XL2 Mini35

Aaron Shaw · January 12th, 2005, 06:20 PM

very interesting observation Steev. Assuming the macro used was a achromat then it should provide very similar results. Interesting to note that you did not see any real improvement. How close was the lens to the actual focusing screen?

My plan was to, as you mention, sandwich the focusing screen between the two plano convex aspheric elements with the curved surface pointing away from the screen.

You can see such an element here:

http://www.optosigma.com/miva/mercha...duct_Code=pg85

Interesting information about the 16x manual!

David Parker · January 16th, 2005, 06:40 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steev Dinkins : James, I tried a glass-inside-55mm-ring direct from SatinSnow. They were very responsive and sent the item right away. I regret to say that the Thorlabs 1500 is far finer, and further, was very inferior to a focus screen. I'm sure it would be great as a viewfinder piece, but what I received, no way it would work for what we're doing.

James, can you post more on how you constructed your spinning adapter? -->>>

Hi Steev,

could you let me know where our product fell down, as a small independant, I have the ability to fine tune the process to produce even finer grain screens, I had been told by many who have purchased our glass for this application that it was good, but am more interested in hearing the bad.

So any feedback you can provide directly to me I would be thankful for.

Dave Parker
Ground Glass Specialties
Satin Snow Ground Glass
www.satinsnowglass.com

Jim Lafferty · January 17th, 2005, 01:02 AM

Steev,

Do you have before and after footage using Chris Rubin's AE technique? My results weren't convincing...and I'm hoping to be proven wrong.

- jim

Steev Dinkins · January 17th, 2005, 03:28 AM

Jim, I tried the technique again tonight and it didn't work very well. I'm now convinced that the grain is subject to much change (dust shift, filter ring shift, etc) which would be hit and miss in post.

Much like a lot of things, I have lost some faith. So I've ditched the grain reduction technique as something to rely on. If I was playing it safe, I'd avoid moving shots with this adapter. If I was living dangerously, I'd do all the camera movement I wanted, and fix the grain issues in post, frame by frame if need be. Maybe the grain reduction technique could "help" in that case.

I'm still waiting on Dan's moving design. But till then, there's much to play around with with impressive results (I've found that a lot of grain stuff doesn't even show up on a TV):

http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm/...door_Test2.mov

Jim Lafferty · January 17th, 2005, 09:43 AM

Your work looks good enough -- I wouldn't pay the grain too much worry. Shown any of this footage to "normal" people yet? Try it and ask them to spot a "problem" with it and see what they say.

- jim

Steev Dinkins · January 17th, 2005, 01:37 PM

Jim, thanks for the positive words. The people I've shown the last few clips to say it looks "nice" "incredible" and/or "beautiful". People are also starting to think I'm going mad, or being way too picky, and to just go with it for now.

I'm thinking more and more that the next real step (enabling medium/big budget project work) is Dan Diaconu's moving adapter (not for sale yet) or making/financing enough $$ for rental or purchase of the P+S. I'm very surprised I've gotten this far, and I've exceeded my original expectations. Expectations usually grow however.

It's time that I remember what my original intentions were - low budget, experimental projects, high impact, mindful and intensely creative music videos, short films, advertising proof of concepts/ability, and documentaries. I now believe the adapter, currently, is suitable for all of that.

Rabi Syid · January 17th, 2005, 03:38 PM

very good!

Joshua Provost · January 19th, 2005, 02:15 PM

Steve,

Thanks for updating your page. It is invaluable information. Here is some information that might help you streamline even further.

You could replace your multiple spacer rings with a spacer tube from camerafilters.com. They come in 1 and 1.5 inch lengths. Cut the cost of that segment by a factor of 10.

http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/spacerrings.aspx

I also have a parts list at home with three parts for $35 to go from M42 to 55mm. I'll dig that up and post it. Cut that in half.

Also, do you really need a retaining ring to hold the GG? Couldn't you grind it to a diamter that two empty 55mm filter rings together would hold in place?

Josh

Joshua Provost · January 19th, 2005, 02:23 PM

What about this focus screen?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=37515&is=REG

Steev Dinkins · January 19th, 2005, 02:25 PM

Spacers Rings!! Nice!!

Regarding the 3 parts. The elusive part in my setup is the Retrostep adapter from M42 female to 49mm female. I haven't been able to find that anywhere but through SRB who gave me the 3 parts together that formed the M42 to 55mm adapter. Finding an easier cheaper source with internet ordering would be awesome.

I'd have to check whether you could just hold the Beattie in place by sandwiching between two 55mm filter rings, but my guess is that it wouldn't hold tight - the threads are meant to run short of going that deep into the filter ring. Otherwise it would hit the glass that are normally in them. No? The retainer ring (the one that comes with the 55m UV filter) is not much hassle especially since it's meant to be a semi-permanent element.

steev
www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

Steev Dinkins · January 19th, 2005, 02:32 PM

Regarding the "Nikon D Focusing Screen for F3 Series Cameras - Plain Matte", the question is, what are the dimensions of that screen? At $30, just buy and see?

The Beattie I'm using is the full width of the 55mm ring (ground to fit), and 40mm in height. Consequentially, It's necessary to align the screen horizontally (once all elements are screwed tight) when doing 16:9 on the Xl2.

I wouldn't want to go smaller than the focus screen I bought, unless.... someone figured out the almighty, mysterious, and undiscovered (except for the P+S geniuses) .... "Relay Lens" and do away with an XL lens.

steev
www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

Bob Hart · January 20th, 2005, 10:28 AM

I think I might have suggested this before so please ignore if it is a dead-end already proven. For a finer screen which might not be dense enough, maybe try two together face to face so that the gg finish is on a common focal plane but the density is greater.

January 16th, 2005, 06:40 PM	#47
David Parker Tourist Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Montana Posts: 4	Ground Glass <<<-- Originally posted by Steev Dinkins : James, I tried a glass-inside-55mm-ring direct from SatinSnow. They were very responsive and sent the item right away. I regret to say that the Thorlabs 1500 is far finer, and further, was very inferior to a focus screen. I'm sure it would be great as a viewfinder piece, but what I received, no way it would work for what we're doing. James, can you post more on how you constructed your spinning adapter? -->>> Hi Steev, could you let me know where our product fell down, as a small independant, I have the ability to fine tune the process to produce even finer grain screens, I had been told by many who have purchased our glass for this application that it was good, but am more interested in hearing the bad. So any feedback you can provide directly to me I would be thankful for. Dave Parker Ground Glass Specialties Satin Snow Ground Glass www.satinsnowglass.com

January 12th, 2005, 06:20 PM	#46
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	very interesting observation Steev. Assuming the macro used was a achromat then it should provide very similar results. Interesting to note that you did not see any real improvement. How close was the lens to the actual focusing screen? My plan was to, as you mention, sandwich the focusing screen between the two plano convex aspheric elements with the curved surface pointing away from the screen. You can see such an element here: http://www.optosigma.com/miva/mercha...duct_Code=pg85 Interesting information about the 16x manual!

January 17th, 2005, 01:02 AM	#48
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Steev, Do you have before and after footage using Chris Rubin's AE technique? My results weren't convincing...and I'm hoping to be proven wrong. - jim

January 17th, 2005, 03:28 AM	#49
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Jim, I tried the technique again tonight and it didn't work very well. I'm now convinced that the grain is subject to much change (dust shift, filter ring shift, etc) which would be hit and miss in post. Much like a lot of things, I have lost some faith. So I've ditched the grain reduction technique as something to rely on. If I was playing it safe, I'd avoid moving shots with this adapter. If I was living dangerously, I'd do all the camera movement I wanted, and fix the grain issues in post, frame by frame if need be. Maybe the grain reduction technique could "help" in that case. I'm still waiting on Dan's moving design. But till then, there's much to play around with with impressive results (I've found that a lot of grain stuff doesn't even show up on a TV): http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm/...door_Test2.mov

January 17th, 2005, 09:43 AM	#50
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Your work looks good enough -- I wouldn't pay the grain too much worry. Shown any of this footage to "normal" people yet? Try it and ask them to spot a "problem" with it and see what they say. - jim

January 17th, 2005, 01:37 PM	#51
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Jim, thanks for the positive words. The people I've shown the last few clips to say it looks "nice" "incredible" and/or "beautiful". People are also starting to think I'm going mad, or being way too picky, and to just go with it for now. I'm thinking more and more that the next real step (enabling medium/big budget project work) is Dan Diaconu's moving adapter (not for sale yet) or making/financing enough $$ for rental or purchase of the P+S. I'm very surprised I've gotten this far, and I've exceeded my original expectations. Expectations usually grow however. It's time that I remember what my original intentions were - low budget, experimental projects, high impact, mindful and intensely creative music videos, short films, advertising proof of concepts/ability, and documentaries. I now believe the adapter, currently, is suitable for all of that.

January 17th, 2005, 03:38 PM	#52
Rabi Syid Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: location Posts: 68	very good!

January 19th, 2005, 02:15 PM	#53
Joshua Provost Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 493	Steve, Thanks for updating your page. It is invaluable information. Here is some information that might help you streamline even further. You could replace your multiple spacer rings with a spacer tube from camerafilters.com. They come in 1 and 1.5 inch lengths. Cut the cost of that segment by a factor of 10. http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/spacerrings.aspx I also have a parts list at home with three parts for $35 to go from M42 to 55mm. I'll dig that up and post it. Cut that in half. Also, do you really need a retaining ring to hold the GG? Couldn't you grind it to a diamter that two empty 55mm filter rings together would hold in place? Josh

January 19th, 2005, 02:23 PM	#54
Joshua Provost Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 493	What about this focus screen? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=37515&is=REG

January 19th, 2005, 02:25 PM	#55
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Spacers Rings!! Nice!! Regarding the 3 parts. The elusive part in my setup is the Retrostep adapter from M42 female to 49mm female. I haven't been able to find that anywhere but through SRB who gave me the 3 parts together that formed the M42 to 55mm adapter. Finding an easier cheaper source with internet ordering would be awesome. I'd have to check whether you could just hold the Beattie in place by sandwiching between two 55mm filter rings, but my guess is that it wouldn't hold tight - the threads are meant to run short of going that deep into the filter ring. Otherwise it would hit the glass that are normally in them. No? The retainer ring (the one that comes with the 55m UV filter) is not much hassle especially since it's meant to be a semi-permanent element. steev www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

January 19th, 2005, 02:32 PM	#56
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Regarding the "Nikon D Focusing Screen for F3 Series Cameras - Plain Matte", the question is, what are the dimensions of that screen? At $30, just buy and see? The Beattie I'm using is the full width of the 55mm ring (ground to fit), and 40mm in height. Consequentially, It's necessary to align the screen horizontally (once all elements are screwed tight) when doing 16:9 on the Xl2. I wouldn't want to go smaller than the focus screen I bought, unless.... someone figured out the almighty, mysterious, and undiscovered (except for the P+S geniuses) .... "Relay Lens" and do away with an XL lens. steev www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

January 20th, 2005, 10:28 AM	#57
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	I think I might have suggested this before so please ignore if it is a dead-end already proven. For a finer screen which might not be dense enough, maybe try two together face to face so that the gg finish is on a common focal plane but the density is greater.