New Demo Posted on Movietube

[John Jay]

a Gepe slide mounted Intenscreen, mounted inside a slide copy tube , with a still lens end-mounted at the correct FFD, would probably (read almost certainly) do the same job for a lot less :)


http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/54...dehold1x_1.jpg

[Rob Lohman]

Perhaps you need to suggest to the people in this thread, John?

[Langston Sessoms]

this thing looks like overkill

[Rob Lohman]

Why? There is currently only one professional adaptor to connect
a 35mm still or cine lens to certain DV camera's. Why would you
want to do this? To use the professional lenses and their quality,
but more important to be able to control DOF (Depth Of Field).

In the end, the more of such tools become available the more
the price will drop. So it is a good thing that this new device
is coming. Too bad it isn't compatible with the XL1 range.

[John Jay]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Perhaps you need to suggest to the people in this thread, John? -->>>

Rob

I fail to see your point - are the people in that thread any different from the people in this thread?

please explain

[Imran Zaidi]

John, could you expand on that thing you posted a link to? What exactly is it, and where can one go to get some more information?

[John Jay]

Hello Imran

The picture is of a slide duplicator with K mount - more info on these and variants can be found here

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/macro/index.html

and they can be picked up on ebay for about twenty$

other brands eg Nikon and Canon have similar product...

[Charles Papert]

<<<Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Perhaps you need to suggest to the people in this thread, John? -->>>

Rob

I fail to see your point - are the people in that thread any different from the people in this thread?

please explain -->>>

John:

Here's a possible difference: I for one am very interested in an alternative technology to the Mini35 that creates a similar effect, particularly to see if it has a different quality visually, is more user-friendly, or will be less expensive as a purchase or rental. I have no interest in spending my time on building a knock-off at this point (I will freely admit to building a baby Steadicam in college). The group who flock to the Agus35 thread obviously have different intentions, which is all well and good.

I would strongly suggest that if you felt you could build a competitive unit with the Movietube concept (let's face it, the actual mechanics of which are just conjecture based on a drawing for all of us right now) for much less money, that you should consider doing so, as it will likely make you a nice profit down the road.

[John Jay]

Charles,

I would suggest practically everyone on this forum would wish to own a 35mm image converter at reasonable cost, but in respect of the Movietube it is just vapourware at present . We have not even seen sample footage of what it can do from any prototype which may exist.

The technology is certainly not new as people have been 'video tapping' for years - so who is zooming who?

For my part I do not see any difficulty in reducing a 'product' to its basic functional form using commercial off the shelf components as an aid to understanding its true worth and more so, to air this opinion in a respectable forum geared towards sharing information in relation to the subject matter.

It is my belief that sharing of ideas and information will bring the notion of the $500 (true worth) adapter closer to us all.

do you not think that an advance order of 10,000 units at $500 a pop would not interest someone reading these posts or is my likewise strong suggestion a little too weak ?

[Charles Papert]

John:

Since we agree that the performance of the Movietube is an unknown, is it not premature to predict that the technology you suggest will likely match it?

I think without question that a $500 adaptor that performed as well as the Mini35 would break open this end of the industry, and sell many units (10,000 advance sales seems a bit optomistic). Hence my suggestion that if someone, including yourself, has the gumption to do so, they absolutely should.

However, to tool up and produce a commercial product as well as promote, distribute etc. adds many costs into a unit price--let alone the profit margin to make it worthwhile. A substantial amount of R&D went into the Mini35, including four generations of development. Obviously the folks behind the Movietube are taking their time to ensure that the product is everything it should be. And their design indicates that it is not a casual tool; it is meant (certainly the Pro version) to satisfy the most demanding cinematographer in terms of compatibility, durability and reliability, all of which adds up to a higher bottom line.

I see the distinction in philosophy as being well illustrated by the types of lenses being considered. If one is satisfied with still camera lenses (Nikon, Canon etc), then an adaptor that is a logical fit should cost around $500-$1000 to make economic sense. If one is to integrate this system into a 35mm cine package (lenses and accessories), then the build quality and flexibility that is required will be at a higher level and thus will and should cost more.

To expand on this: an off-the-shelf still camera lens does not possess the functional characteristics required by serious filmmaking (there is no good way to describe this, what others might call "professional" or "high-budget"--let no one be offended by the distinction, please). While optically it might deliver, it does not allow for a proper follow-focus to be attached, the barrel markings are vague at best and in the case of the zoom, it is likely not centered not set up for smooth operation. That's just the nature of the beast. Many still lenses have been converted into Cine lenses by complete rehousing for just this purpose. So it stands to reason that if one is willing or able to work within these restrictions, then the performance or build limitations of a budget-minded adaptor will not really be a problem.

I believe that the Movietube designers have deftly realized the duality of the DV filmmaking market, and are attempting to cover both ends of the spectrum as much as possible by offering a stripped-down version as well as the full monty. However, the LT version is likely to still be perceived by a percentage of the DV filmmaking population as over-priced; and as Rob points out there will surely follow budget-minded units that will appeal more to the still-lens fans.

What will REALLY be interesting is if some low-budget lens conversions start to appear on the market, further bridging the technology and economic gap...

[Kevin Maistros]

I think they're leaving out a majority of potential customers by creating a product that's incompatible with the Canon XL-1/s cameras. Not that I'm complaining, because I have 2 of the other compatible cameras they list, but it'd be unfortunate to many others if this is a lower budget solution than the Mini35.

[Jaime Valles]

If this is in the $1000 - $1500 price range (the LT version), and gives results like the Mini35, it should sell like hotcakes amongst indie filmmakers.

[Rob Lohman]

John,

I interpreted your post as saying: " with such a system you could
probably build your own 35mm lens system "

Thus I encouraged you to post the same information you posted
here to the thread where everybody is trying to build one!

In other words: not everybody on that thread might be reading
this one!

That's all.

[Don Berube]

Just curious about what peolple think of this: Do you think that it is a bit short-sighted for a company to invest such effort to produce an adaptor which will only really work with lower grade consumer/ prosumer camcorders with only 1/4" or 1/3" CCDs? Do you think Indie filmmakers are still going to be wanting to capture their footage with 1/3" CCDs one or two years from now? It seems to me that 1/3" CCDs are really only useful for SDTV output and that within 48 months, everyone is going to want higher definition images than what a 1/3" CCD is going to be able to produce. Certainly, as far as doing a film out for large screen presentation goes, 1/3" CCDs are somewhat limited. Heck, these guys are completely ignoring the XL1(S) user base, which most people will agree that the XL1S is still considered to be the "minimum acceptable standard" in Hollywood. Do you think that the beginning "filmmaker", who is barely able to scrape enough cash together to even afford an adaptor like the "MovieTube" at a price point of $1500 or so, let alone the actual camcorder - will that person have any funds (or budget) left to purchase or even pay for a longterm rental of a high quality cinematography prime lens? Let alone a package of several different focal lengths? The design of this adaptor and the manufacturer's intended market base seems to be a bit short sighted to me.

I also agree that this adaptor is total "vapor ware". The company implies that they will be introducing it this year - which would imply a tradeshow such as NAB. Do you realize the costs involved to participate at a show like NAB? Have these people even procured a distributor for the US, let alone other countries? It seems very unlikely that we will see this thing come to market this year. And it takes time for a product like this to become supported as a viable accessory by a camera manufacturer. 10,000 advanced sales at a MAP of $500 is extremely unlikely.

Not trying to knock the idea of the MovieTube at all,,, but with the designs that they are presenting, do you really think that a small unknown manfacturer with limited resources can produce enough units to meet a large enough demand with a minimum amount of tech issues and still maintain a profit? And then, do you think that they would have enough resources left to actually promote it properly, go through the process of securing a worldwide network of distributors and authorized dealers and then support post-sale user tech issues with a viable support/ service team? Nobody I know has heard of this thing other than the movietube website. Have you ever heard of "Kinomatik" before? What are their credentials?

Seems to me these are some legitimate questions?

- don

[Rob Lohman]

I agree with you Don. However, it is clear that most companies
want to try and sell you more equipment then just once. So my
guess is that it is designed for 1/3" CCD, but will work without
too much modification for at least 1/2" CCD (just like the P+S
one if I remember correctly). Probably will be a while before
we get to use those chips though.

What I find really odd is that they are not supporting the XL1S
indeed. As you say, it is one of the few (if not the only) camera's
that the industry can "stand". The HD camera's are not supported
either it seems.

I can't imagine that they expect people to pay that much for a
device when they only support those camera's (especially the
Pro version of the rig).