Awesome achievment, Dan!
I am ready for it!
Do you have a time frame?
Would it be available in other mounts (Canon, Nikon, PL)?

Thank you Val,
I am considering a few alternatives about production.
I'll post the news in some magazines and here when the time comes.
About mounts; I will most likely start with Nikon (fixed) and maybe go for other mounts later. So far, the fact that one is not limited to a wide aperture to work with is a BIG bonus:
see some of the pics on the site; were taken @5.6 on a 200mm at night. I think that is good enough (and limited only to the camcorder's sensitivity)

Though I have a full kit of top Nikon glass for stills work, I think that a PL mount would be a great option. Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environement, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day. The addition of various readily available accessories (matte boxes, follow focus...) and not mentioning the speed and the consistency of certain sets of lenses (contrast, accutance, color rendition) makes the PL a very important option.
IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not neceserally for a full length narative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.
Having the PL mount will open and create interest about your adaptor to a wider variety of potential users as well.
I should probably stop here in advocating this, because I might be flamed badly, we are discussing alternative imaging methods...
Congrats again
PS What is the noise level of the adaptor?

I'm not sure shooting full frame 35mm vs cinema 35mm sized frame has anything to do with the DOF. If anything shooting cinema would give the appearance of a shallower DOF.

Dan, looks great.

The night stuff at the gas station how'd you shoot that? I mean lighting wise.

Also do you lose any stops like the other adapters?

Congratulations Dan,

i dont know if this has been brought up before but...

what is the system of the groundglass? does it spin oscilate?
what kind of ground glass did u use?

keep up the good work!

Not Dan but I think I can answer some of those questions. Dan can correct me if I am wrong:

1) oscillating ground glass
2) beattie screen

Thank you Gents for your sustained interest. It will pay off.
Val said: (Simon says....:-)
>>>Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environment, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day<<<<
and also:
>>>>IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not necessarily for a full length narrative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.<<<<<<

For those that fully know the following, excuse me reiterating basics here. Is just expressing personal understandings of the field (video, still and MP) BTW, Val, relax, please, you said nothing wrong, is just a different perspective as follows.

Now:

For ANY given format (16mm, 35mm, 60mm and larger as in still photography and smaller such as 2/3", 1/3" down to 1/6"!!!!!
as in the Panasonic GS200 I am using for my tests:-)<
the "NORMAL" lens (as focal length) is the one that will produce an image as seen by the naked eye and is, FOR ANAY GIVEN FORMAT equal to the diagonal of the format.
In MP, for an 18/24mm frame, the diagonal of that frame is 30mm. That is why, the "normal" is 32mm. For the same reason in still photography (24/36) the "normal" is 50mm (although it should be 43.26mm)
Now, that we've got that out of the way:

Imagine a "perfect" lens (call it relay lens if you want) that picks up an image from a GG and projects it on a CCD or CMOS.

First we first use a Zeiss 32mm to get an image on an 18/24 GG. Say that Zeiss lens resolves 100 lines/cm
(these figures are "made up" to ease the understanding of the point, OK?????)
How many vertical lines can we see form the GG using Zeiss? 240 lines.
Now we switch the Zeiss with a Nikon 50mm projecting the same image as seen before (same perspective, same etc)
on a 24/36mm GG . (the same "perfect" relay lens will be used) BUT!!!!
Lets say Nikon can only resolve 65 lines/cm (in real life is better than this, but let's just pretend)
How many sharp lines will Nikon project on the 36mm available? 65X3.6=234 lines.
That is not all.
Even if the difference is greater than depicted in the previous example (favoring Zeiss), the following factors should also be considered:
The "final" "movie" will end up (best case scenario) on a digital display (50" plasma) and not on a xx feet/xx feet theatre. Right?
Why? Because even if one will attempt to transfer material from the CCD (recorded by the natural lens of the camcorder) onto film for theatre, the magnification ratio does not help him much. Now, if one spends all that money on sets, props, talent, etc (thinking theatre) might as well use film (or HD). Otherwise, release it on DVD and call it a day.
The whole idea (with this adapters) is to maintain the "scent" of "film" (whatever is left of it) without the cost. Right?
Than, (and that's a wrap on this subject) if $$$$$$$$$$ is the "name of the game" why get Zeiss involved here?
They are too good (and too expensive) for this game.
If used on a Hi Def camera, YES, by all means (but if the producers find out they have a "choice", watch out!!)
They are indeed color corrected, they do not breath (while focusing) they come with the gear mounted and many other goodies......but:
will a tiny breath of focus from a Nikon be as annoying on a regular TV set as it would be in the theatre. No. Why? Size. Will MOST notice? ...... Who knows?.........
Anyway, this is my understanding on the subject and feel free to express your POV. Back.
Val, for noise level I have a short clip on my site. I would call it acceptable. I have heard many MP cameras WAY worse (but most readers on this forum are used with camcorder comfort and mic on it! (close to the lens that is)
If it would be a dead quiet recoding studio, a blimp might be needed or...... boom the mic.
Right now, if I hold it in front of my at 30cm I can not hear it (unless I follow in Beethoven's footsteps) I can hear it if I hold it next to my (right) ear (never tried the left one)
Garry, thanks for reminding me one of the tests I skipped till now. Light loss. Check out my site by tomorrow and you will see. (I have noticed an increase!!!! instead of loss of light! due to the focusing screen) Here is a test you can do now: take a magnifying sheet from a $ store, aim a camcorder towards a well lit wall and take a light reading. Then, keep the focusing screen at its focal length in front of the camcorder and take another reading. That is how much light I loose. Let me put it this way. The sun does not burn your skin, but if you use a lens, you might smell the brightness dif (lol)
As for those shots, I used the avail light. Frame, focus, shoot. Glad you like it. I'll be banned soon for the long posts here, so enjoy them while I am still with you.

Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned.

Dan,
So the stuff on your website was shot with a Beattie screen?

yes

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums...underwater.wmv

Just making it right click save as.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned. -->>>

let me guess bettie screen + circular vibrator from cell phone

of course.... try it!

Some updates:
ALL new footage is relevant. (most clips are 1M only)
(Premiere has artifacts @flip so I did not invert the image).
Some clips are 5sec. short HiRez and RELEVANT on many issues.
Relevant tests about GG brightness and vigneting (hence size left avail for a pic/video)
Same site:
www.dandiaconu.com
Thanks for stopping by.

PS. Leave a comment if you like what you see or if it helps you in any way....

dan, are you going to be selling these adapters? Do they fit most cameras? I have a dvx-100; will it fit mine?

Yes.
I finished all I had to test abut it. Next week I will try it out on real cameras DVX, PD, FX1 and post pics/clips on my site.
(XL as soon as I will get the mount; ultra compact ;-)<

awesome, i have 2 55m 10+ macros and 1 55mm 4+ condenser thats doing nothing but collecting dust. Will they fit on yur adapter?

With a 55 down to 49 yes.

Dan,
When do you think you'll be ready to sell these adaptors?

How much will you be selling the units for?

Will you offer a choice of 35mm lens mounts?

What else apart from the 35mm lens do you need to make your adaptor usable? are the required macro/diopters built in or are the externally mounted to the camera?

Thanks.

In two weeks time I might have the first 6 ready.(some parts just got shipped to me Friday)
Price.... I will have to see how well it performs with a "popular" camera: Pd, DVX, etc and also how much "pain" one must take to see "the light"
I am talking CU and macro and/or rings....
When I'll know, you will know.

However, if one buys something like this, best choice in lens might be best option. Nikon (for now). I know there are other great lenses out there, but.. just for now.
There is nothing built in. Each camera has its own lens and might need a dif. set of macro/spacers/rings and such.
I will post pics/clips as I take them.

Thank you.

yeah it might be interesting to see if there is any vignetting with your adapter because of the step down

I am going to do a film transfer from FX1 footage and would like to know your comments, regarding using your adaptor with 35mm lenses.
When will you be able to test your converter with the FX1?.

dan,

1 question: since now i have had 5 differnet mobile phones, and everyone of them after 6-7 months have started to vibrate weaker, have you tried out the performance of the vibrating motors?

All batteries lose power with time (car, cell, camcorder, etc). Try the 7 months "old" phone with a brand new fully charged battery and see if it makes a dif;-)<
As for this device, it will happen too. It will not "lose power" it will only last less on each charge (? one day instead of 4-5 days??? in three- five years time?????)
I have no idea. Then the batteries will have to be replaced. It depends how many times you will charge/discharge them and how often. What I can tell is that a few days ago (after shooting in the canyon) I found it working when I opened the case that night (some ?4?5? hours later...?)
I must have turned it ON when I closed the case (the lead)
I did not build the charger and charge them yet. But it keeps going (and no, it is not energizer)

Dan, any chance you could shoot a res chart with and without the adapter on?

I will have to do it at one point in time or another, although is not a concern to me. But I'll do it.

I've got a short clip to share and get FB/comments;
13 takes, all using the adapter, 50 and 135mm (@1.4 and 2.8) one take (about two seconds in the clip) static GG and photographed upside down (so I can see the dif and if Premiere introduces artifacts) and obviously 13 sound track to sink %$#@&^>>............ and none played at the same speed (well... almost... but enough to keep me busy 4 a while)

http://rapidshare.de/files-en/547152/michael_two.wmv.html

The link worked 4 me once. I would appreciate constructive criticism (I know I should fix the tripod......)

Just watched the clip Dan. Everything looked clean and no hotspot to speak of. How did you end up solving the hotspot problem?

I use a Fresnell focusing screen. See the dif that it makes here:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/Brightnes-tests

I was under the impression that the action of oscilation would somehow negate the fresnel's light gathering properties.

I guess this test proves that theory wrong? So you have no condenser lens in your current set up? Just a moving fresnel screen? I am very excited about the possibility of not needing a condenser lens. I've had nothing but bad luck with those things.

Another question: at what shutter speed does the grain become visible? In other words can you shoot at higher shutter speeds without seeing grain?

thanks
jesse

Yes,... just a moving Fresnel.....
I did not try higher shutter speeds since 1/60 is the nearest (I have available ) to the soooo worshiped 24 pee.
I will try it and post the results on my site.
I can foresee each individual "sample screen" showing grain but in the end, looking like a "motion blend" as real film does.(IF you can see the grain which is subject to camcorder setting and available light)
In other words, a "grainy film look" . If the movement speed is NOT in sink with the 30fps (as recorded by the camcorder), each frame will "sample" the GG in a DIFFERENT position and, (depending on the shutter speed) the sampling will look more grainy at 1/500 than it would at 1/100 or 1/60. Grain movement amount/time sampled (basic freeze motion photography)
One more word about 24 P. (a full can of.....)
In theatre, the brightness dif between TOTAL DARKNESS and FRAME is HUGE. The persistence of vision "fills" the gap.
Not the same when watching TV. Not to mention that you are watching 30fps interaced. The 24P I saw on all camcorders does not resemble at all the way I see the same thing in theatre.
Maybe is just me......
BTW:
What good does it do to you 24P when you have "talking heads" in sharp focus and a "strobing soft BG" in the picture?????? Will that ADD value or "sell" the film look better? Or is just one more thing to avoid; panning too fast or you get strobing? There is soo much more and different that can help "sell" the film look. (IMHO) Actually , that was not at all on the topic. Just curious....

Yeah the 24p thing has been discussed to death on the board so best not to get it started here.

Good job on eliminating the condenser lens. This seems like the best way to prevent image distortion and abberation. I'm guessing that a macro will be needed as well to get the adapter to work on the DVX.

Keep us posted on you progress. Great work Dan.

-jes

Let me clarify the situation with using only a fresnel lens/focusing screen in a oscillation or rotating adapter. You will get the best results if you are osillating it NOT rotating it. If you rotate it like a CD your likely to see the effects of the ribbed fresnel lens in the picture. Oscillating it wont have this problem BUT you have to be careful how wide your oscillation is. If your oscillation it in a circle wider than a couple of mm your likely to see a issue of light fall off showing up again (ie hot spot). This isnt because the fresnel lens isnt strong enough but its because a fresnel lens (which serves the same purpose of a condensor lens) is trying to focus its image to one central point (the CCD). When you oscillate the fresnel you are also oscillating that central point to and from its target (the CCD). When the motor comes to speed the effect will be a darkening of the edges. This effect can be reduced to a point that its not noticeable by using a oscillating movement thats tighter than a couple of mm's. Dans and my design do this so thats why the image is clear and bright from corner to corner. I hope that made sense.

Yes Brett that does make sense.

How's your design coming along by the way?

I'm getting some parts computer machined that would be impossible to make by traditional means. I would say I'm 60% done with my final design. I have the design finished and bought the focusing screen, bearings, lens and mounts I plan on using. The rest is going to be machined.

Sounds good Brett,
post some pics/clips when ready.

Looks awesome. I'm looking forward to it's release. :)

i am wondering if it's possible to compare somehow TWO adapters - Brett's and Dan's?

like - both of you can shoot the same picture - i do not know what, but i.e. same newspaper - to see resolution in different light conditions... or something similar wchich can be done by both of you. maybe you can prepare same table setup with same same articles which everyone can buy (soda can, chocolate, box of sweets, bottle of mineral water etc). and use same amount of light and shoot...

just a thought...


filip

I might do a rez and color chart. Stills of the GG with a Nikon Coolpix 8.0-MEGAPIXEL Digital. Just for the rez. Color is subject to WB and camcorder sensitivity. I'll take notes of the exposure time and aperture, but that is dif from CCD to CCD as well (and no 3 CCD on Nikon either) as well as light used and... oh well , distance and so on....
Had some fun today with the P+S Mini35 (latest) helping a local rental house to set it up and get it going. It was fun.
Please, do not ask me for an opinion. I am biased. But some local DP's will look at them side by side and post their reviews independently of what I think or like to hear.
Did some tests on mine while there. Works with all PD170 DVX100 and Z1.
A "relay lens" of +4 is needed on all except PD170 . That's all.
XL1 will have to wait... (chinese new year)