Hey Quyen, are you going to offer an updated version with faster motor and a better achromat to correct the weak points and make it work properly?

Yes, it's on the way, thanks for asking.

Quyen

Good to know. You should give it a different name like maybe letus35B or something. So people will know they are buying a second generation and improved product.

Got my 1.8 FD S.C. Canon lens today (not the 1.4 I wanted, but I will have to wait). Just patiently waiting on the Letus35 to test it out!

Yes, it has the new name and it's Letus35A like somebody has suggested, thanks.

Quyen

I'm not sure what Jonathan meant by "bayonet mount," myself. But the G35 as was shown in pics doesn't have a proprietary mount. It has a threaded mount that screws into the front of the XL-2 lens where a filter would go. It sounds like G35 guys may have a mount that is threaded on the camcorder side, and bayonet on the other, where the G35 tube mounts up. But if you are looking to replace the XL-2's lens I think you are out of luck (I hope Jonathan sees this thread and clears this up).

I don't know whether you're clear on the whole "35mm lens and GG" concept but you must have a lens on your camcorder which is filming an image projected onto a piece of ground glass (or fresnel, wax screen, focusing screen, or what have you). The camcorder is not filming through the ground glass so to speak, it is filming the ground glass itself. The camcorder is focused very close up. Imagine holding a 1.5" LCD monitor in front of your camcorder and filming that; this is what is going on with these adapters - you're filming a small image right in front of your camcorder.

So if you eliminate the XL-2's lens, the camcorder has no way to focus on the ground glass. If you are looking to eliminate the XL-2's already long lens, it would have to be replaced with some other lens.

The reason these adapters are as long as they are, between the ground glass and the camcorder, is that camcorders can't zoom in on the ground glass while having the ground glass be in focus. Minimum close focus on the models in question (XL-2, DVX, FX-1, Z1U, etc), while zoomed in on the GG, is still a couple inches away or so.

How about the condensor? Do you feel it's up to the task of HD?

D'oh!!!
 

I don't know whether you're clear on the whole "35mm lens and GG" concept but you must have a lens on your camcorder which is filming an image projected onto a piece of ground glass (or fresnel, wax screen, focusing screen, or what have you).


Okay, I'm a little red in the face (embarrased) and a little enlightened. I think somewhere in the back of the walnut rattling around inside my head I knew that but was missing the too obvious piece of the puzzle and causing confusion.
I do understand the concept of how it works but for whatever reason was eliminating the lens and thinking the adapter mounted directly to the camera, which, yes, is impossible without a lens behind the adapter.
Guess I got a little too excited about shedding weight on an already heavy
rig.
Thanks for straightening me out on that, Bill.

Sorry to turn you around again.... but... it is possible:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album24/IMGA0744
and will be available before the end of the year.

Dan, you have it mounted on a DVX100 which clearly and obviously have a lens behind the adpter, since it's a fixed lens. How is that turning Eric around?

I may have misunderstood, but I though he was referring to a CU lens (achromatic or no) not to the actual lens of the camcorder (I only know of one beheaded Z1 in the whole video kingdom). Eric? What were you referring to?

lens
 

He originally meant the canon stock lens. But when Johnathan talks about the bayonett version vs. the threaded production version, he seems to mean a system that will let the adapter snap right onto the lens hood without screwing it in. That makes for quicker use, and guarantees that the lens will end up with focus marks etc. in the right spot, but it also makes the units camera specific, which I don't like. It was confusing at first read, and I think that they should clarify that up-front because it could easily be percieved as intentional misinformation, although I do not think that it is.

Your adapter looks pretty sharp - compact too. I've heard that fresnel screens have prominent grain patterns, but I don't see it on your' tests - even the static tests. You say it doesn't need an achromat? I've read elsewhere that some cameras don't need an achromat, but if yours' works on all of them without it that would be great.

I think you mean the beheaded FX-1. That guy got the cleanest results that I have seen from any of these adapters. I wonder how much his relay system cost him. I also saw no grain, moving or otherwise. I wonder if it had anything to do with his special (sounding) oscillator.

Is there a really good macro lens that could be adapted straight to the canons and used to focus on the GG? Probably expensive if there is. But it might be worth renting for productions that require crisp detail.

Look closer. Is there on static:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A_static?full=1
vs moving:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A2?full=1

<<<<<You say it doesn't need an achromat?>>>>
No, I only said: I do not use one (or, mine does not need one)

<<<<I've read elsewhere that some cameras don't need an achromat, but if yours' works on all of them without it that would be great.>>>
So it is.
<<<<That guy got the cleanest results that I have seen from any of these adapters. I also saw no grain, moving or otherwise.>>>

He is not using a GG and the SLR lens. He replaced the camcorder lens with another lens. Not an "adapter" as usually discussed around here.
<<< ....that require crisp detail>>>
Such as this?
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album12/felix5?full=1

Yes, he's using a GG and a SLR lens. It is an adapter and it uses the very same principle of all those adapters around. How he got such great results, which is no doubt the best from all the adapters? I don't know.

Modified FX-1
 

That is correct. He did two different mods to the FX-1.

Dan, you saw the page where he just replaced the Zeiss lens with a broadcast lens. Got rid of purple fringing in the highlights for one thing. But for the other mod he is using a GG and all the relevant pieces.

Yes, and it's the cleanest, sharpest footage I ever seen from any adapter. Be it the M2, G35, Letus35 or Pico35. That footage just make all the footage from the other adapters look like Super-8 compared to 35mm film.

I was getting delusions of putting the adapter directly to the camera body on my XL2 with no lens inbetween. In my case, I tend to get a tad Myopic at times and end up overlooking the smaller, obvious details.

C'mon now you might be overstating things a tad. There has been beautiful footage from all of the above. The true difference isRthe ability to bring it to market as my man Quyen has done, and the fellas at Redrock. All of these devices are in their infancy of wide spread use, but quite a few of the DIY devices have yielded nice footage as well. But to make such a sweeping statement based on web compression, and following some of your comments in this thread, to me it sounds like....haterade. The guys you mentioned are bringing about awesome tools that when applied to a project will increase your production value ten fold. Big up to Obin, I get inspired whenever you post your footage, it always looks great.

Ok, maybe I did go too far with the super-8 remark. But the intention wasn't to put down the other adapters, but express my admiration of how sharp that DIY looked.
There sure have been many incredible footage posted from other adapters. Obin's stuff springs to mind. But, none of it matched the sharpness and clarity of that DIY. As simple as that.
Don't want to take away from any of the other adapters. It's just a "fact" and I wonder what was the guy's secret ingredient.
By the way, what’s “haterade”? Couldn’t find it in the dictionary either. Did you just make that up?

C'mon Michael! calm down, have a drink and lets talk..I for one want to see the link that shows this amazing device your talking about! coudl it be better then ours? YESS if he killed the cheapo lens on the Sony and is using good glass I bet it's WAY sharper! so, like I said SHOW ME THE LINK! ;)

I will pull the lens off our dvx at some point in time(when I get more time?)

Hey guys, I'm calm :)
What makes you think I'm not? Just because I think that DIY was sharper? Well, it was ;)
Obin, I don't know the link, but I remember a clip of a dark haired girl that was so sharp, it seemed she was about to jump out of the screen.
The link was posted here on DVinfo somewhere. That was where I saw it.

Haterade:

Noun; a fictional beverage, parodying the popular sports drink 'Gatorade', purportedly consumed by individuals who are jealous of others, supposidly fueling their ability to be jealous of, or to 'hate on', others.

Michael, you're referring to the Andromeda footage with the DIY Micro35..
Ya it looks amazing, but if you have thousands of dollars to install the Andromeda system in your DVX, then it'll look that good with a DIY micro35 :)

The letus35 will never look that good without the Andromeda...

Hmm, I see. Quite childish and high schoolish if you ask me. But, I would be jealous of what exactly? Since I could buy any of those adapters, and as I matter of fact, I most will, as soon as they mature a little more, and one of them reach it's plateau. As of now, it seems there's still lots of space for improvement. Proof being the amazingly sharp aforementioned DIY.
The Letus35 looks the most promissing, since it doesn't use the spinning GG. I'm looking forward to it's development. The SG35 is also showing signs of good development.

No, I'm not talking about that clip. As a matter of fact, the last clip Obin posted with the radio DJ, shot on theDVX100a (no andromeda) and Letus35, looks better than the Micro35+andromeda footage.
I was talking about the guy who chopped his FX-1 lens off and put a manual lens, then built his own 35mm adapter and post some clips, which were the best clips I ever saw from any adapter.

Michael

http://wave35.altervista.org/
Is this the one that you refer to?

Quyen

Yup.
 

That's the one, what do you think?

Well chop your lens off and get to shooting, cause as of now all you do is make suggestions on already functioning (and functioning well if you look at Obin's footage) devices. The wave35 is most likely beyond yours or my diy abilities, and i don't see where he is selling it or planning too. But I keep reading your posts in this thread and realize you don't even have one of these devices to compare the footage too. Unless he is selling the wave35, I don't care what he did..why?...its beyond my DIY ability although I admire his ingenuity, so in the interim we use the tools availble to us. I'm sorry if i'm reading more into your writing tone than I should be, but it sounds like your shi**ing on these guys good works.

I have to give much praise to both Oscar and Quyen for this : they gave out their secrets early on (Oscar with his wax secrets - among countless others! - and Quyen with his pdf tutorial on how to build the Letus35). I think we forget that it is (hopefully) about 'give and take' on this forum. Without the countless help of others here first (Agus, Bob Hart, Dan for example) we would never be near where we are today. Thanks to those guys for at least that...

I have seen that stuff, I don't know why you guys are going on and on about it, it's not that sharp and it's using mpeg-2 compression! I guess the camera is using some "sharpen" on the image, maybe this is why your thinking it looks "Really sharp"?

I am not impressed

I'm relatively new to this board, and am still in the middle of trying to get a wax adaptor that doesn't need an earthquake to hide the grain -- so I do a lot of reading here.
I think Quyen's design is brilliant. Using a motor to basically shake itself and the glass automatically reduces the chances of vibration making its way down the adaptor's shell. No need for bearings and counterbalance. Perhaps, with a few adjustments, he can get more throw without having to increase voltage -- I don't know. But I have to say, I absolutely love the concept.
Where I get lost is the puported evaluation of different adapters based on 1)compressed video and 2)footage coming from cameras that range from 1-chip DVs to 3-chip HDVs (and hacked Nikon lens attachments, to boot.) How are people able to differentiate color aberrations created by optics vs. compression vs. camera chip design? Is it just a matter of who comes to the table with the best looking footage? Doesn't seem to be a fair comparison of adaptors, to me.
I suppose if all the adapters wishing to be reviewed could be shot using a common camera, at a common test chart, there would at least be some consistency there (assuming footage is loaded up raw). Maybe the Wave35 inventor could put the Letus35 (with the Obin Mod) on his hacked HDV camera, and see if he can get rid of the vignetting?
I used to think I knew something. Now, I just read in awe.
G

I just saw the DVX100 test footage, and I must say, I am really impressed.

for the price, this is definately worth it. We can only wait and see (like every adapter) until more test footage comes out.

Also, a question:

I read that it's a half a pound and doesn't require a rod/support system. Eventually though, would the weight of the adapter slowly harm the camera? Would the DVX be able to support sufficiently without harm?

Thanks

I feel it needs a rod system to support it

Lloyd,

Since we may be minutes away from each other:

Why don't you give me a call 604-780-1818, bring your DVX, mount my image converter on my rods support system and leave with some test footage. Compress it on your own, grab some frames from the footage and post your unbiased results here. I have a few Nikkors lying around to choose from.

I can offer you a few different GG choices (aside from Beattie focusing screen) to see the difference first hand and have footage from all choices: rotating and shaking of the above choices. I also have a few rez charts, but if you have some, bring them over. Anytime bro.

Hey Dan...why don't you umm....send that bad boy on down to me....i'll uuh use it for (2 or 3 features...cough) and give a review;)

Hey Greg, first, chill dude. :D
As a potential customer, I have the right to compare and criticize any new products coming to the market, and I'm sure all of the manufacturers know that and knew even before they brought them out, or they wouldn't do it. Because if you are not prepared to take criticism, you can't fight your way out there in today's tough market.

I don't have too. I will buy a HD100 ;)

Only 2-3 features? No MV? No MOW? No shorts? Nothing for festivals?
ummmmm.... slim Greg, very slim...

but you know what? I'll have it on my page by this evening (I hope) and I am accepting orders. If you order it now, you'll have it before X-mass (and once you order, you'll access all <<unpublished on my site>> tests, so you can SEE first hand the diff between all "dis an'dhat")

Obviously, same warranty. Not happy, send it back within 7 days for full refund. How's dhat?

Just in case you want to know more, you’ll be able to SWITCH DIFFERENT SCREENS (taste.. lighting conditions, etc) AND ADJUST the amplitude of the movement (not only the speed) to your likeness.
(circular only, elliptical motion discontinued, sorry)

Well, the low light clips don't look all that impressive. But that close up on the girl looks incredible. Yes, it's using MPEG2, so one more reason it looks impressive.
Having said that, your footage with the Letus35 looks great too. That guy shot HDV. Maybe if you use your Letus35 with a HDV camera it will look better? You seem to be getting great results out of your Letus35, but we will most likely never be able to repeat it, as you are not really sharing anything concrete about your set up or the macro you are using.

Oh boy Christmas comes to Gregs hous'e early. Letus on my Canon/and the Mighty on my DVX. Or HVX, or Xl H1.

I made the same mistake I criticize Giroud yesterday for; stick to the topic of the thread.
Sorry Quyen. Gev, post on "new moving....", please.