I can not upload clips over 2M on my site. In avi, that would be a very short time and it does not take them in avi. I will export something in avi on that free share thing. I'll post the link.

http://rapidshare.de/files/903215/web_demo.avi.html
27Mb, 7?-8? seconds

OK,...
200 readers from post to post, 14 downloads (less mine) and no comments. Does any of the 14 that saw the clip care to share impressions?

Dan I checked it out. I see some camera shake, but that doesn't matter - i know it's a test. What does matter is that your footage looks great. If I had the money, I'd buy your thang.

Thanks Steev,
If I'd had a "thang", I wouldn't sell it (whatever zeat is) lol...
...long day... I am pushed to do it for HD (Z1 and F900) others R saying "make a movie"..... to show what can be done.... I sink I'll make it for Z1 and shoot something ....(or someone....lol)....looong day........

Heh. You know I mean no disrespect towards your device. I think it's the best thing around besides the P+S. Long day here too..

zzzzzzzzzzz

I know Steev, I know....
if you (or anyone else reading/replying) would have half the fun I have on this great forum, you'd live ten years longer....... trust me on zeat.

I think your Zeat is like my Voot. And this could signify the end of the thread. What more is there to say?

VOOT

well...how about further comments on the sample clip? Obin? Les? Sarena? Frank? anyone? Still not good enough? Roughly 200 reader from post to post out of which only 23 have seen the clip. Are the others not interested? slow internet? If that is the case, what am I to expect...... But those that SAW the clip and do not care to share their impressions.......
oh well... you were right Steev.

i have to say that i m most impressed by your footage than the "micro 35" ones from that "the ancien" film posted on the micro 35 forum.
the only thing that bother me is that vibrating sound haha.
But maybe one of the best "test" footage i ve seen for an adapter.

Dan, the clipped looked pretty good, but it's getting hard for me to evaluate WebCam resolution footage these days. :-)
You never responded to my concern about the image shifting laterally as the groundglass focusing screen moves. If you take any simple lens of any kind and form an image on a piece of paper, then move the lens sideways a little, the image on the paper moves as well. Perhaps you are only moving it a fraction of a millimeter, which doesn't blur the already blurry DV image? Your two megapixel image seem to be fairly sharp, however. Comments?

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : well...how about further comments on the sample clip? Obin? Les? Sarena? Frank? anyone? Still not good enough? Roughly 200 reader from post to post out of which only 23 have seen the clip. Are the others not interested? slow internet? If that is the case, what am I to expect...... But those that SAW the clip and do not care to share their impressions.......
oh well... you were right Steev. -->>>

Thanks Jeremie, the sound is from on board camera mic and does not concern me for the purpose. When I will shoot something "for real" and NEED the sound, I will use a boom operator or wireless lavaliere. Otherwise, this whole contraption is an imaging device. With the GG static (without the buzz)I heard (at playback) the lens movement and other noises that are not available when shooting just video. Please note that some camcorders have AUX mic and have configured the mic mount as far and isolated from the camera body (and their tape moving mechanism is pretty damn quiet (but still!) What do you expect when a fly fights a spider?.....
Les. When did the Web Cam came to play? I used the same GS200 as always. If that was a joke, then :-)<
>>>If you take any simple lens of any kind and form an image on a piece of paper, then move the lens sideways a little, the image on the paper moves as well.<<<<
True.
But my lenses do not move sideway (relative to camcorder). They only go in and out as I roll focus. I am not shaking the lens Les!
As for the screen, if I was to move it 5 or 10mm or 50mm sideways, or even rotate it as a spinning CD, the image from the lens will still appear in the very same spot, relative to the SLR lens AND the camcorder's lens, so..... how much the screen moves, round or elliptical is not relevant. As long as the movement is PLANE, and the camcorder points to the back of the lens at all times nothing changes (except you see a motion blur of the grain instead of individual grains) How is your device coming together anyway?

Dan,
Maybe I'm under the false impression that the focusing screen fresnel component is acting like a lens, specifically similar to a condenser lens. Isn't the type of focusing screen , you are using doing some kind of lens function? I didn't mean that you were moving the actual camera lens. Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side? I guess that's the heart of the matter, optically speaking.
I'm joking when I say WebCam! I use the term loosely to describe WebCam resolution. (Regular SD resolution)

-Les

>>>Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side?<<<
Yes, that what it is.
I am moving on to HD for that's where the money is. PD, DVX....... gs... good enough but.. times are changing and so must we.
The SD market does not pay/need this quality (beyond hobby level). HD pro summer will get jobs available only for today's pro cameras due to increased quality and shrinking budgets. No-budget-indie-work is fun but still no-budget. No point in pursuing it (imo)

Hey Dan, finally a full resolution clip! Very nice!

Thank you for the time you took to download it (must have been a pain) Glad you like it. More 2 come (in HD where available, hehehe..;-)<

Dan, care to offer any theories on why the apparent resolution is not reduced because of the condenser lens moving sideways?
You do agree that moving a condenser lens sideways moves the image it creates, correct? Theoretically blurring the image.
If we just don't know , and it works, so be it! But it's interesting to analyze in an armchair way!

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : >>>Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side?<<<
Yes, that what it is.
-->>>

Dan. You know i love your system.

It goes without saying ;)

Thank you Frankie. Me too, but wait and read.
(Les, I can not hold the whole class while you run from school after the first lessons to package the new "toy" and make it avail for less than $500. It would not be fair to them). The on-line manual is still there if you would only bother to learn:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album07/brightness_test_of_four_screens.wmv
(hmmm.....I must have heard that line before...)

New chapter (as if is not enough already!):

Scenario 1:
A person stands (fashion show? or whatever)
Wide angle lens, distance to actor 2-3ft. Lens (camera) is squared to his face, however we can also see the feet in the shot, all sharp (similar to door lens view)
Camera changes perspective (crane down) from his face to his belt and stops. In the frame, his head (top of the frame) and his feet(bottom) all sharp. All of a sudden, it all goes SOFT except his belt. Then:

a) He walks away/towards camera. Focus follows him (well, the belt) Nothing else is sharp
b) While static, focus rolls from belt to head, shoes and back to belt, while camera is leveled to his belt and does not pan nor tilt.

Scenario2:
Dog walks on the sidewalk. Camera is squared to dog, dolly-ing from the street.
Wide angle lens all sharp. Same thing happens:
a) Dog's head remains sharp, all the rest goes soft.
b) Dog stays sharp (head to tail) all the rest goes soft.

Wouldn't that be swell?...Horizontal or vertical roll of focus on the same plane... open a whole new field of possibilities? How many would use such “thing”? Well… if the feature is there and all you have to do is turn some knobs (or push some buttons), I bet ALL will turn them and explore. One’s imagination is his own limit.
Hint. Something like this :
http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/pcstrtl.jpg
would not do. Medium and large format photography are the only ones (I know of) that mess with the focal plane. Nothing (that I know of) in video/MP for obvious reasons.
It has been bugging me for the last two days, so I had to get it out.
You must have figured it out by now….

Dan,
I don't think you really know the answer to the question I'm asking. That's OK. As for the $500 toy, the only unknown part of manufacturing such a device is how to make the groundglass move without undesired motions in the wrong axis. I've already shown I can do that successfully.I'm just posing a question to those who are interested in the science behind why something works or doesn't work , optically. It makes no difference in manufacturing this device or not. It's not holding me up in any way. Building a new film scanner for my business is occupying most of my time these days. Your video only shows that the focusing screens include a built-in lens. fabulous.

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Thank you Frankie. Me too, but wait and read.
(Les, I can not hold the whole class while you run from school after the first lessons to package the new "toy" and make it avail for less than $500. It would not be fair to them). The on-line manual is still there if you would only bother to learn:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album07/brightness_test_of_four_screens.wmv
(hmmm.....I must have heard that line before...)
-->>>

Les,
With all due respect, I would rather email you instead of posting here all that. Let's talk. I do not have your email, but mine is there on the website. Email me.
There is no reference to your work other than a clip a while ago. Not enough to convince me.
>>>Dan,
I don't think you really know the answer to the question I'm asking<<<<
Nope. (I would prefer to refrain from being caustic again)
I have a lot to learn and I have since reading on this forums(not only technically but also to control my reactions and to refrain from posting under impulse!)
But in this very narrow field on which I have spent 9 (nine) months full time, I think I have a slight time advantage.
I did not withhold my findings, I made them public on my site free for all interested. End result? I can see it now.... (wrong move)
Oh well.... derz only one way to learn........

"A person stands (fashion show? or whatever)
Wide angle lens, distance to actor 2-3ft. Lens (camera) is squared to his face, however we can also see the feet in the shot, all sharp (similar to door lens view)
Camera changes perspective (crane down) from his face to his belt and stops. In the frame, his head (top of the frame) and his feet(bottom) all sharp. All of a sudden, it all goes SOFT except his belt. "





Wow. In a way that imitates the way we perceive/view the world. We see a picture and then decide to see the one thing we really want within that picture. In cinema we usually use a tighter shot to simulate that.

However with this system it's subtler in a way, thus a director can guide the audience to the right 'thing' within the frame. I think that's great and I’ve been thinking about it for some time.

Jane Campion (The Piano) made a movie called 'In The Cut'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199626/
In this movie she obviously used a compositor to blur out sections of the screen so that the audience could focus on what she thought was important.


We now have the 'why'. Have we got the 'do'??

Can you do this Dan?

You nailed it right on the head Frank.
Focus (aside from brightness) is where the attention/eyes go/es in every scene. The viewer seeks: bright, sharp and then composition (knowing or no)

>>>>In cinema we usually use a tighter shot to simulate that<<< via the long and beaten path of sooo desired narrow DOF of long lenses.

However, this time we are dealing with a "new animal" (mystic if you wish) that will DELIVER narrow DOF on WIDE lens (as well as other lenses). On top of that (as if is not enough already) will selectively show sharp only a vertical (or horizontal) strip of the frame, with all elements in the frame at the same distance from the camera. TA-DAAA.....

Let's first expand the first two "clichés":
This time we have a girl laying on a bed nude face up (nop, not an XXX movie, but a commercial to a skin lotion)
Camera on a dolly (wide format) tracks from knees(camera right) to head (camera left(left part of the frame))
HOWEVER: focus stays on the belly button/hand applying the lotion, tracking with the camera (in sink) from the very left side of the frame (where the hand enters frame and is the only thing sharp) and rolls in the frame from L to R till the end of the shot (when the head is camera left and BB/hand applying the lotion is SHARP camera right)
You have been shown "everything" but you only saw what you were supposed to see (although ALL was there all the time...) Perhaps not the best example of the overwhelming possibilities, but anyway a hint.

Yes, I can do it. How long to have it? dono. How much? dono. Worth it? you tell me.
I have some other cute ideas that would go with it and complement this works, but I have to chew them first (and if I don't chock, I'll make them public (as usual) Other comments? Interesting enough? Or back to... "drawing board"?

I'm not sure what you are talking about Dan. Can you elaborate? What type of device and what would it do? It's, of course, very hard to get shallow DOF with a wide lens so I'm not sure I'm following...

For all's sake read this page again. Start from the fourth post down.

Ok read through it again and I think I understand now.

You wouldn't be able to do the belt shot with this sort of setup though a tilt lens will certainly affect the areas in focus but to have area both above and below a certain point, all of which are in the same plane be out of focus while retaining focus in the center is not possible (not with a lens that is at least). This seems to be something more suited to post production IMO.

I give up

damn

What do you mean Dan?

Sorry guys, I'm not trying to be annoying or anything :(

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Something like this :
http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/pcstrtl.jpg
would NOT do.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I've seen this sort of thing done a synchronized iris/shutter pull. Exposure stays constant, but depth of field increases or dimishes. You need a good amount of light though.

Fair enough. Is the synchronization between aperture and shutter speed on MP cameras. Start with aperture 2 and shutter angle of..let's say 20 degrees and as the shot progresses, the aperture closes to 11 (or 16) while the shutter angle opens to 172 or 180 (to compensate the exposure).

But that is NOT what I was aiming at.

In very short:

Wide lens squared to a wall. Resolution chart is sharp in the whole frame.
Now, to obtain a STRIPE of sharp section in the frame (horizontal or vertical) anywhere in the frame (left, center, right or top/bottom) and be able to ROLL that stripe in the frame from left to right (or from top to bottom).
Subsequently, a whole sharp frame can turn to a stripe to guide and focus viewer's attention to a detail.
All this while the GG is dancing with wolves.

This is in very short what I was mumbling in the previous posts.
It must have been very confusing since I have introduced a dolly and movement in the shot.
It can be done. Worth it? you tell me.

Would be interesting...of course, with DI's becoming the norm, might be easier to work something like this in post. Been seeing plenty of ramp shots being effected by shooting all at 150 fps and pulling frames as needed (bit of a bone to those of us who have invested in a Preston F/X unit!)

I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion. -->>>

Maybe I'm a little better in post than you are because to me I'd much rather do that effect in post than on the set. It's an easy post effect to do and you'd have much more precise control... plus you could throw in subtle color corrections to match the mask etc. Render time isn't a big issue on type of thing. It's not rendering 3D objects or anything.

My advice is stick with the high quality shallow depth of field and focusing stuff. That's not easy to do in post (rotoscoping or blue screen) and A LOT of people want to use it all the time on every shoot. :-)

I think you should use your considerable ingenuity to figure out how to outsource the manufacturing so you don't need to make very much per unit because you're not spending ANY time making any units. In the end, that'll be a lot more profitable, IMHO. It may be the only way to make money on all the work you've done. You should be fishing or inventing new things while this one is being made, sold and shipped.

I do not know how "easy" is to do it in post. I know little about video editing. Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.

As for outsourcing and such, I do not know the market size and how many potential customers would "see" the diff between existing products and what I have done. (I have both mini and Pro35 demo DVD's here) To get this thing out of my hair and do something else, would mean to sell the darn thing and let someone else make it happen since I do not believe in revenue based on percentage and agreements and such. So, for all the big or small fans out there, here is a ground floor opportunity. Figure out the market size, how many units could be sold at what price, talk to your rich relatives and email me if you have any good ideas. I am open and resourceful (follow focus, hothead etc)
As for fishing....been there once (when I was eight) and almost cut my veins. Patience is a VIRTUE....I do not have. *smile*

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu :
Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.
-->>>

Forgetting this specific example for the moment, I think that's a "rule" whose time has come and gone. It's still a great guideline.

I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job.

Sometimes that means getting the shot in camera because doing it in post would be incredibly time consuming and other times it means not paying 40 people to wait around 4 hours to create something on the set that would take 1 guy 2 hours in post to do.

At least I think that's what the Robert Rodriguez's out there are doing. Jelly guns, miniatures and latex one second, 3D effects the next.

>>>>I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job<<<

I could not agree more with it.
But, you still need "da shoot" for post, right? So, while all 40 pips worked hard and the set up was done, out of 6-10 takes, one or two could be done "that way" at no additional expense... (same lights, moves, set-up, etc just another take...) in which the assistant rolls another knob than the focus knob. Cost effective? Just another option anyway...(or at least a hint for post as what the director may be after...)

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : OK,...
200 readers from post to post, 14 downloads (less mine) and no comments. Does any of the 14 that saw the clip care to share impressions? -->>>

its been awhile since I checked progress on these adapters, glad to see theres been great improvement.

I realised about a while back that DV encoding and Bokeh dont really go together. In fact DV encoding is optimised for imagery with large DOF and has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh. Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble.

I am referring to the grid of pixel block artifacts as soon as the Bokeh kicks in - which I can see at 3 metre from a 32" Wega widescreen TV.

I suspect better results will be obtained with a more suitable codec to handle the Bokeh uniformly.

A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho. (unless you like the fishnet tights look)

maybe m2t will perform a lot better- uncompressed component certainly will

Thanks a lot John for bringing in the "magic word".

Although I have some samples on the site, is always inspiring to see other images.... just lovely....
Here are some of the results from goggle:

http://www.bokeh.de/en/

http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49/

>>>In fact .......trouble<<<

I humbly disagree with some portrayed results as follows:

>>> DV encoding has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh.<<<

Let us assume we do not deal with an image converter at all, but the camcorder itself, and we do not have many or any different objects in the frame but a blanket (pastel colors if need be) A good substitute for Bokeh (I would guess) According to your statement, we should see the artifacts all over this entire surface? I have seen as much as there is to see from hi rez static stills and footage both burned on a DVD on a 27" display and I am (surprisingly!!!!) happy with the results (unless I though I had my glasses and I did not!)

>>>Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble<<<
For me, (as I would prefer to continue use Premiere (and if need be Pro) yes. That is trouble. The program does not do the rotation of the image clean. However, I have done the same tests in Avid, and to my satisfaction (and bitterness I do not know it in depth) the rotated image was clean as a whistle. But I… flipped the camcorder, so.. the footage is up right (even for me as premiere boy)

>>>A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho<<<

I have no opinion on this matter. I usually split the thread in many... way tooo many.... and seek spots on the sun.(with a 9mm ;-)<!!!

HD display is still in its infancy (market size) On most TV's the HD or DV originated material will not make a diff. (hold your horses there!) I am not blind (yet), I am talking resolution only. Color rendering better, yes, ability to hold highlights, yes, many other functions, yes. But the current TVs are not capable of showing all those 600, 700 and 900 lines of resolution from a film transfer, so why bother? Are they there anyway?
But (IMHO) all that is just as useless as 24P. (hold again)
Until the TV/display will be able to flash at my eyes 24 distinct pictures in one second, all that "fuss" to shoot 24P and end up with 60 fields anyway is nothing but a "sales gimmick" that (surprisingly) has passed, has been implemented and embraced. (shake head in disbelief)
I saw it all right (24P) on HD screen. The only (and nearest IMHO motion jitter) comes from older films sold on VHS in which 1234 are original frames and the 5th is fourth repeated.
I have I robot" on DVD. I played back the movie frame by frame. I was shocked to see 30 distinct frames (while shot on film with Panavision at 24fps) ...... ............
point being:
even material originated on film 24 fps (not 24P), when played back on TV from DVD shows 30 frames (soooo smooth like any video material) so why bother with all this nonsense (I can already hear the stake burning and the inquisition breaking my door to get me for heresy.......) but..... I'll say it again before I burn: e purr si muove....;-)<
(I am talking about GG not the earth which stands still and the sun goes around it...)

So, DV can deliver fantastic results in the right hands as well as HD could fail a less experienced shooter. Hd is not a "magic bullet" . However it is the future and the future is now. The image converter is optically ready for HD. (I still need some good glass to shoot a test though, damn!)

For a straight to DVD release, I think is just as good as the paying market it addresses.
(90% of the movies made these days are not worth the plastic support, but…hey,.... they sell. despite what I think… .aaaaargh… the inqui