<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit :
I'm just waiting to finalize the condenser lens part.
-->>>

Les, how long do you think that will take you?

Les,
What can I say but applaud you.
You are a genius (although that makes me look like an idiot having spent so much time on the same issue)
I only wished you would have got were you are now a bit sooner, so I can buy it from you even at $2000 (not 500) and not have to work on it for so long....
Damn wrong timing again....

<<<--
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........
-->>>

Well to be fair Dan, I don't think anyone around here ever implied they'd cough up $3500 for an original P&S or anything else. These guys paid that much for their camera.

In fact, I told you myself I thought the top end around here was probably $1k and maybe $1500. I still think it is... but I could be wrong. I thought and still do think the real magic number is under $500 for people to just give up building and start buying HERE.

There are guys here complaining that Jim's Micro35 guide went up $10.

I do think you make a very reasonable point when you say a working Pro might shell out more. Clearly people have purchased the P&S and it's a lot more cash. I don't know how many of those are flying off the shelves anymore though (if they ever did fly off the shelves). BUT P&S marketed the hell out of their unit and had Seinfeld shooting a commercial for American Express with it.

How many units has MovieTube sold? My guess is not many if any. And they had a pretty impressive start to their website.

I think if you want to sell this thing before the technology is obsolete you're going to have to get it manufactured for real in quantity to drive the cost way down. That probably means investors and giving up a share of the pie OR you're going to have to really organize yourself into a real business and get some SERIOUS marketing and public relations help and go right after the folks with the money.

Or keep it for yourself and make movies and profit on that. Or rent them out... but pick a reasonable price for the rental. At $200/day no one here will go for that.

My advice is get your device in the hands of some talented visual artists and see what they can do with it in trade for them allowing you to use their footage. Better still, HIRE a great DP for a day.

Also - a side by side comparison against Les' and James' devices will go a long way to you proving your point when the time comes. Your target market is the people who want the best at any cost and aren't worried that they are getting a "one off" from a company that would disappear if the owner has a heart attack tomorrow. Those people are out there, but you'll be working to find them.

I am obviously playing the right music at the wrong table.
You are right. Got to move on. Thanks for the comments.

A couple of weeks at the most. I have too many irons in the fire is the problem. Luckily the hard part is done, the stable GG motion.

-Les
<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Aaron : <<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit :
I'm just waiting to finalize the condenser lens part.
-->>>

Les, how long do you think that will take you? -->>>

Dan I agree with your point and think its a fair price considering the quality of your device but I preceive a road block ahead in your sales. At $3,500 you are no longer targeting most of the DIY/ passionate hobbist but serious film makers that most likely make their living doing their craft. The only problem with this market is they are used to using professional, commercially made equipment that is of the up most quality and doesnt require the user to compromise or mickey mouse anything while they work with it. This is where the issue of the image still recording upside down might be a turn off to these particular customers.

As a DIYer kind of guy I dont mind throwing a magnet on the side of my LCD to trick it to flip its image or mounting a additional screen upside down to view it properly but for the pros that want and NEED things to work when they HAVE to work I would think they would really want to have a system thats a complete solution right out of the box or from the rental house.

So I would recomend you offer some form of on set solution to this problem of the image being upside down.

A few possible ideas are to pack ONE of the following in with your adapters:

1)A very compact device that would fit to the firewire/rca out of the camera that electronically rotates the image upright before it hits any on set monitor.

2)Additional small on camera LCD screen that can be mounted various places on the camera that can be used with a mount that lets you easily physically rotate the screen OR a feature of rotating the image electronically. In this second example this monitor could also have a line out for the corrected image to be output to another on set monitor

3)Or at the very least offer capture software plugins to allow the image to be rotated on the fly and captured up right with the corrected image.

Once again I dont need this stuff and most of the people of this board wont either but talk to pro cinematographers and I think they are going to almost demand some type of complete solution.

Just a opinion. Hope it helps.

Dan, i agree with Brett and i add this: Your first solution looks like a real professional thing, also the small design (Your last upside down camara mount... sorry,... not for prof.). I think go on your first way and add professional parts like

a.) optical up side down solution
b.) relay lens for more light and direct mount to prof. cameras.

(a + b together reduce also the length down to round 50-80mm and the whole system will be smaller than a P&S)
I wish, i had more time, but remember also the other thing in our email, maybe i can help and we work together?

Brett, thank you for your input. It helps.
1I have sorted out the U/D image but no longer pics or clips about anything.
Rai and Brett read my post: the up side down camera was a solution for ME only! Why, because I use Premiere6 (did not have time to play with other programs) and it does not rotate the image without artifacts. All other programs do it clean, on the fly (including Premiere Pro)
2. You would be surprised what the "pro" world goes through when BUDGET comes to play!!!!! and how many dedicated cinematographers have to live now shooting F900 instead of Arriflex/Panavision. Painful but real. At another level, Z1 and another "toys" coming out will broaden the spectrum of "pro" world and offer alternative "imaging" for even tighter budgets (like it or not) and MOST producers like to "save a buck" whenever they can, HOWEVER they can. Long story short: the best for the buck. A classic: "why do you need lights if you shoot video anyway?"
Rai, I have re to your emails a while ago. Check your box.

I'm also out, at that price for now. I'll reconsider if I can get some $10k projects going based on my static adapter created material.

This whole forum is a big lesson in engineering, business, and economics. Who needs college!

steev
www.holyzoo.com

I do.
That's why I ended up working on a lathe......
cuzI aint goat no ducation.

have you all lost all sense of humor?
(I nearly died yesterday while typing the above).
Oh, and I will have a major price drop by the end of this week.
Barbones GG movement , DIY rails (rods)/support and front mount. You might (while DIY) learn the value of precise machining.

:) Keep us posted on the cheaper price. :)

Keep us posted Dan. Some of us are very interested in your adapter.

Steev, maybe you could do your master thesis on the progression of these DIY threads :)

however, I am the dean cuzI have strted along time ageo....hehehe...

my older son (Piano clip) is 20 2day. I must go help him with the party...... working on a follow focus from Monday.
I'll let you know.

DIY is a poverty trend as a response to high prices and far east imports. Although confusing, they are part and parcel. I am proudly part of it. Here is what other "nuts" are having fun with:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/
Dying to start but I must finish my homework first: adapter, follow focus, etc.
Just doing my duty to ruin your lifes as the wealth of info from the net ruined mine.

Monolog is boring.
A lot of readings on this thread from post to post and no replies.
Did you not find "Pandora's box" (Naudin) appealing? Not of interest? Or just off topic. Just curious.
I finished a follow focus meanwhile.
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album04
In use only till I decide what wireless to go for.
I was lucky with a fellow cameraman to point out major vigneting on a DVX last week. I had the follow focus in mind and not being able to cooperate in helping out with the set-up. Camera was not set at the proper distance from GG. Uncoated CU lens will get you big time color fringe as well. (what you pay is what you get) For my purpose of establishing rods length, focusing distance and so on, the cheapo ebay I've got are fine. For actually using them to capture video, no way. Best MC close-up's is the only way!!! Out for some footage.
Any comments?

Hey Dan

The Focaus Unit looks great. Are you planning on making them. If so how much for two?

Holy crap Dan, that looks great!

I'm very, very, very interested in getting my hands on one if possible. Do you have any test footage from this yet? How are you handling the starts and stops so that they are smooth? What type of lens is this constructed for?

I did not have in mind to make ff for sale.
There are units available off the shelf:
http://www.saferseas.com/vsd/eye/ff.html
http://www.cinetechonline.com/FF01.html
http://www.dvshop.ca/camera/followfocus.html
to name a few.
For me is just a temp solution till I decide what wireless to go for (does not hurt to have this one meanwhile though)
I made one wireless 12 years ago (focus and zoom) Back then, very happy. Not any more.
Lenses are eBay Nikons. A pain to hunt for and add gear, but... I sacrifice for art........(I up loaded the pic on the site)
About follow focus as a craft, there is a lot of info here:
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/FOCUSING.HTM
In short, the unit is only as smooth as you are. Just a tool. Pretty much like driving. If you are smooth, the ride is a pleasure, if you are rough.... (gas, breaks, steering wheel).....
Most people use marks during rehearsals, others use educated guess, and there are also some tools available. Goggle for CINETAPE/PANATAPE.
Thanks for looking.

Still waiting to see your test footage with the Sony HDV.

The lack of the enthusiasm may be due to the published cost of the afdapter. But quality will be the deciding factor for many. Specially on a Hi Res image.

Dan, I bet you can make a fair amount of cash if you sell that follow focus for under $500. Also great work on the adapter rails, etc. When will the adapter be ready for sale and what price are you selling them for? I own a DVX100 (the first model) and would love to add this adapter to my production gear. Thanks.

I think with anything about let's say $1500 people expect dvd's with uncorrected and color-corrected footage to be available upon request.

While I totally understand that you don't want to sell your hours cheap (and by the looks of it this unit has cost you quite some hours), at $3500 it's no longer the type of product people buy off a forum no questions asked if you see what I mean.
If I were to buy one of these I would expect some kind of situation where I knew there would be after-sales service in case of problems with the product.

I am in the market for a 35mm adapter and I am talking to some people who have a very interesting product that is about to hit the market and they've sent me a dvd with 2 commercial music videos as well as some adapter vs. video shots and some documentary-style footage. That is what I think people here expect from your adapter as well.

At the price you are thinking of introducing this adapter I would expect it to accept cine lenses (PL mount) because photo-lenses aren't really ideal for motion (zooming effect when focussing).

Also, at this price the fact that the image still needs to be rotated in post isn't a selling point.

I hope this does not come over as harsh criticism; it's just my 2 cents... I must say that personally I think the price is a little steep. Then again, I'm not the one who has spent days and weeks perfecting this thing so who am I to comment on that.

Lots of questions and no answers. Even worse: more questions....
I thought I covered the decision to go with SLR lens a while back, but here we go again:

1. Pl lens only cover an 18/24mm image
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/35mmLensesOnSuper16.htm
defeating the whole purpose of the work I have done so far to provide a bigger, brighter and just as sharper image with less expensive lens:

2. Given that the image is videotaped of a larger 24/36mm GG, I see no reasonable reason to provide an expensive lens and potentially obtain less resolution out of them for the non breathing perfection. (some of the older, less expensive to rent/own lens breathe as well)

3. Not every film maker/Videographer has a rental house in his neighborhood. If one has to rent them on a PAID shoot ONLY (for $ reasons) it will limit one's ability to experiment/have a demo DVD to show and promote his skills.

4. Pl lens are pricey to own
http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?ID=26&Cat=8&Cat2=18
or rent:
http://www.clairmont.com/catalog/pages/lenses/35mm_prime_lens_sets.html

5. PL lens have a different flange than SLR's. Having it as an option will only increase the cost of interchangeable mounts subtracting potential customers.
6. The cost of the mount is not to be neglected:
http://www.cinematechnic.com/products/PL_Mount_Adapt_ARRIBay.html
(while most people look for "the sun, the moon and a few stars on the side" for a second hand price, and I am one of them as well...)
6.The breathing of any SLR lens (less the latest AF/manual) will only be noticeable:
a) on a very big screen,
b) on a major focus roll (from very close to very far)
c) enhancing/selling the subconscious idea of "film look"

I have no intention to increase my cost and pass it onto you buying or manufacturing parts that are available already.
I want to provide the very basic "missing link" needed in this equation. Nothing more.
1/2" rods, you can find easily. A 1/2" bit is in any hardware store. Why should I cut and drill when you can do it to suit YOUR camcorder? I am here to do ONLY what you can not do (and which I think is my only contribution to this contraption)

I have looked at Sony’s Z1 focus. Nothing moves, changes or breaths while focusing. Is perfect. Does it help (me or you) for the purpose of this discussion? Not much. Nice? I do not know. Fascinating? Yes. Can I use it for my purpose? No. (my 2c)

on the "flip" issue:
I see it less expensive to have the hardware that flips the camera than provide/align/mount expensive/heavy prisms for the same purpose. I did it before. I will not do it again (not even for money) I see no reason and I walk my talk.

For everyone else:
Since most are concerned about price (and I am looking to the least expensive alternative as well): would you be happy to get the SLR mount and the moving screen
for $2000?
as in this picture:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album04/IMGA0383
except the lens, rods and follow focus plus the charger?

That will pass on to you a lot of money and some work, as well as leaving you the option to "configure" IT to your specific camcorder.

As I would prefer to keep myself out of a discussion about which of "today's" camcorder is best suited for this DOF quest, I will only mention this: I am not "hooked" on any of them. Any 3CCD, manual focus, iris, with external mic input is suitable. Technology changes as we speak. In 6 months, you may start thinking HD. Will it work on the next models?
Most likely (if the zoom range will be similar to Sony's Z1) yes.

You will need a very good CU/macro/1.6X telephoto converter to see the whole image in the viewfinder. You will also need (IMHO) a very sturdy set of rods to mount it on and slide IT towards/away from the camcorder until you are happy with the image. Note:

Nikon "looked after" the vigneting of the viewfinder when different focal lengths lens were used providing interchangeable "focusing screens" to match them. Since this is out of the question here, your choice is to slide the camcorder closer or farther away from the GG, until you get a full brightness image FOR THE LENS YOU USE. Most likely that will be the case for extreme lens ONLY. 15mm and wider and above 250-300mm(I would guess)
For now, AS IS, the 28-200 zoom works without any vigneting in one position (no sliding back and forth needed) at about 50mm between GG and the camcorder's lens. The 17-28 I tested works in the same position as well. I do not have a 300mm lens.

About a DVD demo. I do own yet an HD DVD burner/player.
Even if I shoot a demo and burn a DVD, you will not see it in HD.

The Z1 I tested worked (for my purposes) with a +2 &+3 CU lens. The image is not acceptable.

A 1.6X tele-converter from Century optics:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/16x_tc/16x_tc.htm
will do the job! (see the price also)

A demo DVD will invariably be subjective and your impression WILL be biased. You will not judge the converter ONLY; you will be influenced by many skills
cinematography (lights, composition) directing (choosing a shoot) camera moves (crane, steadicam) focus pulling skills, and so much more only complicating the issue.

I provided basic tests with pics and clips on my site to be OBJECTIV down to the last detail and leave NOTHING to interpretation. You want to see footage that will "inspire you"? I can do that easily. I only wanted to be FAIR to all of you and give you facts ONLY (leaving my or someone else's skills or the lack of out of it)

As most of you have noticed by now, I did not "jumped out of my skin" to SELL ASAP something (knowledge, kit or product) You may also appreciate all the info shared free (via posts and on my site)

I have scheduled a "shooting" for Monday. I will continue to use the GS200. I want to demo the converter only.
Compatibility and mounting of other camcorders should be on you.

your comments ....?

jay can you give us more info on this adapter?

Dan, you CAN make HD DVD NOW...
 

Hi Dan - pls. refer to HDV editing forum and look for Douglas Spotted Eagle's posts regarding Mpeg-4 "HD" on existing DVD's - it's amazing workaround until HD DVD becomes the new norm...

-it's the thread with "frameserving" in subject...

All the best!

Mark

Thank you Mark,
Is going to be a while for me to catch up with it, but I'll make it.
Forgot to mention:
this last weekend I attended the first trade show here in Vancouver: http://pera.ws/index.lasso
(similar to showBiz LA).
Arri, Panavision, Clairmont camera, Miller, O'connor...all the boyz were there. Cool LED dimmable lights, F900, Varicam, Technocrane, Dalsa, Cinealta, etc.
Highlits: Cinematography workshop with Attila Szalay, Karl Herrmann and other two or three (of the same caliber) DOP and a movie test done by Panavision: Two cameras side by side, one film one digital shooting the same scene, inter cut footage. Amazing. Hard to tell the diff. 1COMS outputting 880MB/s(but usually 440) on 1/2" tape. Both printed on film. CMOS linear response had to be "matched" to film's log response to light based on a "look-up table".
They only have 7 made to date and turning down projects (demand exceeds the offer) so, you might as well make up your mind (just kidding)
Fascinating. But film is still FILM.
I also had 10 min to introduce the "new-kid-on-the-block": positive response (obviously from a different market segment) but exciting all2gather.
............
I love technocrane......... sigh......
only 300,000 Euro...........sigh....
silkity smooth..................sigh.....
(no, I will not "make one"....lol)
As ridiculous as it may sound (and it is) I did not videotape anysink and no pics either (with a Kodak 3M in my pocket!!!) Luckily, some friends got me on tape and pics as well....

Oh well, goat2go shoot some footage.

Long day.... but the results are awesome.
No focus puller, mosquitoes, alone in the woods with two cases and the damn flip monitor works at home, and does not when it should have for no reason. However, the "pros" loved the contraption. Some 20’ of takes with briefings bellow. 35,50,85,105,135,200mm tested all as planned. (25 called sick)
My Nikkors @work:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05

dan,

what kind of codec you used here? i have problems viewing it...

thanks,


filip

Looks interesting :)

What camera was the footage shot with?

The sword fighting could use some improvement but I can't complain too much ;)

This is my second time using Premiere Pro (used it some moths ago and did not like some of the improvements)
The codec and all export features are new to me as well.
I was trying to save frames from the clips for easy viewing but without success. The stills ARE stills (well.... more or less...;-)<
Footage from the good'ol' GS200. (GS 400 is very tempting though)

dan great work!

i think i see some vigneting, is it possible for you to just shoot a grey paper of something like that so we can see it better..

and is it just me or is there more blur in one clip than the other.?

Thanks,
blur is "on the house". I had to frame up side down while pulling focus. Not easy and usually not for the same guy (especially on 135 and 200mm!) and get out of the way while doing so.... Looks is all I was interested in, and I am happy with the test.
I am sorry but I have done enough testing, tests I knew the results already by the time I did them. How is this:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album04/IMGA0375
instead of a gey card ?"Access" 28-200 zoom lens 200mm@5.6 (a firecracker of a lens, but hey... does the job)
Nikon converter was "in front" not behind camera at that time.

In all of the high res images I see the pattern of the GG. Was the GG not moving?

The GG was not there in the pic 412:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05
The visible pattern in all pics is from the CCD's resolution.
Any digital camera retail store has 8/10 samples taken with 2, 3, 4, 5, aso M pixel cameras. Smaller resolution (like 2Mpixel) HAVE the same pattern.(but I swear I did not do it)

You don't learn ol dog new tricks and yet, I managed to burn a DVD and watch it on a 27" flat. I am happy with the results. Sharpness, looks, 'n-ol-that....

I have up loaded some stills from footage and some clips from yesterday eve/night. I understand you will be tempted to look at anything but a cup of coffee and still........... watch that clip. The rest are also relevant on “look” but.....
focus without a focus puller is just hobby …I think…
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/Real-life-tests

Dan,

Have you got any sample clips you have done with the Z1?.

No Maheel.
Last time I only did some basic tests but I did not actually shoot any footage. I do not have the HD plug to edit that footage anyway. I guess I am also getting tired of just "testing" and getting anxious for REAL footage: that (to me) means a real production value (crane, dolly, lights, the whole deal) which leads to the question: OK but what is the story? to be worth the trouble. That is how I ended up on YB and glad I got a few clean shots (without crew, cables, dolly, etc)
I know you are anxious. Sorry I can not move any faster.
But....working on it.

Here's your story Dan:

INT. COMPUTER ROOM - NIGHT

DAN DIACONU, a crazy and crafty camera genius sits alone. He picks up a 9mm which sits next to his dismantled DVX-100a. He points it at the computer screen.

DAN
(menacingly)
No more damn questions...

perhaps shaking the lens doesn't look so good at resolution?
With a "normal" lens, if you move it laterally (i.e., orbiting motion) you also moved the image. To what degree I'm not sure, but the net result may be a loss of resolution(bad), as well as the grain reduction(good).
Dan, did your initial tests look a little soft? This could be the fly in the ointment of focusing screen usage.
-Les

Damn Franky, I forget my web cam ON and you take advantage..... tz, tz, tz, .....what a shame.....
(was that 9mm as in focal length or diameter, anyway?)
.......
no more damn answers......

>>>Les: perhaps shaking the lens doesn't look so good at resolution?<<<<<

nope.

>>>>........you also moved the image<<<<<

yep. It is only common knowledge that light gets stuck on a screen like a fly in a spider web.

>>>>>To what degree I'm not sure,<<<<<<

ohhh.... to a very high degree. The degree is so high that pictures taken during day time keep shining all night of the screen.... it's fascinating (almost magic)

>>>>>but the net result may be a loss of resolution(bad)<<<<

arghhhh.... the resolution..... is soooooo..... bad, that I will..... I will take all the 1760X1320 pictures down of my site...... (and feel ashamed to the end of my days that I had them up to begin with.........)

>>>>did your initial tests look a little soft?<<<<<

Initial? Nope. They are all soft! But you did not notice!

>>>>>This could be the fly in the.......<<<<<

....or the spider?.... who knows?......

why do he clips look so bad Dan? what is causing that?