Letus35 Sony HDR-FX1 sample footage
 

I tossed this together rather quickly so I didn't label each cut on the video. This is how it breaks down:

- No 20x macro attached, from here on the macro is attached.
- Simple test on my driveway
- Side by side with Letus35 on the left and no adapter on the right
- On the basketball court cuts I used a shutter of 60 and 90. With 90 there was more loss of light but personally I liked the movement better.
- Camera's zoom pulled out to show how much you have to zoom in. Also the adapter is off and then turned on to show how much the grain disappears.
- Close up with sun on subject
- Showing off some DOF on both fenses
- More DOF showing off on piece of wood, grass and concrete

Lens used: Nikon DX 3.5-5.6G 18-55mm ED

Color-corrected, sharpened, deinterlaced, resized to 640x360 and Xvid compression
- Right Click, Save As

We watched the footage on the TV you see in the video, which is a 50inch Samsung HDTV. It looked good on there. The grain wasn't distracting but the 180 flip was, nothing we could do about that.

My problems as of right now are I need non-DX lenses to test with. They are made for digital SLRs not 35mm film so maybe with non-DX lenses I would fill up the frame more with less distortion on the sides. I think the distortion is from the macro filter though.

There were 2 or 3 dust/dirt spots I need to take care of.

The adapter probably drops the light down 2 stops while the lens I was using was 3.5 to begin with. This isn't a proper lens to test with. I'll try to pick up some manual 1.8 lens next week or so.

This was only a quick simple test of tossing everything together. I'll do another test this weekend on a more sunny day and post the results.

doesnt seem to download for me, kyle.

Wayne.

Problems here aswell...

yeah his link is wrong, i hope your dont mind me correcting it:

http://www.flmpro.com/letus35/LETUS3...ED_xvid_02.avi

OK, the footage looks nice, but there is alot of colour seperation i see going on there, any comments on that?

Wayne.

There was a space in the VBcode, fixed now but it seems my hosting is taking a break for the moment. Should be up and about in a min.

It is, and it's awful! I have the same problem with my M2 when using a 1" spacer. Without the spacer the distortion dissapears. You were not user a spacer, were you?

Hopefully other FX1 users can chime in on this distortion and if it happened with their setup.

Wow, I had no idea you had to zoom in THA MUCH into the adapter to get the image right! This is not good news at all. Did any one try one of these to solve the problem: http://www.adorama.com/HYCU1055.html...2010&item_no=1

Maybe with one of these between the camera and the adapter you wouldn't have to zoom in that much. I'd really like to know, because I'm waiting for my Letus35 my self...and I want to be prepared.

Rafa

There is distortion on the Letus35 by default it appears. The glass that comes with the unit has some distortion in it and by adding on my macro, it just increases.

No spacer but if you can use the M2 without a spacer, why bother with it in the first place? Did you lose anything by not using one?

I can see the edges of my lens (Nikon 50mm f2.0) because of light falloff in certain situations. That could be resolved by zooming in on the image element, which you can do when you add a spacer. But that causes distortion in the setup with a FX1E. Supposedly the people who shot their feature film "Bus Girl" with a ZU1 and a M2 had problems too but used a spacer and solved their problem. But almost all (as far as i know) the FX1 users on the M2 forum removed their spacer because of distortion problems - some more severe than others.

I've also ordered a Letus35, and it's no good news to hear there's this sort of distortion. I hope there's a simple solution to it.

Here are a few nice examples of the M2 with the FX1E. Did some CC, a 180 flip and contrast/brightness adjustments.

http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...29_Marieke.wmv

http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...Draaien.wmv&s=

http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...os.wmv&s=black

Distortion
 

I'm testing Letus35A now with PD-150. Mucho distortion.
It seems a choice between distortion and color abberation. Good luck. Distortion can be corrected in post. I know it's no fun, but it can.
I'm going to do some modifications on my Letus before I post any results.

Groeten uit Antwerpen, trouwens.

What kind of modifications?

Gegroet, zuiderbuur!

Mods
 

What kind of modifications? Just making it steady. I'm no Olson so it takes some time.

And while I'm at it, I'm having my lenses cleaned.

That's it! I've had it! From now on I will put images where my mouth is.

Some HD test footage from my HD10u--

Nothing much to look at, because I was just fooling around at the time, and I can't take any more footage until I receive the replacement GG from Quyen, sorry.

Since I suck at it, this isn't color corrected.

Screenshot 2.67 MB
H.264 Compressed Video 41.3MB

If you're looking at this anywhere from 8:00PM to 8:20PM EST, the movie probably hasn't finished uploading yet.

After seeing all this I'm crapping my pants. I've ordered the Letus35A for my Z1E. not looking forward to it now.

I'm really hopping that since my Gl2 has a 58mm (same as letus35) I won't have that much problem...but it sucks to hear that it doesn't work very well with 72mm, because I was planning to buy 2 more for a couple of ag-dvx100. Well, gotta wait and see.

I'm concerned too now.... I ordered one last week.....

I don't think the distortion problem is camera related or at least not that much. I believe the SLR lens that Kyle shot with is 18-55mm lens and it has some degree of distortion on it's own because of wide angle. I don't say my adapter has no distortion but if you have problem with distortion, when placing the order, you should say distortion is your concern, then I will make it to the minimum for you. Thanks.

Quyen

Great news Quyen , for those people out there. I think we forget that out of all of the adpaters so far, Quyen seemed to have produced the best image for the lowest price which is something awesome. Again, Quyen is just beginning the foray in the world of DIY 35 - give him 6 months and he'll be P+S direct competition!

I agree, and I still have high hopes for it. Even with its' problems I still think most (not all) of the footage I've seen looks way better with the adapter than with out it (specialy the one shot with the vx2100).

Yes, the shots with the lens at 18mm has major distortion because that is just how the lens is at that mm.

But even when the lens is at 55mm there is some. Right off the bat Letus35 has minor distortion. I'm going to do more tests when I get the time and sun. Hopefully I can get to it this week.

I may have a way around the distortion and I will keep the lens at 50/55mm.

Where are you seeing most of the distortion?

Sorry guys - n00b here, what exactly is distortion?

I'm not a fan of diopters or condensers, most of the diopters ive seen produce a lot of chromatic abberation and condensers produce barrel distortion. Seems like probably any cheap ones (or any available retail at all?) will have that problem? I dont think ive seen a homemade adapter yet that didnt have pretty heavy abberation.

wow ben, whats wrong with yours? that picture looks terrible, looks pretty soft, perhaps you arent focused on the ground glass correctly? or maybe its just not focused well?

Oh yeah, distortion is... when the image comes out distorted? most of these adapters probably have some barrel distortion, where lines that are really straight look curved, bent outwards toward the edge of the screen. I guess the biggest sources of distortion in 35mm adapters are the condenser lens, and in general, wide angle lenses?

I bet chromatic abberation can be corrected in post too. distort the blue channel maybe? (diopters seem to give blue abberations toward the edges i think) or rebuild the scene in maya and render out new chroma channels? :P

youd likely lose resolution correcting distortion in post, since pincushioning would change the shape of the frame and youd have to digitally zoom the image so your frame didnt have weird curved edges.

Noah

wow, that looks pretty good for a relatively slow lens at 3.5

New lens, Nikkor 50mm 1.8

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7845/0306wt.jpg

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/305/0506xb.jpg


With Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7426/0405on.jpg

W/O Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5884/0700hd.jpg

With Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5742/0902hg.jpg

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7913/1005td.jpg

W/O Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8115/0806fb.jpg

The last shots have the HDR-FX1 zoomed out a bit. It was easier for the camera to focus on the GG. It seems the GG is a tad too close to the camera for a sharp focus. I'll play more with this theory. Also the images are gamma corrected (quickly) and slightly sharpened.

The major distortion is gone, it definitely was the DX lens I was using. Next is to figure out how to get rid of the unfocused edges because of the macro filter.

It's sure much sharper without the adapter. I like it much better without.

Then kiss DOF good-bye.

hii
 

Hello!
I don't think using a Nikon DX lens will work with a Letus. DX lenses were made for digital cameras and not for Full frame digital or film cameras.

For instance, say you fitted a DX lens to a film camera, you would get the same distortion. A DX camera takes the photo more from the middle of the frame. For instance, you would expect massive distortion with my 12-24mm DX lens, but there isn't because a digital camera crops the image off.

I checked out my Letus35 with my Nikon lenses and it appeared ok. The fast primes looked wonderful. Don't even try it with Nikon macro lenses. The depth of field is razor thin with my 105mm micro nikkor.
Jimi

I just meant it looks really soft for my tastes. It seems that the adapter basically converts your footage back to SD resolution, since it's so soft in those shots. But I have seen sharper Letus35 footage, so it might be something with your particular set up. I know it's not a thing from DOF adapters in general, since the P+S Mini35 looks really sharp with HD.

I wouldn't say SD resolution but yes it does soften the image alot. Watching the footage on my TV the footage looks pretty sharp, compared to the computer that is. I'm not sure what it is about the softness. The Letus35 footage on a PD150 looked really sharp. It could be the focusing of the FX1 to something that close or could be the GG used in my adapter. I know that the GG stops down the light a decent amount but as far as sharpness, I'll have to do other tests. Like I said before too, could be my macro filter. Too many factors involved right now to decide right away.

I know, that is what I was saying. The DX distorts the image. I forgot at first about those lenses being made just for DSLRs.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8940/0400km.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8572/0608iv.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4707/0908sr.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8319/1000ga.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/734/1106vr.jpg

I replaced the GG with another material and feel that this test is much sharper than the previous. Also the loss of light is very small. Compared to the previous GG these images are much better IMO but compared to the camera naked, they of course are not as sharp. I am not sure if you can achieve the same results of sharpness as the defaul lens. The default lens also keeps everything in focus where this 50mm lens has very selective focusing making the image look soft overall, even in sharp areas. My eyes are also trying to focus the image on a very small screen.

Out of the two problems, GG and macro filter, one is half way gone and the other needs work. Quene emailed me about a solution to the macro lens for the FX1 but I need a tad bit more information until I work on that.

theres alot of chromatic abberation that a new "close up" type glass could get rid of perhaps. then again it could be your lens.

hi kyle. do you mind sharing what material you used?

You've got it backward. You have depth of field either way, just not much when you have the adapter.

What you really meant was "kiss shallow DOF goodbye."

I did an entire shoot on Z1u with a letus 35 (yesterday) I will post some footage soon but it looks great.

Eric

I believe it is the macro filter or the default FX1 lens. I'm thinking macro filter the most. Also the edges are out of focus, that is really bothering me more than anything.

Piece of plastic with a grid pattern.

kisses

http://www.flmpro.com/samples/60mm_test.avi

My last test with the Letus35 since I'm picking up the latest flip image.

This test was with only natural light and a Nikon 60mm 2.8 lens. Once I recieve the new unit I will post alot more samples.

I spy dirt! lol...Kyle what is filtered/original? Maybe I'm just remedial and I'm missing something obvious...is that ND filter vs. non-ND? I'm confused.

Kyle.

The finer the groundglass, you may begin to get some aerial image through which will be most apparent with out of focus overbright high contrast objects in background, sort of similar I guess to halation artifact in film images. You get a hazy area around a slightly sharper but still indistinct object.

I have been getting a similar defect with a 5 micron dressed groundglass.

There may be a bit of chromatic separation there on the right portion of the image of the pumpkin. Is there a possibility that after being dismantled, the close-up/relay/macro lens has become no longer centred to the camcorder's own lens centre axis, or skewed slightly.

The plaster pot stand seems to be a bit stretched on the outer edge of the image. This suggests to me that the diameter of the close-up/macro/relay lens needs to be wider for this particular camera. You may find that if you have any zoom left, you may need to go in a little closer, perhaps sacrificing a little resolution off the groundglass in favour of being more in the centre of the relay lens to avoid the edge defect.

If the lens itself is inferior, then I would expect to see more muddied colours and chomatic separation across the whole image. Unfortunately none of you images have bright objects on the left side or upper and lower edges to enable that to be seen.

You may find that the only solutions are careful composition and lighting to stay away from the conditions which aggravate it.

Don't take too much notice of my comments as they may well send you off down a dead end.

On the left is the raw footage, the right is slightly touched up. And yes, plenty of dust speckles got in when I changed the "gg" again. The latest footage is a whole different "gg". I'm pretty happy with the replacement.

Is this concerning the older footage or the latest I posted?

I guess this is towards the older footage. The unit was probably off center because getting the unit screwed onto the camera perfectly lined up can be a pain. For simple tests I mount the adapter alittle loose instead of unscrewing and rescrewing the adapter on. (Out of context this paragraph is pretty perverted.)

There is definitely some separation from the camera by itself but with the macros used (mine and/or the unit's) they are much worse. Hopefully the latest Letus fixes this issue. I expect to have some but not as much.

No way. All comments are helpful in their own ways and I see nothing wrong with your's.