I also wonder, and wish I'd thought to ask at the time, whether an attachment system such as 'Night Vision', an ACTIVE light amplification system of electronics and optics, might introduce light to the cam in such a way that would allow the cam, with the rest of its sytems intact and unchanged, to successfully record footage via the 'Night Vision' attachment.

This alters the light so the cam will only capture a grainy green not much more than 15 feet in front, plus this thingy costs a fortune.

Regarding adding a lens to increase LUX, with these small cams you cannot add a lens, an adaptor, yes, but not a lens. Furthermore, these small MX cams come with a fixed lens which have been designed for their CCD. Panasonic explains that if a larger CCD where used, a physically larger/wider lens would be required.

Now whether this is a theoretical or a practical limitation is what I don't understand myself. In other words, what about a huge Parabolic Mirror funneling light to the cam lens? Now, obviously, that would increase the light into the cam, no?

And if you add more light, whether from a light bulb, the sun at high noon (compared with dawn) or a mirror, obviously you will be increasing the light (LUX), however, you are changing your original question/lecture---the parameters of your argument. In scientific terms, you are adding another variable. The argument is if whether or not an adaptor is able to add more light to the CCD/s, so that the cam will perform better in lower light. This is what you originally wrote (1st post):

Hi I am looking at buying a cheap consumer camera. Does any body know of a way to increase their low light performance and the light range it can work over (at set aperture and gain)?

I thank you for your graciouse reply Frank.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski :

And if you add more light, whether from a light bulb, the sun at high noon (compared with dawn) or a mirror, obviously you will be increasing the light (LUX), however, you are changing your original question/lecture---the parameters of your argument. In scientific terms, you are adding another variable. The argument is if whether or not an adaptor is able to add more light to the CCD/s, so that the cam will perform better in lower light. This is what you originally wrote (1st post): -->>>

Which from first post (parabolic mirrors quote, Charlie Higgins post, light bulbs etc others) is what I was interested in, to increase performance with the existing lighting. The adaptor basically, in semantrical terms, becomes a part of the camera's equation through being an extension to the camera. I have allways had the assumption that, most likely, it needed an adaptor to correct for dispersion of light, chroma and other abreviations, to balance out, which, in part, has been verified (I think by the professors). With hindsight, if I look at an SLR lense system (I bought a nice one to try) it focuses image at a set piont behind the SLR lense, over an area much bigger than most CCD's. Before, during and after that piont the rays are not entering the camera lense on an natural angle, which makes it hard to focus (with light dispersion etc) as the camera lense system was not designed to handle this. Meaning that at least an adaptor lense/system that takes SLR output light and bends it to suit my camera's (most likely individual) lense system is needed. I have gotten it to focus, I believe only in Macro up close, and believe I have gotten an brighter image form it (around 50% to double), but it is slightly telephoto (which for certain situations is undesirable). More robust testing wil have to be done when a new camera is decided upon. I think it would be much harder with the mini35 35mm movie lense adaptor though. This adaptor works by rotating ground glass projection lense/screen dispersing light in all directions, so some of it will likely miss the collecting lense completely.

I have recently gotten Scott Billups book on "Digital Movie Making". Thumbing through it I notice that he states that Beta SP is actually a good format, because some Beta SP cameras have better CCD's etc than some modern 'professional' Digital cameras, and a 3:1:1 luminance to chrominance ratio. I still remain unconvinced though, I have seen side by side comparision reveiw between a BetaSP camera and a VX1000 and could see little (at captured image magnification) resolution difference (picture was close too) between the two, and the VX1000 is not the greatest dIgital camera. I will have to research this further, as I'm certain I have seen old SP camera's for simular to 953 prices (over here), but the price of a good capture card is likely going to cost a bit too, and it is going to be a used and worn camera. Still waiting to see the GS100 also (and MX7000, if it exists).

Thanks

Wayne.

There is no MX7000, just like there is no VX3000 or GL3---not yet, anyway. The GS100 is a Japanese Domestic, and according to Pana Japan, there are no plans to make this cam available outside of Japan.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : There is no MX7000, just like there is no VX3000 or GL3---not yet, anyway. The GS100 is a Japanese Domestic, and according to Pana Japan, there are no plans to make this cam available outside of Japan. -->>>

Your probably right, I have read comments that the MX7000 is the GS100, and that Supervideo got the translation mixed up. We got the MX500 (mx5000) over here resonably quickly, the price of the GS70 is so near to the discounted price of the MX500 model I suspected that the 500 might have been replaced soon with the GS100. If not, stuff, I'll have to wait until they discount the vx2000. I suspect they will replace that 24p camera with a high def model before they introduce a cheap HI-def, but it would have been a nice dream anyway (GS7000 now rather than a couple of years).

Thanks, have a good night Frank (well morning over there).

Wayne.

here's my 10c:

if you were a kid playing with lens and focusing the sun (burning stuff) you'll know that size matters a lot.
There's no way you can tell me that you "loose" the light in the more glass.
but ... talk is cheap, please.. someone .. just TRY IT =) and post the pics =)
how hard can it be?

if you were a kid playing with lens and focusing the sun (burning stuff) you'll know that size matters a lot. There's no way you can tell me that you "lose" the light in the more glass.You can start fires not only with a magnifying glass but also with the opposite type of glass, which pushes everything further away. Perhaps get a wide angle adaptor, hold it under the sun and see if it will light some paper on fire. I'll give you a cigar if you can. :-))

lettme get a match.... hold on...

I thinkith that this thread has been greatly carstrated since last year, pity there were some interesting technical discussions. I was amazed that it went on for so long after Ieft.

On the threads past history: I have observed a general mixup in terminology in threads dealing with optical science (everywhere on the web, apparently). I offer no advice on resolving this, but this, that what a person means is the most important thing what ever terms they use rightly (the hearer mixes it up) or wrongly (the writer mixes it up) to describe it. For example, you will notice that I said "hearer" rather than the more proper term "reader". In a philisphical forum (not here) that should not lead into an arguement that the arguement was not right because you can't "hear" a written text, the intent is the same (though people tend to read text internally to themselves, so you could say they are infact hearing it, sort of). So it is really a matter of seeing deeper to what the person is actually meaning. And why this ever got mistakenly put into a Panasonic forum, I don't know. It never was about the Panasonic cameras, they were only passingly mentioned as an example of the cheapest possible 3CCD target camera.

The same with lense systems, to one person a light "gain" means that the lense is manufacturing light, which is impossible nowdays (though somebody could theorectically, one day, make a futeristic lense that is fed external energy that is then used to amplify the light coming through it, can I now take a patent on that). To the other person it is meaning that the light gathering ability of the system is increased resulting in a more light reaching the target (the 'gain" so to speak). In the above discussion the intent was allways to gather and deliver more light to the target. The larger lense though, also can distort the optical properties and result in light loss off the sides of the imaging plane, and a decreased feild of veiw. See the holographic diffuser dicusions in the 35mm adapter threads at the Alternative Imaging forum. I thought I made a post where I tried it on (a now dead) camera and received increase in image brightness. Actually over in those threads some people would have whopping big glass lenses, and I have read of somebody getting great increase in brightness, but reduced angle. Actually in this thread there was links to a Wide angle adapter that seemed to do the same thing, is that post still here?

George, to get your free cigar ;), I think if you face the front towards the sun it will condense it down like any magnifying glass, but if you use the other end it should spread the light instead.

Actually in this thread there was links to a Wide angle adapter that seemed to do the same thing, is that post still here?It should be here if they were posted, unless they where on an other thread.

Yeah there it is:

http://www.tiffen.com/digital_lenses.htm

My apologies, now I know why the pages look wrong, I have change my posts per page preference.

I should post the information on the lense I used. It is a old Minota, 58mm and f1.4, must have been worth a packet in it's day. Now to search for a lense that is 50mm and f1 or less ;) Actually I would like to try a medium format lense (around 70mm film) but what is the equivalent focal length to get neutral perspective look in this format (it's 50mm in 35mm SLR).

6.5mm

That much, going from 35mm flim to 70mm film the standard focal length goes from 50mm to 6.5mm?

By the way, does any body have an old, nice, lense with plenty of wide fast glass with low f, for a film format close to 70mm, they can sell me very cheap? Prime or multifocal with low f. I want to do an adpater, maybe using a low angle holographic diffuser for HD camera.

Thanks Tom

Sorry Wayne - I think I got my wires crossed. I thought you were asking what focal length feeding 1/3" chips gives the same angle of view as a 50mm feeing 35 mm (still) film.

Well thanks anyway Tom. I will try asking this question elsewhere once I catch up on some other research stuff.

I forgot to post this quote from:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22715

Basically what I was talking about all along, and this thread was never a Panasonic thread, so why is it in this forum.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jonathon Wilson : Yes, I'm sorry, Eric - but you will lose the desireable (== short) depth of field most people are striving for in these adapters.

I actually built one exactly as you described because I was frustrated at the amount of light loss with the ground glass. I replaced my ground glass with a 'relay lens' which changes the magnification at the focal point down to the size of my ccd. It worked beautifully -- incredibly bright image... but very long Video-looking depth of field. I basically had the focal length/field of view of my SLR Lens, but depth of field of video.

This makes sense based on how depth of field works. Without painful details - its a factor of the size of the opening the light comes in - and the size if the image plane. With a relay lens, you don't really have an image plane until you hit the ccd. So the math goes from 35mm lens aperture to ccd, just like your video cam lens would do.

With the GG, this becomes a real imaging plane, so the depth of field math is from 35mm lens aperture to the ground glass. Then we just take a picture of that image plane. -->>>