1's, I just don't have the brain or fabricating skillsets to come up with my own options, Is anyone working on an XL1 option??

anyone done anything new with their XL1 35mm adapters???

no, I've all but given up.

stephen

if you need help...
 

just ask. i've built 2, now finishing up my 3rd 35mm adapter... i had accidently broke it while shooting but it gave me a chance to take it apart and do improvements...

here is a schematic that might help you envision it...
http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/lens_xl1_v4.jpg

-dr

:) it makes my brain bleed when I try and understand it, Dino.


I understood the basics of the idea back when it all started but the complications involved in doing it for an XL1 are what threw me off.

Too bad I didn't have a cheap, simple, low end camera that would make it easier but I don't . :)

I think this thread is going to get more popular pretty soon here with the new XL-2 coming out. I wonder if Canon will offer the camera "body only". Most likely you will have to buy it used for that.

Ok, so this is where Im stumped.

I've been experiementing with 16m cine lenses, and have had little success...

It has a great minimum focal distance, less than 3 inches from the film plane. I've been using a 1 inch lens. But its way too small, Im only able to focus on a square about 1-2 mm's wide, no bigger... going from infinity to closest focus has nearly no impact (maybe the lens is bad).

I decided to try 35mm lenses, but I dont know what focal length I need.
Obviously I need as wide and fast as possible, but I dont know how wide I need. Im afraid it will be so wide that barrel distortion will become a deterrant. Dino, have you had problems with that?

What speed/focal length have you had success with?

I dont want to spend hundreds of $$ experimenting with this only to find that it is less than desirable (plus I just bought the manual 16x lense)

Stephen Birdsong

Let's start with the basics:

Adapter and Acromatic Diopter options.

That's the basic starting point for the majority of Aldu / Aldus option. Get that so you can view the image on the ground glass (spinning or otherwise).

what works, what doesn't work?

I'd be happily resolved to a spinning GG if I had to be and figure out a nice looking little box line the P&S unit... if there were a simple, basic option.

I'm taking this resurection of the XL1 topic into the other topic that exsists already 'XL1 Progress' since this one is about the "relaylens"

I know someone who successfully solved this problem

here's the theory...

a super8 film projector can focus on a screen very close to the lens and produce an image roughly the size of a 35mm transparency,

therefore the reverse is true, ie; a 35mm sized image can be projected to the size of a super8 frame

bear in mind a super8 frame is bigger than a 1/3" chip

from what I could see she had the projector lens (I think it was an F1.2 zoom from and old Canon projector) mounted into Canon 2x extender (which had the elements removed) - there was some extra tubing made to beef it all up but that is essentially it.

I'm indeed still working on my adaptor. I just recieved the following lens for use as relay lens:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=1281&search=1

I have yet to test it. It seems like it has to be mounted about 10 cm from the ccd chip - but then you can put the GG less than 1 cm from the lens!

So perhaps it could work - it doesn't seem to create much distortion.

I will make some tests and keep you updated! If it works it would be a way cheaper solution.

Steven.

The 16mm motion picture camera lenses will not give you a significant advantage.

My main objective was to be able to use my specialty 35mm still-camera lenses in my case a set of old Tamrons. I had made up a c-mount adaptor for some to use on a 2/3" JVC KY-F50 camera ported into the PD150 via S/video. This was good but the Agus/Aldu option gives the advantage of the larger image size and the creative effects available as well as being able to use the long telephoto lenses and the MTO 1100mm into the PD150.

It would seem you've done most of the hard yards so the jump to 35mm still-camera lenses may not be as difficult as you may think. The 35mm frame resolution off the GG must improve over that of a 16mm image frame as it needs to be magnified less.

I was referring to the relay lens. I've attempted using 16mm cine lenses as the relay lens. Im not sure if I understood your post completely...

I'm simply stuck at being able to fill the frame with the gg image.

Dino, what is your suggestion to my previous post?

My apologies Steven. I misunderstood your post.

depth of field
 

hi,
i just found this forum,,,

i was working on the homebuilt mini35 when i discovered
that just a simple physical adapter worked pretty nice with
standard arriflex lenses....

i was actually in the process of making them to sell but am
waiting for the first production run to return (ten adapters)

check out www.xl1adapters.com

the sample video was shot with a schneider lens that i bought for about 50 bucks on ebay....


the problem is that you are not getting the whole frame on the ccd so a 25mm acts more like a 45mm lens...

but for a quick fix it gives nice depth of field control....



---------------

ive spent the last month and 500 dollars (a lot to me) trying to get one condenser lense that would fit inside the adapter and reduce the image to fit full screen on the ccd....

gotta check my physics, but dont think it is an easy task and i dont think i can do it with just one lens...

but i will review the forum here and see if i missed anything, then i will settle for a multi lens system...

----------


if any one sees the web page above and want the plans email me... as long as you agree not to produce it other than for yourself i will send the plans.... (that is pretty much everyone here)....

thanks,
sarena

Look to Ziess for help making that adapter. A few years ago they came out with one but theirs work with 2/3 inch video cameras. Never the less the concept is exactly the same.

Im pretty sure you already know this but just like with the Ziess, simply reducing the size of the image so you maintain the FOV WILL NOT maintain the same DOF. Damn I wish it did. But not all is loss. In fact when your done you'll realise it has a different, yet very useful feature, the ability to make your camera work much better in low light conditions. Yep. Just like a kid with a magnifying lens this adapter will refocus the light to a even tighter spot thus making the lens basically "faster". Hope you make it. Your probably looking for achromat lens btw. Good luck.

I had a bit of a play once trying to make a video tap for a CP16RA using a Kampro security camera. It did work but I did not complete the hardware in its final form.

My guess is what you need is :-

A C-mount to Canon XL1 mount adaptor. I think an adaptor is made for C-Mount to B4 mount for the broadcast cameras so there may be something around already to adapt C-Mount to Canon. Fujinon might be worth an enquiry. They have a large selection of C-Mount lenses for 1/3"; 2/3"; 1" for security, machine vision and some more specialised for 3xCCD cameras.

If such an adaptor is available, then much like a 16mm motion picture camera video tap arrangement, you might be able to use a "C" mount lens with a spacer against the face where it would normally mount up to on the adaptor, to bring it forward for closer focus on the GG.

To view the 16mm film frame in a CP16RA viewfinder, a 25mm Cosmicar C-Mount lens has to be brought forward from a 1/3" CCD security camera about 1/4" to focus closer and frame the 16mm viewfinder screen. For the Aldu and a 4:3 movie frame, you might get away with a CS to C mount adaptor which is about 1/8". These are a common piece of hardware in the security industry and are just a piece of threaded nylon which is adequate in a permanent installation. You would have to sit your GG furthur away than for a 16mm viewfinder screen or use a wider C-mount lens with maybe a thicker spacer to go in closer.

To experiment without breaking banks, maybe try to find an old Sony B&W portapack video camera lens (by Tamron) This was commonly a 12x75mm zoom and is believed to have imaged onto a 2/3" tube target. This has a C-mount and in combination with spacers at the C-Mount end, and moving the zoom, you might be able to figure out the correct fixed C-Mount lens needed. There was a Canon 17x85mm zoom for early Panasonic colour tube portapack cameras which was also C-Mount but it may not go wide enough. I have seen both on ebay but they might well be found buried deep in junk in high-school basements or attics.

If you are in no hurry for a result soon, I could try this with the 1/3" Kampro and an old lens I have and report but there is no guarantee this will work for your application.

DOF / achromat
 

check out the clips on the website i posted.... how much dof control do you want????

achromat ?? yep.... been using them.... but experimenting with different degrees of magnification... etc...

basically ive been using the ocncept of a focal reducer....(check out the telescope web sites)
the problem faced is that the focal length on the xl1 is largely
taken up inside the prism in the camera...


thus---- dont waste your money on c-mount lenses....

(as if canon didnt know this)


.....

ive seen a few of the relay lenses (rather pricey) but i was trying to keep the image going thru as few pieces of glass as possible....

i mean, why by a really expensive prime lens, the film the image thru a scratched up cd if there is another way.....

okay...
 

Stephen, let me see if i understand what your saying, i'll refer to my chart as a basic reference... just so we can talk the same language (http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/lens_xl1_v4.jpg) and excuse me if i'm being duplicitus, as you may already know what i talk about...

you'll need 2 lenses. the first the primary, mounted on the camera, closest to the ccd chips. the second lens will be your master or prime lens - both are greyed out in the schematic.

so you have mounted a 16mm lens as your primary, and your having trouble grabbing more the image area from your gg. so my first question would be are you sandwiching either a acromat or condesor lens between the gg and the primary lens? the condesor lens is cheaper the acromat is better but slightly expensive. the acromat will cost around $80 i found mine on ebay for $50. the great properties is it focuses the lens and keeps the focus tight.

the second thing, keep i mind that ccds shoot in a straight line, they don't widen out to let more light, image in. so it's important you "put" the image infront of the ccd path hence:

master lens+gg+acromat(or)condonsor lens+relaylens

is that your configurartion?

also, as for my relay, i use a 24mm f2.8, that works well. as the primary lens - i try and go a bit wider and fast if possible. you could also consider, using your 16mm as your master lens, this way you can get even more image striking the gg...

does that make any sense? hope a bit...

-dino

Dino,

Definately makes sense.

My question is, with the 24mm lens, are you able to capture the 36x24mm portion of the image on the gg? Or are you going in farther? What I want is to be able to know that when Im using a 35mm or 50mm prime lens, Im actually getting that focal length. If your primary (or relay) lens isnt capturing the correct size off the gg, not only do you lose DOF but you increase your focal length (basically the same thing happening). which for me is a significant drawback.

So, can you figure out what size (in mm) your 24mm lense is capturing off the gg?

Im thinking Im going to scrap the 16mm cine lens and go with a wide 35mm still lens as the primary (relay) lens. I just dont know how wide I need to go.

Barrel distortion? Wide angle lenses less than 20mm or so start to have significant barrel distortion, is it noticable in this application?

Do you have any actuall pictures of your adapter? If not, could you try to get some... Mounted to camera, and then in pieces.

Do you have any frame grabs or clips to show?

Stephen Birdsong

adapter photo...
 

its not anodized yet to i dont want to post it on the web page...

but for this board check out:

http://www.xl1adapters.com/prototype/prototype.html


that is a photo of the straight adapter w/o any lenses inbetween
the standard arriflex lens...

check out the samples.... if you can get this good of results with
just a small chunk of aluminum and NO EXTRA lenses, then why complicate life....


there is nothing here that you cant do yourself.... if you have to take the photos to a local machinist and for 100 - 200 dollars worth of his time you can have the same results....

like i said this is the setup that shot the demos.... the aluminum cost around 20 bucks, the lens around 50, and the results are comparable to any other prime lens method....


KISS principle should apply here...

there is still significant control of the depth of field, and the low light capabilities exceed the stock canon lens... and YOU can make it yourself for less than the 800 dollars that most places are asking.....

Sarena-
I hear ya. That Ziess reducer is expensive and has 12 elements in it. WAY too complex. A focus reducer is one way to go and I agree its pretty tight in there on the XL1. You really seem like know what your doing never the less I feel I should caution you that heading in this direction will not change the DOF and it sounds like thats what you want to do. By having one of these adapters you open yourself up to using longer lenses which will give you shallower DOF but thats true if you simply screwed on a teleconverter to the front of the video cameras lens. Basically without the use of some form of intermediate image plane (ie. GG) your DOF will aways remain the same for any given FOV no matter what kind of lens you put on the camera (35mm, 16mm, whatever). Either way a "image plane reducer" would be very useful for other reasons. Let us know how it comes together.

xl1s pics...
 

stephen, so you've seen the schematics, here is

the camera with it mounted sans rail system or support - using metal threads keeps it strong
http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/cam1.jpg

broken down - the top row is basically connected together the botton is it broken down into elements... check out the pvc connectors i'm using, they are cheap and help with adjustments
http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/cam2.jpg

movie sample (8mbs and compressed through cleaner, i keep forgetting to rightside in post sorry... but the idea was to show a raw file)
http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/test11B.html

notice the amber coloration is because my test uv lens which i made into a gg had a slight tint on it so it looks ultra warm, my next gg has no tint but still seems to have amazing dof

i was using a superfast 55mm f1.4, but i was shooting in brookly the other week and broke it by accident so it gave me an excuse to take it apart and refine it again... this will be my 3rd model.

frame comparison test - just fyi
http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/frame-comparison.jpg

you know i know what you mean when your asking about coverage of the ccd's but since i've been continually improving my model i haven't had time to do a "proper" measurement. because i built my model with connecting pvc pipes it gives me the advantage to adjust distance between the acromat and the relay and again from the master to the gg, thus whatever master i put on, i can adjust on the fly and the adjustments stay amazingly, at least to my eye the lens stays tight/accurate - i'm still really just amazed it all works... once i get this version going, i probably should do some more tests to get better measurements...

-dr

dof
 

Brett-

you realllly sound like you know what you are talking about...

if you would do me a favor and check out the clips on the site in my first post i would appreciate it.... i thought that i was getting a much SHALLOWER DOF with the adapter and the arri lens than i was able to attain with the stock canon lens...

if nothing else, it is just nice to be able to get and use lenses on the xl1s that are not as expensive as the canon manual lens...

but, unless im wrong, the results seem to me like what everyone here is after. by using the focus you get a highly selective DOF and get that "cinema look" ... due to a shortage of time and resources i just focused on a picket fence and adjusted the focus so that it would be clear how the DOF was behaving... i also focused on the fence, then a flower a few feet beyond, then another flower a few more feet beyond, and then a rose about 12 feet away, and each came into focus seperately....

am i wrong or is that the desired effect here??? the drawback is that you would have to manually prepare your own DOF charts for each lens, (but at least we would be doing it on video and not film)

thanks,
sarena