your35 35mm adapter at DVinfo.net

Mike Oveson · February 15th, 2006, 05:43 PM

I recently came across a new 35mm adapter that the builder is calling the your35. His site is here. http://homepage.mac.com/twocik23/PhotoAlbum25.html. It seems like he just built it for his own use and adapted his design from the enormousapparatus.com design. I just had a question about his design as I am very interested in building something similar.

First, his design is laid out, from camcorder lens to 35mm lens as follows: he placed two 10x macros next to the camcorder lens, then a spacer tube that held the GG, then the 35mm lens. There is obviously the camera mount and such in there but it's not pertinent to the setup. Anyway, the enormousapparatus.com design puts in a +1, +2 and +4 CU between the 35mm lens and the GG. What is the advantage of this? I'm just trying to determine what the best way to set this up would be. His image seems fine without them, but if you did use them how would it help?

Second, he used mainly 58mm components for the assembly. If I were to use 72mm components instead of the 58mm components would I have more light transmission and less light fall-off? I only ask because the DVX has a filter size of 72mm and I figure if you're using larger components it will let more light in. Like I said, I've never built one of these and I'm just trying to understand the concept. So any help with this would be great. Thanks in advance.

Ben Winter · February 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM

Ultimately Mike, the amount of light entering the lens is bottlenecked by the size of the SLR manual lens you end up using, no matter the size of the tubes/filters. Using bigger components will ensure that less light will be lost but ultimately you might end up spreading out the light you do get through, which might actually make the image darker. I'm no expert on this but this is my understanding of it. I think what really matters is that you use high-quality optical components that ensure that the path of the light remains as straight as possible.

Steev Dinkins · February 15th, 2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

Anyway, the enormousapparatus.com design puts in a +1, +2 and +4 CU between the 35mm lens and the GG. What is the advantage of this?

I found no advantage other than just having to try to get the overall length smaller. In the end, 1 single +10 Hoya and a Beattie screen was all I needed with proper distancing of parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

Second, he used mainly 58mm components for the assembly. If I were to use 72mm components instead of the 58mm components would I have more light transmission and less light fall-off?

I dunno about 58mm, but 55mm is what James and I used (and probably a lot of other people). The reason for 55mm components is because those +10 Hoya closeup lenses are relatively cheap and they work. There are no +10 72mm that I've found. And if you do find one, it's probably around $200-$350. Might as well just drop the $80 on 1 +10 Macro and about $150-$180 for a Beattie screen. The Beattie screen will most likely outperform anything else you try.

Steev Dinkins · February 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM

Here's one of the last versions before my final which I then sold after getting the MPIC.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/35mm/...Adapter_40.jpg

Matthew Wauhkonen · February 15th, 2006, 07:11 PM

What brand macro?

Steev Dinkins · February 15th, 2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Wauhkonen

What brand macro?

Hoya
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

Mike Oveson · February 15th, 2006, 09:45 PM

Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate it. I'm glad to hear that the +1, +2 and +4 components are not necessary.

Let's say I COULD find 72mm macros at a decent price for decent quality. Would it be worth it? I can see what Ben is saying in that it may just allow more space for the light to get "lost" in. But does anyone have any practical experience? Also, I apologize if I called them 58mm components before. I think they were 55mm. Anyway, I'm really glad to see that others have tried a similar design and that it has worked. Steev, do you have any footage from that adapter shown in your picture? I'd love to see how it worked for you. I was thinking of using a Nikon D3 screen for the GG. Any thoughts on this? Thanks everyone. I love how helpful this place is.

Steev Dinkins · February 15th, 2006, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

Steev, do you have any footage from that adapter shown in your picture?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=38743

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/35mm/

Note: My adapter I built has been sold, and I'm not making or selling any others. :) There are now affordable alternatives to avoid having to make your own, such as:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/
http://letus35com.temp.powweb.com/new/letus35.html

Jim Lafferty · February 15th, 2006, 11:47 PM

Just an addendum to Steev's comments about the Beattie screen -- get in touch with Bill Maxwell, of Maxwell Precision Optics -- his screen is even better than the Beattie (though not entirely good enough for a static solution).

Steev Dinkins · February 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM

And to add futher :) On this forum, many times, it's been cautioned against putting too much time and money towards a static design. I think nearly everyone who has gone down the static road has abandoned it in favor of a moving element design. Fortunately I didn't lose too much money over it, but it take a LOT of my time to figure out that static isn't good enough for me.

I just thought I'd throw that out there as well. So although the your35 and indie35 and James Webb's, and mine, etc. may seem to look awesome, the static grain will start to make you go insane. However, if you only plan to distribute tiny downscaled videos on the web, it may not matter.

Mike Oveson · February 16th, 2006, 08:05 AM

Thank you for the links to your photos/videos. That is most helpful. I agree that a static adapter is less ideal than a moving GG setup. I am wondering though, couldn't you do something similar to what Quyen did with the Letus35 and just add a small motor to vibrate the GG? Because from what I can tell, the Letus35 is basically static with a small motor to move the GG. Very similar in setup to both the U35A and the your35. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks again to everyone for the help. I appreciate it.

Steev Dinkins · February 16th, 2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

couldn't you do something similar to what Quyen did with the Letus35 and just add a small motor to vibrate the GG? Because from what I can tell, the Letus35 is basically static with a small motor to move the GG. Very similar in setup to both the U35A and the your35. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Just buy the Letus35!! Really, so much LESS trouble. :/

Mike Oveson · February 16th, 2006, 01:31 PM

Well, I'd have to agree that it would be less trouble. But time and the ability to research are two things I have. Money is not. =( I can understand your feelings about this though. I LOVED the 35mm adapter movie you made. That totally described what so many of us go through in the search for the "ultimate" adapter.

February 15th, 2006, 05:43 PM	#1
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	your35 35mm adapter I recently came across a new 35mm adapter that the builder is calling the your35. His site is here. http://homepage.mac.com/twocik23/PhotoAlbum25.html. It seems like he just built it for his own use and adapted his design from the enormousapparatus.com design. I just had a question about his design as I am very interested in building something similar. First, his design is laid out, from camcorder lens to 35mm lens as follows: he placed two 10x macros next to the camcorder lens, then a spacer tube that held the GG, then the 35mm lens. There is obviously the camera mount and such in there but it's not pertinent to the setup. Anyway, the enormousapparatus.com design puts in a +1, +2 and +4 CU between the 35mm lens and the GG. What is the advantage of this? I'm just trying to determine what the best way to set this up would be. His image seems fine without them, but if you did use them how would it help? Second, he used mainly 58mm components for the assembly. If I were to use 72mm components instead of the 58mm components would I have more light transmission and less light fall-off? I only ask because the DVX has a filter size of 72mm and I figure if you're using larger components it will let more light in. Like I said, I've never built one of these and I'm just trying to understand the concept. So any help with this would be great. Thanks in advance.

February 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM	#2
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	Ultimately Mike, the amount of light entering the lens is bottlenecked by the size of the SLR manual lens you end up using, no matter the size of the tubes/filters. Using bigger components will ensure that less light will be lost but ultimately you might end up spreading out the light you do get through, which might actually make the image darker. I'm no expert on this but this is my understanding of it. I think what really matters is that you use high-quality optical components that ensure that the path of the light remains as straight as possible. __________________ BenWinter.com

February 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM	#4
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Here's one of the last versions before my final which I then sold after getting the MPIC. http://www.holyzoo.com/content/35mm/...Adapter_40.jpg __________________ www.holyzoo.com

February 15th, 2006, 11:47 PM	#9
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Just an addendum to Steev's comments about the Beattie screen -- get in touch with Bill Maxwell, of Maxwell Precision Optics -- his screen is even better than the Beattie (though not entirely good enough for a static solution). __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

February 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM	#10
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	And to add futher :) On this forum, many times, it's been cautioned against putting too much time and money towards a static design. I think nearly everyone who has gone down the static road has abandoned it in favor of a moving element design. Fortunately I didn't lose too much money over it, but it take a LOT of my time to figure out that static isn't good enough for me. I just thought I'd throw that out there as well. So although the your35 and indie35 and James Webb's, and mine, etc. may seem to look awesome, the static grain will start to make you go insane. However, if you only plan to distribute tiny downscaled videos on the web, it may not matter. __________________ www.holyzoo.com

February 15th, 2006, 07:11 PM	#5
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	What brand macro?

February 15th, 2006, 09:45 PM	#7
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate it. I'm glad to hear that the +1, +2 and +4 components are not necessary. Let's say I COULD find 72mm macros at a decent price for decent quality. Would it be worth it? I can see what Ben is saying in that it may just allow more space for the light to get "lost" in. But does anyone have any practical experience? Also, I apologize if I called them 58mm components before. I think they were 55mm. Anyway, I'm really glad to see that others have tried a similar design and that it has worked. Steev, do you have any footage from that adapter shown in your picture? I'd love to see how it worked for you. I was thinking of using a Nikon D3 screen for the GG. Any thoughts on this? Thanks everyone. I love how helpful this place is.

February 16th, 2006, 08:05 AM	#11
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Thank you for the links to your photos/videos. That is most helpful. I agree that a static adapter is less ideal than a moving GG setup. I am wondering though, couldn't you do something similar to what Quyen did with the Letus35 and just add a small motor to vibrate the GG? Because from what I can tell, the Letus35 is basically static with a small motor to move the GG. Very similar in setup to both the U35A and the your35. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks again to everyone for the help. I appreciate it.

February 16th, 2006, 01:31 PM	#13
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Well, I'd have to agree that it would be less trouble. But time and the ability to research are two things I have. Money is not. =( I can understand your feelings about this though. I LOVED the 35mm adapter movie you made. That totally described what so many of us go through in the search for the "ultimate" adapter.