Go35Pro Footage

Jim Lafferty · August 7th, 2006, 02:23 PM

I think I'm not understanding you. The Go35 is fitted with step rings to your camera's lens. Provided you've got a camera with a metal housing and lens chamber, run'n'gun shooting with just the adapter and a short FL lens handheld is OK. For larger, bulky lenses and accessories, attaching a rod system is simply a matter of (as far as I know) mounting the rod system to your cam's underside and raising the support to the underside of the adapter. With Cavision's DV rods ($160), the support doesn't quite reach the underside of the adapter, so I would think it would be fine to simply wedge some stiff material between the support and the underside of the adapter.

Jim Lafferty · August 7th, 2006, 02:25 PM

Here is that new footage: Reflections and Rack Focus (150mb)

Again, nothing done to the footage but the flip and on some clips, minor cropping. It seems the GL1's LCD does not show the full image area being recorded and consequently the zoom was off a little bit with rounded corners showing. I cropped that out. All shots with the SLR lens at f/4.0 again.

Alex Chong · August 8th, 2006, 12:02 AM

Hi,

Can the size of videos being posted here be a little bit smaller, say in 20mb range. Unfortunately some of us still living in the ice age and its daunting to think we would have to sit in front of the computer for hours downloading. Sorry, just my thought.

Frank Hool · August 8th, 2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Chong

Can the size of videos being posted here be a little bit smaller,

Then rather both sizes... not only small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

But I think it would need to move to a larger projection area.

What size You have right now?

Alex Chong · August 8th, 2006, 01:05 AM

(Then rather both sizes... not only small.)

Good call, didn't think of that. Ya, both sizes for choice. Thanks.

Rich Hibner · August 8th, 2006, 10:12 AM

I think the large sizes are full res..that way no one can complain about too small of the resolution and bitch about how if you had a bigger size they could "really see" what the adapter is capable of.

Jim Lafferty · August 8th, 2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Hool

What size You have right now?

Just about 36x24mm, or ~43mm round.

As for recompressing the files, I might get to that at some point (Rich hit the nail on the head, incidentally). In the meantime, might I suggest a download application like FlashGet or Download Accelerator that allows file resume? This way you will never need to babysit the d/l, and can let it run overnight. I'll make sure the files stay up until Friday.

Frank Hool · August 8th, 2006, 01:01 PM

oh, thats nice. So, Your adapter won't eat lenes original FOV. 24x36 is framesize of 35mm photolens. If You going to use bigger target area for HD version, it'll be designed for what type of lens?

Mike Oveson · August 8th, 2006, 01:27 PM

I'll let Jim correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you get the full 36mmx24mm field of view. Generally this is caused by zooming in on the GG or other medium. Your thoughts Jim?

Frank Hool · August 8th, 2006, 02:27 PM

You still can zoom on 24x36. If Your GG allows it. If You have round shaped GG it makes 45mm(in case You use 3:4). Anyway, Jims mentioned 43mm is very close to that.

Mike Oveson · August 8th, 2006, 03:30 PM

I may very well be wrong. I just thought it would be best to get clarification from Jim.

Frank Hool · August 8th, 2006, 04:04 PM

I'm just guessing too, so Jim it's Your turn now.

but,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Jankis

I've actually been able to count the iris blades

I'm not sure theres anything to do with adapters hidden quality issues. If lens draw thus then must be very bad adapter which will hide them. Because if there is anything which will spoil it - it must be too strong hotspot or wrong backflange. But if there is anything like that then rather overall image looks very bad. So i think it's about lens. Jim, what lens You have there?

Jim Lafferty · August 8th, 2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Hool

I'm just guessing too, so Jim it's Your turn now.

but,

I'm not sure theres anything to do with adapters hidden quality issues. If lens draw thus then must be very bad adapter which will hide them. Because if there is anything which will spoil it - it must be too strong hotspot or wrong backflange. But if there is anything like that then rather overall image looks very bad. So i think it's about lens. Jim, what lens You have there?

I think we're getting mixed signals. "Counting the iris blades" seems to me intended as a complement. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the diameter needed for a full 36x24mm image, it's 43.26mm. All the original footage that's up for the Go35Pro was, believe it or not, from a unit with only a 37mm round imaging area. The imaging area of the beta units that a few people have their hands on are 40mm round. The final release will be just over 43mm, or something like 99.6% a full 36x24mm frame.

From here the only way to create a successful HD version of the adapter would be to move to medium format lenses, or else attempt some sort of optical trickery by magnifying the projected image onto the diffuser without changing the FL of the manual lens. I don't really think it's possible, but it's an idea someone like Bill Maxwell could fully grasp and layout in short notice.

- jim

Sam Jankis · August 8th, 2006, 10:26 PM

My comment was a compliment. ;)

1. How big of an image area on the GG would be necessary for a "successful HD" image?

2. Do the current higher end adapters on the market (Movietube, Mini35) have a larger imaging area or is there something else they do that make them better for HD (assuming they would be considered "successful")?

Frank Hool · August 9th, 2006, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

From here the only way to create a successful HD version of the adapter would be to move to medium format lenses, or else attempt some sort of optical trickery by magnifying the projected image onto the diffuser without changing the FL of the manual lens. I don't really think it's possible, but it's an idea someone like Bill Maxwell could fully grasp and layout in short notice.

Changing FL shouldn't drive to success. You can try it with extender unit. Result is like lens with longer FL but with extender eats even more light.
Enlarging target area? It means usually change backflalge distance as well.
It may work even very well. But it'll be optically difficult to build and even bigger problem is that 35mm lens give enough brightness only to 24x36. If You'll distribute that constant amount of light to larger area You'll get darker image overall. And i'm sure You'll experience very serious vignetting problems as well.

August 7th, 2006, 02:23 PM	#31
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I think I'm not understanding you. The Go35 is fitted with step rings to your camera's lens. Provided you've got a camera with a metal housing and lens chamber, run'n'gun shooting with just the adapter and a short FL lens handheld is OK. For larger, bulky lenses and accessories, attaching a rod system is simply a matter of (as far as I know) mounting the rod system to your cam's underside and raising the support to the underside of the adapter. With Cavision's DV rods ($160), the support doesn't quite reach the underside of the adapter, so I would think it would be fine to simply wedge some stiff material between the support and the underside of the adapter. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

August 7th, 2006, 02:25 PM	#32
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Here is that new footage: Reflections and Rack Focus (150mb) Again, nothing done to the footage but the flip and on some clips, minor cropping. It seems the GL1's LCD does not show the full image area being recorded and consequently the zoom was off a little bit with rounded corners showing. I cropped that out. All shots with the SLR lens at f/4.0 again. __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 8th, 2006, 12:02 AM	#33
Alex Chong Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brunei Posts: 140	Hi, Can the size of videos being posted here be a little bit smaller, say in 20mb range. Unfortunately some of us still living in the ice age and its daunting to think we would have to sit in front of the computer for hours downloading. Sorry, just my thought.

August 8th, 2006, 01:05 AM	#35
Alex Chong Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brunei Posts: 140	(Then rather both sizes... not only small.) Good call, didn't think of that. Ya, both sizes for choice. Thanks.

August 8th, 2006, 10:12 AM	#36
Rich Hibner Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 218 Images: 1	I think the large sizes are full res..that way no one can complain about too small of the resolution and bitch about how if you had a bigger size they could "really see" what the adapter is capable of.

August 8th, 2006, 01:01 PM	#38
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	oh, thats nice. So, Your adapter won't eat lenes original FOV. 24x36 is framesize of 35mm photolens. If You going to use bigger target area for HD version, it'll be designed for what type of lens?

August 8th, 2006, 01:27 PM	#39
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	I'll let Jim correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you get the full 36mmx24mm field of view. Generally this is caused by zooming in on the GG or other medium. Your thoughts Jim?

August 8th, 2006, 02:27 PM	#40
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	You still can zoom on 24x36. If Your GG allows it. If You have round shaped GG it makes 45mm(in case You use 3:4). Anyway, Jims mentioned 43mm is very close to that.

August 8th, 2006, 03:30 PM	#41
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	I may very well be wrong. I just thought it would be best to get clarification from Jim.

August 8th, 2006, 10:26 PM	#44
Sam Jankis Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Pete, FL Posts: 223	My comment was a compliment. ;) 1. How big of an image area on the GG would be necessary for a "successful HD" image? 2. Do the current higher end adapters on the market (Movietube, Mini35) have a larger imaging area or is there something else they do that make them better for HD (assuming they would be considered "successful")?