The micro35 is in essence an Agus35 device.

Aaron, from James' earlier comments, I don't think he's using a rotating CD, and the design isn't quite an Agus35. James, can you correct us?

The vertical mount solution is terrible -- ergonomics look to be a pain, and beyond this, if you know the back story to Marla, you know the filmmaker hand corrected -- frame by frame -- a lot of the movie in Photoshop. Doesn't seem practical, really.

- jim

Re: OBIN
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Bellaire : Dude I hate to say this but I would never experiment on a project that has any importance to me.. Sorry but you might want to consider figuring out another way to save the project by shooting at telephoto and wide open with the aperture or just shooting normal and adding a few effects in post.. I would also never try to do or sell a service to someone without knowing what my equipment can do.. As for this adaptor I serious doubt you will have the time to get the unit, learn how to shoot a new style with the image backwards and upside down and also learn new lighting techniques by the time James has a complete unit for you… sorry for the bad news. But it seems to be the truth about production. -->>>

Craig..chill bro..I have and use an adaptor on everything I shoot nowdays..the problem is it's a homemade very crappy design and it sucks..if this unit that James is working is even 2% better then mine I will be happy.... I have no need to "Learn how to shoot a new style" as I have been doing this for months..and BTW the footage you get from a "mini35" or homemade GG adaptor is AMAZING!! MOST people I deal with on a professional level can't tell it's video when we use good lighting dolly and 24p..it really is amazing!


"Budgeting for the mini35"
I would LOVE to do this but with a budget of $4,000 for a REALLY nice "National" level spot with actors I can't afford that option...sometimes I think I am CRAZY...

stir the pot
 

I didn't mean to stir the pot to much but many people with little production experience expect to grab a DOF Machine/Micro35 adaptor and start shooting tomorrow... The fact that James device is not quite out yet, but IS coming out and the price seems to get people very anxious, to do just this…Run and Gun… Seems like you have been doing for a bit and I just would hate for anything to go wrong on a shoot for anyone… WHY because I’ve have had it happen to me with different / new equipment and I just didn’t know how to use it before the shoot... and yes either I messed up the shoot or I looked very silly as a professional selling a product while I searched through the menu on a camera while 10 people are looking at me....

As for the image... maybe I didn’t state it correctly…

I believe Left to Right will be opposite and top and bottom will be opposite as well... But as James stated there is a possible fix for one or the other…

I appreciate all of your input. I did not realize it was an Agus35. I also VERY much appreciate the input from Jim, I was actually leaning more towards the Vertical Mount (this will be my first Mini35), yet you have very valid points.

I also realize that I appear to be "Running and Gunning", when really the reality of the it is I would like it ASAP to actually start to build it and get the hang of filming with it. I have a really flexible filming schedule, yet it would be ideal of I could get the hang of it a while before the shoot so that I do not have the 10 people staring at me :-).

Regards,
Josh

My advice to you would be to build a device based around Richard Mellor's "parts list" thread -- it's not the cheapest, but it is the easiest to build, and of a fairly high quality. You could use the glass he suggests, or grind your own with WAO5 and a 49mm UV filter -- which would take some more time, but would have potentially finer grain. When the time comes, if you choose, swap the ground glass out with a micro wax version for an even better image.

All this would mean you could be up and shooting in a couple of weeks, tops -- less than one week if you have the money to have things shipped rapidly.

- jim

Site Update!

Well, I've finally come out of the garage from a week of solid progress. I made a huge discovery with the way the adapter mounted on the rails. The height wasn't correct. Now the adapter has been flipped to accommodate the proper rail height. Although, I've got to delay the guide a few more days to update the drawings accordingly.

I've also added a Bogen/Manfortto mount for the rail setup. This should make it nice when dismounting the camera.

I should be finishing up the GG tests tomorrow and should have them posted tomorrow evening.

Here are some pics from the first article of the 'Pre-Assembled' unit.

www.micro35.com/new1.jpg
www.micro35.com/new2.jpg
www.micro35.com/new3.jpg
www.micro35.com/new4.jpg
www.micro35.com/new5.jpg


james

it´s lookin awesome! i can´t wait to put my hands on it! it will be so great improvement for recording anything!

Relax, relax... Im getting anxious!

Dark Pictures
 

Yes I am also exited, but the pictures are very dark... WHY? Well either you don't want people to see exactly what the device looks like or you think a dark contrast picture looks professional... either way the pictures are way to dark... Sorry

Looks good, James.

The height you corrected for---is that for just the DVX, as in your new photos? I see how your gadget adjusts front-to-back, on rails. Have you allowed for various lens-center heights, too?

Specifically, have you designed to accommodate the XL2?

Okay, now I am more confused. I thought since it is moveable (sliding up and down on the rail) it was compatible for most cameras. I have an Sony XL2000 that I would like to use on this adapter.

Regards,
Josh

I asked about the XL2 design compatibility because Canon changed their lens-center height a tad from the XL1/s, and the P+S Technik Mini35 folks had to release a kit to mate to it.

I can't see more than front-to-back adjustments in James's design, but suspect these adjustments---on 3 axes: left-to-right, front-to-back & up-&-down---are relatively simple to allow for in manufacture.

Hi James,

I'd love to see some stills or footage from a normal or wide lens. Could you try to shoot something with such lenses, or do you only have access to that 75-300mm telephoto lens?

Joel,
The beginning of the Horse footage (The Statue) used a Sigma 24-70 lens.

THe adapter will work on all the cameras mentioned, it just requires some tweaking on the rail setup. If I can get my hands on another camera (XL2) I'll make sure the rail setup is adjustable for those as well.

Res footage going up tonight...

nice!

Re: Dark Pictures
 

<<<-- WHY? Well either you don't want people to see exactly what the device looks like or you think a dark contrast picture looks professional... either way the pictures are way to dark... Sorry -->>>

Or he's hiding subliminal messages in the shadows!

Or his monitor is less contrasty or a lot brighter than yours and they look fine to him. New2 and new3 look fine on my screen. I'm on LCD's which are more contrasty than my old CRT.

Overall looks pretty good to me... we'll know a lot more when a handful of people get them built.

http://www.micro35.com/resolution_tests.htm

the ground glass 40 looked good to me!

It is a moving GG, I think I see a switch on the back of it in the newest pictures. My guess it is a vibrating head of some kind like a shearers or something, because it looks too narrow to be a CD.

"If I can get my hands on another camera (XL2) I'll make sure the rail setup is adjustable for those as well."

Thank, James. I'd volunteer my XL2, but I'm in LA. Worse comes to worst, you might rent one for a day. And please do post here when you've worked out the XL2 fitting.

I have several thousand more questions (to quote an old movie), but I'll wait to see your how-to-build guide before I ask them.

Also, I am really digging those SLR mounts that you got - they really enhance the look and obviously stability of the piece!

James, the chart examples at your website are a big help. In the photos, the ground-glass labeled "60" looks sharpest, but only by a very slight amount. I'm wary of making a buy decision based on online images.

I'd have a much easier time judging your gadget if you were able to burn your results to a demo disc. What would you charge for that?

John,
With the overwhelming response for units and guides, I won't have the time to setup a DVD at this point. I've had several offers to produce a DVD, so I may end up taking one of them up on it.

It seems that the 40 has gotten the most votes with 60 coming in second. Since 40 was the bottom of the samples, I'll probably have the glass company make a 10 and 20 for some tests. Considerable light was saved using the 40. I'm curious on the 10 and 20 now.

Compared to the DVX only shots, I'm very excited about the results of the adapter.

Thanks all for your responses!

James, do the numbers in the ground-glass names correspond to any feature (e.g., dimensions, smoothness, light dispersion or transmission)? Or are they just identifiers, like stock numbers?

Identifiers from the glass company.

Probably a setting on the machine...

The 40 takes less light away and gives more options to black and grey. But i was surprise with the DIY one! It looks amazing and i would think is even better than the 80.

The only problem is the sharpness. But i think is not a big one considering it was a chart test and not a video footage with movements and fast changing conditions. Is this a focus problem or it really takes the sharpness away? because it can help to smooth some wrinkles and skin tones (like light bruises and hair spots ;-) ) and eliminate this video crispiness that show more detail than the wanted.

Nice ones indeed. I love it. I started to imagine for a second how the following generations will be or the cameras wich are going to be wearing this adapter (like the Z1...) and my smile is reaching my ears...

Some people will say if you are going to have the Z1 go for the mini, but it looks their value is far overpriced as the micro will have better relation value for the money. (forgive my mistakes; its just the time, i need some sleep)

By the way, no Z1 nor anything till i see what happens in NAB. Probably dealers are going o be swimming in cameras till then...

Thanks Ivan. I'm sleepy too and the couple of beers aren't helping either.

I admit, the DIY is amazing. But there is a slight hint of rotation at the top of the color bar. The machine made GGs don't exhibit this problem. This could have been the way I made the DIY gg. It was a little 'over-done' if you will. (Not to mention in rolled and bounced around in my garage several times....)

If you compare the DVX shots with the others, the sharpness isn't bad. But you're right, this is what gives it that film look by removing that hard sharp video look. And there are many positive side-effects as you mentioned as well. Just remember, these shots are compressed .jpgs AND no color correction has been done.

When the production footage comes in, I truly believe that everyone will stop questioning the visual characteristics of the adapter.

I think it's up to the filmmaker's vision and talent at this point.

DOF is no longer a problem. Go shoot something!

james

**EDIT**
After editing some images from a (still) photo shoot last week, I've noticed that the Sigma 24-70 shoots soft images compared to my other Canon lens. So I'm sure the lens plays a big role in the sharpness.

hmmm...how can the DVX LCD not be upsidedown in that shot??I bet you took the LCD apart and flipped it!!!

And I feel so stupid for never thinking of this!!!

I didn't take anything apart...

James how did you get the image to be right side up? Use the nature of a short focal length to flip the image?

It looks good. I voted for the 40. It looks like you are loosing about 100lines of res which isn't too bad (520 on the DVX vs approx 420 with the adapter on).

Looks good. I voted the 40.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : James how did you get the image to be right side up? Use the nature of a short focal length to flip the image? -->>>


Never heard of the magnet trick?

As far as I know, the magnet trick works only on some flip-out LCDs.

James, is this is how you worked around an inverted image? l can't do that with my XL2's viewfinder ...

You can mount the XL2 viewfinder on the opposite side, hence flipping the viewfinder. Then the image will display correctly. Not perfect, but workable. This is assuming the micro35 design is not using prisms and whathaveya to correct the image (I don't think it is). Other methods would be modifying a LCD viewfinder to mount upside down or use a monitor on set to do the flip.

However, I'm not sure when a micro35 solution for the XL2 might be available anyway.

Thoughts?

Can someone post a link to a good resolution chart to shoot?
preferably one with resolution targets or stripes.
thanks!
-Les

Les, try this:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/#EIA1956

if we purchase the guide, will we have access to buy pre fabbed parts from you without buying one of the kits? like buying the macro, GG, rail mount etc.. i noticed the rail mount looks machined, and some of us wont be able to get that quality look without a mill.

Thanks

Wing,
Yes. You'll have access to those parts.

By the way, no machining has been done. Not even on the rails.


Got stickers coming!

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Provost : Les, try this:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/#EIA1956 -->>>

Those look useful. Is there a link to the res target James used, to keep things consistent ? We should have a common test target I would think. One with resolution patterns.
-Les