OK after pondering the Idea of the G35 and how sharp these images are suppose to be, and seeing what is suppose to be the image from the G35... Hopefuly it is. "NO Proof Yet".. How does one get ride of the grain and still be sharp.. OK How about this.. Of course use a Beatee GG BUT on the camera side maybe even next to the GG use a filter like the promist or another filter to smear the grain slightly...remember the filter would be next to the GG so the filter effect is ever so slight.... How's that...

The effect such filter would have on the GG would translate into the same amount (of the same) on the whole pic. By the time you "loose the grain" you loose the image as well...(just a thought...) The static solution that would work would be something like the wax idea (only made industrial due to limitation of home equipment and procedures) The "milkier" (hence grain less) the GG the more light loss would occur though. The opposite is true as well, but at the added expense of vigneting. Try a drop of WD40 on a GG. Spread it well (till is almost gone) and see the brightness diff relative to vigneting.
I have tested POC diffuser. If I was to go for static, it would be my no 1 choice.
By far less grainy than Beattie but proportionally darker. (when watched on a big screen)

There's proof, Craig. If you want to see the footage yourself, email them. Jonathan has already posted this offer publically more than once, including right here.

Craig, what kind of filter are you talking about?

How about this idea:

Make some sort of contact print of the GG on a film negative (or reversal film, I don't know) at the back of the GG (not the side of the camera)
Than develop it in a way that the opposite of the grain is slightly visible but very much transparent and put it exactly in place to remove the grain.
I think it shouldn't be a real contact print, but a few mm away from the GG, otherwise you'll focus on the grain of the film.

I just wrote down this idea I got by reading your post, so maybe it's just not possible at all.

Oscar, That's an interesting idea... BUT man just trying to think about to matching the film and the GG gives me a serious head ache...

Bill Porter... As for seeing the footage.. Yes I have seen it... is it good? It's the best I've seen... can I afford one... NOPE...BUT is it in production and many people have it...NOPE..."I believe it's still in beta testing" If I could buy one would I ... with out a doubt... thanks

Craig, matching the grain would give me a head ache too, but it if you put the negative/reversal on such a tight place when you light it, it should be put in the exact same place after development. To match the right tint of the grain (you would have to darken the lighter parts of the GG) you would have to put the thing under a photo developer and light 10 or 20 times with different lighting times.

It's a strange idea, but I think it's worth testing. (also think about this method to get rid of the Fresnel lines)

The other problem is if you have any flex in your adapter at all. That lens hanging off the end of the adapter puts a big lever arm on the mount, especially as you focus and unfocus. It can make it move a tiny bit, which would throw off alignment of your grain mask.

Craig,

G35's look to be somewhat available. Here is what their forum says about the ones they are selling and shipping right now: "they do not look anywhere near as cool as the production units. They only come in thread mounts. (May not be a downside to some) and they only come in Nikon mount only. Another thing, that I spoke of in a previous post. You need to zoom in a bit further than in the production units as the step-down rings will show up as vignetting in over-scan. That's it. Optically they are the same."

Ok I didn't know that.. But I still at this time can't afford one...

Me either! LOL

:)

I don't know what the intent of this thread was, so I won't go in too much on my thoughts on a contact print filter before I test it, although I'd like to have the opinion of people who have more experience with photo development etc.

Dan Diaconu clearly explained to me that static doesn't work, but somehow the G35 works...
This thread says: Static Idea
Can we make a list of all (valid) static ideas people worked on so far on this board? Maybe with a short description of how it works why it isn't good enough.

The last few weeks/months I feel that the spirit of exploring has gone to: "well, I can also buy it and spare me the time and head aches" .
And people who make things go and sell them here. How about some free new ideas on this thread?

This thread says: Static Idea

What more do you want? (unless I am missing something here....)
Is not static GG or static screen. Is static idea! ;-))<
Ok, ok.... I know......;-) but I just could not help it...;-)<
Obin, (since you asked): I had something in mind a few days ago, but I forgot to post (I was not curious to try it myself) but to some might be worth a try:

That wax (or anything that would melt) and two heated filters pushed together.
The air should come out if they are pushed from one side and it should not leave (if all is done well) any air. Scotch tape on one of the filters (on the circumference) should provide the means to get a thin and even layer on the whole surface. Hotspot will be there but at least is something one could practice the sought DOF.
As I mentioned before, I have and I have tested a sample from POC. Is the finest diffuser I have used. They are not expensive. This would be the best bang for the buck (IMHO) without any headaches!!!!!!!!! The hot spot is there....but there might be ways (that I do not know) to spread the light thin towards corners without Fresnel and get away with. One could also "get away with" by zooming-in a bit more (to avoid vigneting) and use good quality achromatic CU lens to be able to do so. I wish I could help more but I do not know how and each camcorder has its own zoom (zoom range and MOD) that makes it nearly impossible to come up with a formula that would work on all. If one would add ALL MONEY spent by each homemaker, it would end up with an astronomical figure. (we could go as founders, right Obin?)
and in the end, if one (or another) "sees the light" (even in the darkest corners;-)< ....) and all start jumping at the price..... make's one think... why bother?

On a different note:
I have seen today the best image I have ever seen on the screen of a Z1.
Yes. Different formula with the best result yet (and rolled some tape) I am just not prepared to go through all the trouble to capture and all that.....
I will also try next week to arrange for a demo by an independent/recognized and trusted DP to compare the best known (mini35) and MPIC and publish his findings. I will let you know.

If anyone is interested to see IT first hand, we could make some rental arrangements (if you have the budget) Email me if you want for details. Plan for at least two weeks project and I will travel. (Drama or feature)
I can guarantee that once you “see” it, you will never go for anything else (even if you can not afford to buy it for now) I might bring a static (POC) so you can see the diff first hand!

Dan,

I have FX1E. Do you have adapter that you could sell to work with it? How much is?

As to static screen you mentioned, is it fine enough to work without movement with HD camera? Which model is it? How much it cost? What is the website?

Radek

Dan, are you cross posting? Because I don't see no Obin on this thread. I don't WRIGHT with CAPITALS, so I'm NOT Obin...
The wax idea is good, but there is a big tread about it with lots of problems to solve I think. Some people say the G35 has a wax GG too.

Because of Radeks reply asking about prizes and so on I'd like to redo my statement:

The last few weeks/months I feel that the spirit of exploring has gone to: "well, I can also buy it and spare me the time and head aches" .
And people who make things go and sell them here.
Once people start with that, other people are thinking: If he's not giving away his ideas for free, I'm not going to either.
I'm not saying this for me (I have a working adapter and anamorphic lens), but to bring back the "brainstorming" spirit.




So for a static GG, we have had:

Beattie
POC
wax
more?

So for a static GG, we have had:

Beattie
POC
wax
more?

From what I hear Bosscreens are pretty good. That would fall under the wax catagory though.

Dan, are you cross posting? Because I don't see no Obin on this thread.

No, I ain't cross posting! Cross my heart! And I don't see no Obin either! (hmmmm...where did he go now anyway?.....)
I don't WRIGHT with CAPITALS, so I'm NOT Obin...
You just contradicted yourself.... Obin!
Naaaaah. I just wrote Obin instead of Oscar. My mistake and I take zeat back: nibO!Oscar There! All good now!

I know derz a thread for wax but since you asked.....on this one... I thought I shoud mention.
As for exchanging ideas: seems fine as long as they are not worth much. (Look back six months and see if I am right or no) Asking for specific examples would start a war, so don't!!!!!!!
I agree with you. The spirit of exploring is gone and I had a big role by taking away the "magic" of exploring with tests and theory right to the point (as good as I knew). No more guess involved (but no magic either) I felt that way as well. On the other hand, no more wasted money of futile experiments either. I just do not know.... Looks like derz no good whitout some bad in it.... Intention does not matter much. Only end results. You tell me...
Radek, the price is higher than initially offered. If you are still interest email me and you will see for yourself what I am talking about.
I am sorry, but (as I was told before) most "explorers" of this forum are in the begining of their careers and short of cash. Therefore, they see no immediatte need to invest in top quality gear and see an immediate return on investment (that is why all were excited to get shallow DOF on a shoe string budget) I am anxious to hear of a PAYING CLIENT to get that kind of footage in use, broadcasted, AND a see that repeated customer!!!
Also, a print on film from a Z1 using an image converter would make it clear. When that happens, the device used is as good as it can get (no matter what you or I have to say! see? no magic! just plain facts, and no hype either)
Good luck to all in this new "gold rush" .... make zeat "DOF rush".

Edited latter:
Price relative to value:
From:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=315263#post315263

http://www.danmccainproductions.com/shortfilm.html

Why anyone in his whole mind would rather pay this kind of prices if they could just buy and own for less than one rental day? Makes one wonder....
(well.....at least makes me!)

Dan, you got me interested in the wax GG, so I re-read the whole micro wax thread. I made some promising tests today, but I'll post something on that thread.

Another thing, the first post of this thread by Craig, I don't really understand the idea with a filter smearing the grain...

I think it was a "way" to soften the grain/texture (if any) itself, but that would also soften the picture as well, so.... one might as well achieve the same by soft focusing the lens of the camcorder (just as well) I did it and is ok (as long as the aperture does not change (close). Than, the GG ends up whithin the DOF of the camcorder's lens showing a sharp pic (as well as the grain) It works, but is subject to one's exigence.... and expectations.....
To conclude: a softening filter close to the GG will soften the pic and the grain to one's level of acceptance. Whatever it would look like, it will show when pan and tilt.

Best of all: TRY whatever croses your mind. Whether you find something or no, is not relevant, but you LEARN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and next time when you want to try something else, the next test will have a bit of FOUNDATION (previous test) and so on.......

I've been thinking of this for a while now... get a clear filter and blow smoke from a cigarette at it until it fogs? And project your image on it. What’s your thoughts Dan??

In all honesty, I had another "smoke" related thought in my mind, (never pursued) during the "evaluation" time last year before I got to "work" on the current solution:
Two sandwiched filters (spaced by scotch tape) and sealed. Using a syringe and needle, pump some smoke between the two filters. The smoke will not settle in a spot only (I think) and create an even screen. Never tested the idea. It may or may not work, but if it does, is grain free for sure. It may not be "thick" enough though..... I don't know.....
As for the other one (smoking a filter) all I can say is TRY IT! Is a good idea but to get the whole surface even smoked (and thick enough)….might be difficult. All this “experiments might be worth aimed to use gravity (somehow) and the weight of the substance, for is even and the success will be dependent upon how even a process is carried out. Just a thought.
I think I might re shoot POC screen. For many might be a blessing. The pics I have on my site concern brightness comparison (mainly) and I did not care much for the grain size.

Do the following: open this link:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1
and then in a sepparate window this one:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1
position them so when they open, the images match. This is the diff between POC and Beattie in Hi Rez. For a STATIC screen, POC would be the king. I did not see (and I do not have the time to do it now) but if one pan/tilts the camera if the "soft" areas will show the grain. I was not interested (as my mind is not on a static screen) but definitely worth the price vs hours of hobby. But then again, this is my perspective. If you want to accomplish on your own, you must work for it.

Which angle and which material POC is that, Dan?

Of the 50mm round ones there are three materials:

LSD® UV Transmitting Diffuser - 90% at 190nm
LSD® High Termperature Diffuser - 500º C Stable
LSD® High Power Diffuser

and angles of .5, 1, and 5 degrees.

Or did you not use a round one?

Cheers,
BP

No, I did not use a round one. Is 50 deg dif. but do not get stuck in figures. All of them will do just fine. They have the same "grain size" and (unless you want to persue it as hobby and find the best out of the best....) any of them will do the job just fine.

Did you mean 60 deg? or 5 deg? I don't see a 50 on the site.

Which material did you use? I see a few different ones. Was it a LSD® Light Shaping Diffuser, Diffuser Sheet, Acrylic, Polycarbonate, Polyester, Acrylic-UVT, Glass...?

Thanks, hate to waste money going down the wrong path.

Part no: LSD 80 PC10-2
diffuser angle is hand written and the closest I think is 80 deg.(I may have took it for a 50 or 60)
2"X2"

I did not test another one, so there may be other ones better, who knows?
Choose what YOU want (not what I have tested) and keep the glory/blame.

You rule! Thank you very much. Saving even a little money really helps some of us. I am going to upgrade out of my grainy GG into this.


Thanks again, including all your research and work,
BP

OK, you are welcome.

what is POC? Thanks

http://www.poc.com/

double post

Dan,

Sorry to keep harping on about the LSD - my only excuse is that I'm in England, so it's a little tougher for me to deal with them directly (a fairly lame excuse, I know).

Did you discuss what you wanted with anybody from POC, or did you just pick an item and order it?

If I understand correctly, the LSD converts incoming rays of light into diverging beams, and the angle specifies how wide the beam becomes. It seems to me that the optimum angle would be such that a ray arriving at the top left corner (say) of the image portion of the screen should diverge just enough so that the beam covers the bottom right corner of the image-forming portion of the camcorder lens (this will, of course, vary according to the distances between the screen and lenses). If the angle is wider than that, then some of the light is being wasted, making the image dimmer than it needs to be (it also occurs to me that, since we're shooting rectangular images which are wider than they are tall, a screen with a horizontal diffusion angle greater than the vertical diffusion angle - like POC's Directional Display Screen - might also be more suitable). Is any of this relevant, or am I talking rubbish?

Yes Steve, I told them what needs to happen to let "them" sort out the best for the job. Now, what you say makes perfect sense (different H to V diffusion angles would be a good match for 1.33 or 1.78, etc) but (I think) a light in BG soft would be distorted from being seen as a circle and the "shining" of objects would be different (from "normal" ) if those angles would not be equal. I know I am splitting the thread in 1000 (and so you did!), but.... old habits never die...
(excellent logic and observation though)

Dan, thanks for the reply. I don't think that using the DDS would cause distortion, though: Imagine any given point on the focusing screen as emitting a conical beam that arrives at the camcorder lens. The lens then focuses that beam back to a point on the CCD. It doesn't matter what the cross-section of the beam is, it always gets focused back to a point.

Still, if the guys at POC think that an angle as wide as 80˚ is the best one to use, then the DDS probably isn't suitable anyway.

Steve,

I wondered the same thing yet POC's site seems to explain in an example about a very similar application - almost identical depending on how you look at it - that the wider angle is more preferable:
http://www.poc.com/lsd/default.asp?page=applications&sub=hdst

Hey Dan,

Seeing as you are the only person who has tested both, what do you think about the Beattie vs the POC? I see in your gallery that at F4 and the same camera settings, the POC is much darker. Do you think the Beattie is better due to this? Or do you think a little bit of gain + a POC, is still better than a Beattie with no grain?

Perhaps a POC with a condenser is better than a Beattie hands down?

a picthshaaaa's worth a thousand words.(that is why I post them...) POC's grain is a bit smaller than Beattie, but still visible for a static. Soft focus is very nice as well. Light loss is 2-3 stops (this might make a difference for low light scenes between "can" and "can not" and otherwise general light levels needed) Is a very good option but unsuitable (IMHO) for PRO shoots (as a STATIC solution). Fantastic choice to "get your feet wet" (static) and pro results if moved (identical OPTICAL results with any other contraption including Mini and Pro35) obviously EXCEPT the image roation from the two prisms (robustness and other industry standard working levels, parts machined, aso)
I feel guilty enough to take away some of the "magic" of exploring....with my tests.
I will not be the one to kill the myth (IMO) of condenser lenses... it may be possible but I did not find "the way"... try it and find out...

I think that "myth" may be putting it a bit too strongly. Isn't the purpose of the condenser to gather all of the light that's missing the (in our case, camcorder) lens, and re-direct it towards the lens? And isn't that essentially the purpose of the fresnel on the Beattie? Seems to me, though, for the condenser to do the job it's intended to do, you'd need a fairly precise geometrical arrangement - just slinging an arbitrary lens in there and seeing what happens is unlikely to yield optimum results. Plus, Dan, you probably won't see much improvement by adding a condenser to the Beattie, because the fresnel on the Beattie is already doing the condenser's job. Or, again, am I talking rubbish?

Branching out a little, what happens when you move the 35mm lens further away from the screen, and zoom the camcorder out?

I'd imagine that:

The image on the screen becomes larger (this is useful, because the grain becomes relatively smaller, which we want).

The marked focus is thrown off - I think that the actual focal distance becomes closer than the marked distance, is that right? (How much "elbow room" do you get? would "useful" focusing distances all be crammed down at one end of the focus ring?)

The image becomes less bright (I'm really not sure whether this is right or not. I know that any given point on the screen will be dimmer according to the inverse square law, but the surface area of one pixel's worth of screen will be larger, so it ought to cancel out, oughtn't it?).

Isn't the purpose of the condenser to gather all of the light that's missing the (in our case, camcorder) lens, and re-direct it towards the lens?
I can not say what I said I will not do. Try it and find out. Might be worth thinking about it before you touch one lens or condenser lens. Not playing games here, just leaving you some options open to explore (and possibly find out what I may be missing)
As for the rest.... nothing easier: try it!!! What YOU find out, no one can take away from you.

Branching out a little, what happens when you move the 35mm lens further away from the screen, and zoom the camcorder out? You will get bigger image, but impossible to focus infinity...

unless you move the lens mount to compensate..;-)<