Fillip-
I don’t want to make this a competition between designs because Dan is selling his and I'm not going down that road. I'm just trying to make the best one I can for myself and share what I find with others. I would glad to post pictures of the res chart when mine is done but it won’t be a fair comparison. I'm shooting on a progressive mode camera and my design doesnt require to look thru a close up/diopter lens. When its all done and tested I'll post the working design for you guys but it still has a little time to go. I would recommend you consider buying Dan's device because it looks like a quality product and it’s already finished.

My device has come a long way also. It's like the other 'mini 35' type designs, with the GG moving in an orbital
motion. I have posted HDV video of my results so far. Absolutely no image shake or grain.
I still have some optical tuning to do, to remove the hot spot. The hard part is
making that GG move right, as I'm sure Brett can attest to! ;) Dan and I are the only ones to post
sample video with such a device. I'm the only one to post high bit rate HDV video.
Yep, I'm planing on selling mine too, for under $500. I CNC the main parts, and if I get a
few orders I'll drop the cost even more. ;)
See the other thread for the HD demo video, or email me.
I'll shoot a res chart in a couple of days.
-Les

Brett,
This is a fair statement, about rez comparison, capturing CCD and format as well as lens used, etc. Too many differences.
As for the rest, I do not know how soon I will finish with all the "bells and w" needed (adjustable support, rods for a MB and follow focus.....etc)
It will not take for ever, but still, they have to be there to get footage that will bring paying customers. As for selling the device... will also take some time. The road to heaven goes through hell (if it is going to make it that far! lol) I want to see its shape coming back after a few rental days, see what's left of it (lol)
Anyway, thank you for your interest and moral support guys and check the website for updates.

PS. I wonder how come I did not received an email about your new post????????...........hmmmmm???.......

Les,
For that price, I am out of the race (with you)and wish you well and a lot of customers. Honestly.
I am planning a shooting this weekend on Z1 as well.
Too bad I do not have "the technology" to edit the footage :(
....will see....
However, do not forget who's clips explicitly describing this kind of movement you saw first! BTW: orbital movement was a test I did in July 2004 (for fun) I did not lke the turning points (uneaven) That is why I went for circle:-)<
(I still have the clip, since I took the trouble to document my work in video. I might post it on my site along with other designs, obsolete now)
I still did not bult the charger (and keeps going...and...)

I echo that. I don't know how any of these adapters with R&D, materials, and time can add up to $500 with a significant profit margin. I'd hate to manufacture these things on such slim profit. However, profit quality is in the eye of the beholder. From $10,000 down to $500. Hmmm.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brett Erskine : Fillip-
I don’t want to make this a competition between designs because Dan is selling his and I'm not going down that road. -->>>

Brett,
my intention was NOT the competition. just curiosity. like - what if... nothing more.

sometimes is interesting to see things compared side by side.
i understand that there is too many differences etc, but that was just a thought.

filip

Bottom line is this: can you sell the footage and have it broadcast or in a festival? If yes, it accomplishes the purpose for a lot less. If no, it is still a very good practicing tool. Can you practice with a static just as well? Yes. Can you sell the footage? No, but you can generate interest and if the return is there.. invest and see a return on investment. But then again, if you show "this footage" and you have to explain "that footage", some people might have a hard time imagining what's going to look like. Been there many times.
Unless you show the real thing, the description (of such abstract thing as the "look of footage) does not help much(IMHO) That does not mean you can not try.
Finally, my Nikons of ebay are here (after 29 days from shipment) Should generate some footage.

I had a filter on the rear mount for "underwater test"
It does protect the GG from dust aso. However, being too close to it, might get some dust on the outside as Brett pointed out. Would you prefer no glass at all (front and rear) or glass but further away form the GG on the rear and filter on the front? If is there (front) protects but you can not blow the GG if some dust gets on the Fresnel. I have a filter now (front) and no dust on Fresnel, but what if?
............................
On the rear side I had it on and off many times and blew air a few times (safety)
So: Open or closed? (front) This is because once I have the mount in place I can not put the filter. It is either there or no.

(ideally would be both filters at far distanaces from the GG and clean at assembly I guess)but what if some dust was still left in there... just thinking ....

I hear ya Dan. Since no one is putting these adapters together in a "clean room" all you can do is clean it as best as possible. Anything that might remain will most likely be too small to worry about once the GG is put in motion. I would recomend you do what I have had to do - add clear filters on both sides of the adapter to seal all addition dust from getting inside. Put them both as far from the GG as possible to put any dust on them completely out of focus and unseen but remember that the front clear filter must be put in a place not to interfer with the PL mount lenses. As you know they are different from still lenses and will recess far inside - beyond thier mount. You dont want the back of the lens to hit the clear filter. Its a tricky thing to do. Good luck.

P.S. When your done the whole thing might be a little quieter - but yours is already quiet so it may not matter.

Thanks Brett,
I have no intention (for now) to go PL mount. Reasons offered a few post back (in short benefits/cost/availability)
They are avail, but you either have to buy them (9K and up) or rent them @$250/day. Form the hi rez still I took, I see no reason to "over do it" (for now) I'll see if a rez chart will make me change my mind. If I see a SIGNIFICANT diff, it will be an open option. FB from you guys (once I have the pics) will help me decide.
Dust...dust .... dust..... to which we all return......dust... dust ....dust.....that's all that's left....(sic transit gloria mundi)

Hi Dan.

this is my first post...also my favourite thread.

excuse me if this has been asked before, but when will your unit be available and how much?

thanks Frank

Welcome and "join the club";-)<
After successful testing it on most popular camcorders (PD170, DVX100 and FX1)I am going through a major redesign of the whole unit in terms of mounting support, etc. In the end, the same converter can trade cameras in a minute with no additional parts required. Since most of it can be made using conventional follow or remote focus (of which there are quite a few around, that means rods, and that means sizes and matte boxes and so on. A total nightmare (to which I bring my humble contribution) When?... a good question. How much? better than the first one. When I'll know, you will know! I promise.

great!

work in progress here on the new shape guys......
Planning a demo shooting on FX1 and PD170A over next weekend and of course the Rez Charts.
but, meanwhile let's have some fun.
Here is a clip I did (and was broadcasted twice) a while ago.
Some guy smoking a piano.
A bit of info:
One angle (first and last images) was all I had from that concert (in Dec 2003) Frustrated, I went back to the theatre (Michel J Fox) and got it for about three hours some two weeks latter.
Here is what followed:
13 takes all together (5 simultaneous with 5 cameras)
(none played at the same speed for he was no machine!...?) A mixture of 1CCD, 3CCD and CMOS.
This is what turned out:
http://rapidshare.de/files-en/605790/best_performance_for_web.wmv.html
a week latter.
Just call me a "Premiere boy" for that's all I know, but: some of the shots in this clip were never seen B4 (that's how bad they are!!!)
5'long, 26Mb, 4 min download @ 150mbs, comments welcome.

Here are two new pics of the latest design:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/FIRST-PICTURES/IMGA0320

Nikon mount only (for now) with rods support and (optional but necessary) CU lens.
It works well with any camcorder including Sony Z1. However, every camcorder has a different distance from the base plate to the optical axes. Adjustments need to be made.
I do not think I will launch in a high volume manufacturing process. Units will be made by request.
If anyone is interested to order the image converter, email me off list for details and indicate the camcorder you intend to use.

Dan i have talked to a friend who is an expert in micro mechanics, he told me that a mobile phone vibrator uses only a few miliampers from the battery, where the average mobile phone battery gives an output somewhere between 600-800 miliampers, in time the batery loses its property and cannot give the same energy, the loss may drop alot but still there will always be energy for the vibrator. according to him the screen backlight, headphone and receiving data use the most of the battery.

According to him..(who is "da man" in electric motors)..the telephone vibrator has a very short lifespan, while vibrating the burches (pieces holding the rotating rods) get corroded and the hole gets bigger making the vibrator to lose property.

He suggested using a more quality motor, not mobile phone motors.

I can not agree more with your friend (although from what I found, MOST vibratos need AT LEAST 20mA @ NO LOAD!!!!!!)
The motor I choose needs only 4!!!!!!!mA @ less than 2V !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!under load----- while moving the GG that is!
But, did I EVER said I am using a cell vibrator? Check my posts from the first to this one before turning an "assumption" in to a fact and attribute it to me.
As for life of the device as is today, TIME will tell better than WORDS. I do not think I will be around for another 50 years, nor the technology will obsolete the contraption in a few years from now, but who knows, somewhere in a museum, a unit WILL work many years from now.
Oh, ... BTW
For all interested in stealing ideas (not you):
I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know.

Interesting Dan,

What are the handles for? And the rods that run vertically but don't seem to hold anything?

It definitely looks cool!

The handles are for hand held.
The vertical rods when mounted on a plate (not photographed) will allow the whole thing to me mounted up side down so the image need not be flipped in post (just an option for lazy people like me)

anti hack anti pirtate anti ????
 

ok,

if i understand your most recent post you are saying that
you have designed a vibating glass mechanism

(hmmm... arent we all trying to build the homebuilt version of the 10k$ unit that is already patented??)

sorry, i digress,,,, you are saying that
you have designed a vibating glass mechanism that will try to
do what the ps technik does?
BUT---- if anyone ever tries to take the "dan vibramatic" apart
it will self destruct in such a way that no mere mortal could figure
it out and put it back together again???

perhaps it should be called the "dan (humpty dumpty) vibramatic"...

i commend you for your design skills and the work that you have done with just a sherline.... i just had to chuckle a little since this seems to be a reverse engineering forum for the ps technik type devices.... but you claim:
.................................................................................
Oh, ... BTW
For all interested in stealing ideas (not you):
I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know.
...................................................................................


im glad that your research team not only completed the task of
offering a 10,000 dollar device for a few hundred dollars, but they made it impossible to copy at the same time...


i aplaud your creative genius...
cant wait to see them offered here...

thanks dan....

yes, it might seem like an odd thing to say if you consider the device "reverse engineering" but I think Dan's device is a little more than a "humpty dumpty" adapter. In theory, it should work better than the P+S adapter because it has fewer optical elements and a brighter image.

He's been working on this thing long before these DIY threads ever existed.

@Dan
Maybe I missed sth, but is there any technical reason the XL2 never gets mentioned to connect with your adaptor?
Or is it just that you don't have access to one?
Well, since the reason I decided to get the Canon was the possibility of directly using an adaptor between chip and lens, please make it available!
But I guess you will come up with some universal mount solution in the end anyway...
regards,

Chris

Chronological re:

Sarena, please check a few pages back on this thread to get a BIGGER PICTURE (say 24/36mm?) on this ISSUE (WITH BRIGHT CORNERS TOO!!!)
or go and see the documentation of the results at www.dandiaconu.com
Warning:
Explicit pictures and videos. Do not watch if emotionally, family or in any other way related to German companies. (heart breaking) (see the pictures shot at aperture 22!!!!!!!!!! and the clips, I did not post them for me!!!!!!!!!!)
Since you are so well informed, maybe you can enlighten us with a link to P+S patent on this originally "35mm adapter" and now, miraculously recently re baptized into "IMAGE CONVERTER".
I could not find one here in Canada.

Jesse, thank you . Reverse engineering is not the case here for: First, I am not an engineer, Second is not right/dignifying to STEAL someone's work, Third, my design yields BY FAR better results than existing technology. Do not take my (or anyone's) word for it. Check the pics and footage and look over tech specs and compare.

Christian,
I did mount the converter on the lens of an XL1.
It works. But:
I am not happy with less than BEST, knowing I can get rid of the 20X lens and replace it with a c-mount lens.
I have the XL mount, I just did not have the time to dig deeper into this matter.
End note;
I had an L1 (13 years ago when they first got out) and loved every second using it (manual focus and zoom original lens) I do not feel the same for the grandkid.
Expensive for what it does. I know there are people feeling otherwise, no need to debate.

As a result of too many contradictory feelings on the price of this contraption, I will hold taking orders/manufacturing for sale until I have more footage to demo the results.
Then, the new price will be justified by facts. I will have to "put together" a DVD (uncompressed) for all interested.

Hey Dan nice motor. I'm guessing brushless because it sounds like mine - extremely quiet and low power usage. The only other thing I could find that was better was a ultrasonic motor but couldnt find a way to adapt it to this project. Btw the P+S Technik patent with detailed drawings and pictures has been posted in the past in one of these threads if you want to see it. I wish I had a direct link. I would think somewhere here has it.

patent
 

you might try the US patent office.... canada honors those by intl agreement dont they??

i think if you read the patent that you will find what is actually patented is the conept of an intermediate screen displaying the image and then photographing this image onto video. that is what your device does. not really my concern one way or the other, but if you try taking your device to a trade show im sure you will find out from the lawyers just whether or not your device infringes upon that concept...

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

i personally am going the route of getting rid of vibration in my adapter.....

Sarena,

I'm interested in what sort of adapter you're working on (getting rid of vibration). Are you incorporating some other type of motion like spinning, or are you using a different material such as wax?

Technically speaking you should get better achromatic performance if you replace the fresnel focusing screen with three elements (2 element achromat condenser and a GG designed to work with it). I tried to go down this route for a long long time and because I dont have a formal education in optics I wasnt able to find the right combo. Also you'll want to have a very high quality achromat diopter between the GG and the video camera's lens. Another expensive, pain in the ass. I decided to just use a very high quality fresnel lens focusing screen that is designed for my focal length and as far as a diopter is concerned - dont need one anymore because I'm using medium format lenses and the image on the GG is so much larger that the video camera doesnt need any help from a diopter. Less elements to degrade the quality. Works for me but remember that medium format lenses can be pricey.

fresnel softens image?
 

I don't think that the resolution of fresnel lenses is enough to do the job. perhaps I've only seen inexpensive ones. If I recall, when you look through a fresnel, the image always looks soft or stepped looking as a result of the basic construction, using light bending small steps. Maybe it's OK for DV resolution work, however.
-Les

Les-
You know thats what I used to think as well because I was following text book rules of optics. Also in the begining all I saw were fresnels with fairly large grooves but screens like the Beattie and Maxwell have fresnel grooves so small that you can't even see them with the naked eye. In fact their size is so tiny that they say using anything but the most gental methods to clear dust off it could damage the grooves. Safe to say we wont see any "DIY fresnel focusing screen" threads soon ;-) You know I might be wrong about this but because the lens is broken up in these micro ridges it may capable of doing the job of a achromat lens. I say that because I have yet to see any abberation problems with my Maxwell screen. Perhaps the abberation correction is built into the geometry of the individual fresnel grooves. Not sure. Just know it works well for me.

OK, I guess I've only see cheap fresnels then. So when you hold a good one up to view through it, it looks just as clear as a regular lens? Intuitively it seems like the diffraction around the edges of each step might still cause problems. I've got some time now to work on my hotspot problem again, so I'm investigating some solutions.

Incidentally, my adapter originally started by copying the commercial version. I veered away from that design when both of my examples still had minor image vibration problems.

It's amazing how much time you can spend playing with this stuff :-)

-Les

8 months FT@12-16h/day?..... more?...... enough?......

Enough! Sell me what you got. :D :D

Dan,
Can you give an indication about light levels required in fc or lux for shooting with let's say a Nikkor 50mm @ f2.8 with 0dB gain on a specific DV camera?

6212334
 

for those interested the ps technik patent is #6212334....

it really isnt a great deal of help towards building your own, in my opinion.....

but people were asking for the patent number.....

Thank you Sarena. I just could not find it here in Canada.
I was never interested in their design, just as a curiosity. I kind of have an idea of what is inside by the way it behaves (when it comes to these things)
Val, I did shoot a plasma "thing" (one of those that you touch the glass globe and lights up your palm) though the converter. I do not know the light level, but I did not get much better image with the camcorder by itself. I do not think I loose any light. Please go to my site and watch this clip:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/Brightnes-tests/fourth_brightness_test_avi.wmv

Look at the light level behind the Fresnel. If you think is more than behind the ordinary GG, or even more than the ambient light, than I do not loose ANY light. I have the feeling I gain LIGHT (besides the FULL 24/36 FRAME without ANY vigneting on the corners!!!!! as normal or ultra fin, holographic, waxed, polished or whatever kind of GG you want to use instead, be it static, spinning, crawling or jumping)
Check it out. I did not do all those tests for me!!! Sorry but looks like I am just talking to myself here. I did a lot of testing and publish the EXPLICIT results in stills and video and I still get questions.

You just can not believe what you see, right? Neither the stills nor the clips.
I am forced to make a few units and send them out to people. They will get footage that will convince anyone better than I can (by the looks of it)

Steev, you are right! Enough is enough.
I was only hoping to go out and start shooting something but looks like I am cursed to spend more time on the lathe.....

Dan. Don't worry. We are so excited we don't beleive our eyes!

Whether you make fun or no,
I need to know this:
would anyone interested in ordering this device prefer to see more footage in a real life production?
I can "organize" something, but this will take some time.
I can burn some DVD's afterwards, so you can see the footage first hand, uncompressed. Would this be enough?
I take orders now. Base unit is US $3500.
What you get:
A Nikon mount, the water/dust/shock (to a certain extent) proof unit, a combo 72mm +3+2 CU MC lens and a 1/2" rods support with a base plate for your camcorder and an intermediate tripod mounting plate.
What you will also need (IMHO) NOT included:
Gear on your lens, MB, follow focus, a monitor (to flip the image for framing purposes) another support to flip the camera (if you do not want to flip the footage in post)
Whoever is interested, email me off list.

Finally, the batteries on the unit built in Dec 2004 died this morning.
I built a charger (you will get one too) and now they are back in business. Since I used it for quite a few test, but over a long period of time, I can only guesstimate the working time would be 20?-30? continuous hours?

hey dan isnt $3500 too much...

what is the lowest price we would pay and get the dof effect?

Dan's setup is plug and play.
My 'kit' form will be under $500.
Same orbiting glass motion, about the same size. (3.5" Dia.)
High bit rate HD video posted previously.
NO image shake. No grain.
I'm just waiting to finalize the condenser lens part.

Walmart priced kit thru CNC machining.
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Dogus Aslan : hey dan isnt $3500 too much...

what is the lowest price we would pay and get the dof effect? -->>>

To get dirt cheap DOF, all you need is the camcorder on sticks, and a lens with a GG (both handheld) in front of it and you have it.
.............................................................................
Too little...... or too much....is soooo relative.....
It depends of how much one makes/has available. If is just for fun (and you can afford this kind of "toys"), no problemos.
If you can not afford this kind of "toys" you might as well look at them as TOOLS. If this unit is mounted on a Z1 and you start a series making $1500/day (obviously with a set of GEARED PRIMES), than I do not think is too much, to get your money back in less than three days.
But then again, you might need skills as a DP/op to get there.

From your POV, you may be right.

From my POV, having spent the last 8 months refining one exclusive thing, and getting where I got, I might be right too.

There is no absolute right or wrong, just different opinions....
God knows better and we all get as much as we deserve, no more, no less.

P+S is expensive.
I am expensive.......

Ussually you get what you pay for. This price will change (so I am not seen as exception to the rule) once the results are documented.
I just got a call for a feature in March. We will see after.

To answer your question:

If I can make money with it, I'd pay the price and start seeing a revenue. If I can not make money with it, I would not bother.
If I would like/love it, but just not shure if I can use it or if I can afford to try and see if it makes me money or no, I would say just what you said.

Fair enough?

As much as I tried to help you guys, with pics and clips on my site , so you do not have to WASTE A TON OF MONEY AND COUNTLESS MAN/HOURS EVERY DAY, trying all possible shortcuts that lead no where and give you the best imaging device (point me to another one better, please) for a third of the lowest price of the mini35 and.....
still no good........