New Demo Posted on Movietube
 

The Movietube folks just posted a great new demo on what the Light and Pro versions of their new 35mm system will be.

http://www.movietube.com

It looks like the Light version might actually be financially feasible (we can only hope) for most of us, considering how stripped down it is. I can't wait!

Cool. If they could only post actually photos now and even just hint at price ranges.

I like the shoulder support. Doubt it'll work with an XL1 though.
Price probably gonna be high as well I'd say.

Looks Pretty damn sweet.
Yeah, hopefully well see some prices soon to see how out of reach it is...or not.

$$$
 

i am wondering about the costs. normally mini 35 costs 8K and it looks very simple comparing to movietube. i don't think that this will be cheap gear at all. there are too many small parts etc. it looks good, complicated etc. and this is where the extra money is hidden.
it SHOULD be cheaper then mini35, just because it's not the only one and not first on the market, but all these parts... i'm sceptical.
we do not need extra parts. we need simplicity. simplicity is probably cheaper :)

just look at it. do we REALLY need shoulder part - no.
do we REALLY need - extra pro viewfinder - no.
do we REALLY need grips and other arm-stabilizers - no.
do we REALLY need 35mm lens adapter - yes.

so we need (in my "calculation") 1/4th of it...

Filip - in the demo, check out the section that discusses the MOVIEtube LT mode. It's exactly as you described - none of the frills at all. Their plan is to give a cheaper stripped down version that has an upgrade path to the big bad mama jama version.

If it works with my XL1S I'd definitely would want the shoulder
and grips part. That would be very nice to have. Would I be
unable to shoot without it, ofcourse not. I agree with the pro
viewfinder though (although if it is B&W and cheaper then the
current offering on the XL1S then it might be interesting as well).

It is a good thing they will offer two different versions indeed.

Also they are claiming it is for digital video. They aren't saying it
is for DV systems. Might be for higher end 2/3" CCD stuff.

This is what they said to me when asking about my $2000 price range.

The MOVIEtube Pro and LT versions are not compatible with the Canon XL-1(s).

MOVIEtube will hit the market summer 2004. At the moment the MOVIEtube 35mm Camera System is approved for the following cameras:

-Sony PD-100
-Sony PD-150
-Sony VX 1000/2000
-Sony TVR Series
-Canon GL2
-Panasonic DVX100

Approved cameras can be docked directly on the MOVIEtube. No additional relay lenses are needed.

The MOVIEtube Pro model is intended for larger budget professional productions, and has common features known to traditional professional film camera. The model is based to work mostly as if it were an Arri film camera.

"To start more cost-conscious with the MOVIEtube product line we are proud to introduce the MOVIEtube LT.
The MOVIEtube LT is a small unit with less features than the MOVIEtube PRO, but providing the same Image as the PRO.
The MOVIEtube LT is running without electronic power, except the Battery on the DV-Camera. Therefore it is lightweight, small and by the fraction of the cost of a MOVIEtube PRO. MOVIEtube LT can be later upgraded to be a full-blown MOVIEtube PRO unit."

See to me the most expensive part would seem like the center area itself. What is the LT version. How much more could all the extras really cost? I mean if you were to buy similar products separate for another camera. Aside from the viewfinder which I assume you would have to buy separate anyway even on the pro version. At least that's how they word it.

"Viewfinder out (for Sony compatible professional viewfinder)"

CCD chip in the head.
 

This thing must have a CCD with part of the light split off to hit it.

I'm saying this because it has a viewer like on a professional ENG camera.

This would allow for separate focusing of the 35mm element from your camera, I'm guessing.

It also has a mount for a microphone.

Forget anything else, you're already at $1000

to imran
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : [...] check out the section that discusses the MOVIEtube LT mode. [...] Their plan is to give a cheaper stripped down version [...]-->>>

ok. you are right, so now we should run our "wait and see" program... :)

or maybe to construct our own "agustube35pro" versions :)))

Re: CCD chip in the head.
 

<<<-- Originally posted by James Ball : This thing must have a CCD with part of the light split off to hit it.

I'm saying this because it has a viewer like on a professional ENG camera.

This would allow for separate focusing of the 35mm element from your camera, I'm guessing.
>>>

Mmmm...no, I don't think that is the case. It looks like it accomodates a mount and a video/power port for an existing Sony broadcast viewfinder as Mike Tesh pointed out. This wouldn't involve a separate pickup or beam splitter.

i'm a little lost. besides being able to shoulder mount any dv camcorder, what's the advantage of this?

he, he... read carefully... :)

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

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

this thing looks like overkill

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.

<<<-- 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, 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?

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...

<<<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.

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 ?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Wow, there's a lot of negative conjecture flying around. The thing is, new companies pop up all the time who've identified ways to create and sell a product for which there is a space in the market. Is there a space in the market for 35mm adapters for DV cameras? The most viewed thread on this forum alone suggests hell yes! Will it be priced to allow 'normal people' to buy it? Well, by the fact that they're trying to offer an LT version suggests so. But without real pricing yet, everything is conjecture.

For those who've been following this movietube stuff for a while, you'll recall that originally they were to release at the start of this year, and it's been delayed to summer. Whether that's a positive sign or a negative sign it's impossible to say. To call something vaporware after one or two delays is jumping the gun a bit though, I'd say. That term is usually reserved for a manufacturer who just has not delivered a promised product within a reasonable space of time from when originally promised. Like the Dalsa Cinema camera, for example.

And while not supporting the XL1 (at least for now) may sound hard to believe, there is the fact that it is PD170 and DVX100 compatible. Movietube is probably banking on the fact that since PD170 (PD100/PD150) is really one of indie films' favorite cams, and the DVX100 is increasingly popular, and the movietube will allow you to use professional lenses with those cams, well... omitting the XL1 for now doesn't seem like a very bad sacrifice, especially considering that there is most definitely an XL2 in the works and we have NO idea what that will look like. I'm sure plenty XL1 owners will jump on me for saying it, but it seems like perfect business sense to first see if people buy into the thing first before bothering to do anything further against a product that may soon be discontinued in its current form.

Let's just wait and see...

Just taking a few guesses here.

I don't think it's really the matter of the XL1 not working on the unit at all. It seems to me that their problem with the XL1 would be the length of the camera. Granted I've never compared the length of the XL1 to the Sony VX series or panasonic DVX100. But if that's the case this unit probably would work with the XL1 so long as it was fitted with a smaller lens first. Say using an adapter and a 50mm lens http://www.virtualcybervision.com/xl1/Adaptor%20Products.htm

As for distribution they may very well be considering only self distribution from the start. I mean once (if) the product is finished and for sale all they really need to do is drop a link on a few messageboards like this one and people will spread it all over the internet if the price is right. Word of mouth advertising.

I wouldn't say negative conjecture, Mike. It's just that the
company claims to release the product this year but there
really isn't any information available at all. The list from supported
camera's didn't even come from their website. We don't even
have pictures yet, although they surely must be having finished
at least the test model.

The XL1 isn't that long if you remove the lens and go with a
relay lens (like the P+S one). It would probably be a bad idea
with the XL1 to use the lens (somebody might not even own
the standard lens anymore).