Mini35 Type Adapter Discussion

For those of you who don't know, it is a proven that you can now make an adapter that will allow you to use 35mm lenses of any type, movie primes or still, of any mount. The specifics are not important, only the theory is, and the theory works.

I may or may not cover the history of this adapter in detail here, but that is not whats important, what is important is how it works.

PART I. Intorduction and theory

A. Backstory

You may have seen the PS Technik Mini35 adapter for sale or for rent and you may have realized that it is priced so out of line with typical budgets for DV productions that it really is cheaper to actually shoot in 16 or possibly even 35 for real. Nevertheless, their product opened the door for the internet community to brainstorm and determine how their system works and how to build their own for much much less.

The first I heard about this adapter was actually the fan film Marla marlathemovie.com . Their system I tried first, basically taking the viewfinder off of a SLR, and shooting the focusing screen with my video camera. Surprise, it works! But its impracticle. One, the camera needs to be mounted at a 90deg angle to the SLR, which makes it totally impractacle for anything but totally stationary shots. Two, there is too much variables to consider, its tough to clean, it wont work particularly well on anything but a Nikon F3.

So then it dawns on me to find out how it works. And here's the theory.

B. Theory

The prime works like this. The image comes through the front, through the lens, and is projected out the back, but the projection is not linear. The image only forms at approxamately 2" behind the rear element on the lens (which is just magically where the film is located behind the lens in an SLR, or the mirror that sends the image up to the viewfinder. ). It is crucial that whatever is to capture this image is in the EXACT position where this image is projected, because 1 mm either way means that the focusing will move too far towards the close up, or too far past infinity. So in other words, it must be perfectly spaced for the focusing to work correctly as it is indicated on the focus ring of the lens.

So now we just hook up the lens 2" away from the video camera lens, right? No. You will technically see through the 35mm optics but that is not going to take advantage of the DOF or FStop of the lens at all. Not to mention the image would be too small to do much with at all. So what then? Well remember how it works in an SLR. The projected image coming from the lens actually exposes the film, not the image in the lens itself, the film cannot "see" it only is exposed by the light that hits it. So we must STOP the projected image where the film would be. Seem hard? Don't worry, I did the work for you. What you need is the same principle as the Large and Medium format cameras, stop the image with some type of Ground Glass.

Ok so now we project onto SOMETHING at about 2 inches back from the lens (try it if you want, it will work no matter what you use). But how do we get the image into the camera? Here's where it gets a little tricky.

C. Why you can't just hook up the lens to the video camera

See the image needs to hit this plane of material to be stopped. But it would be impracticle to shoot the image from the side where the lens is. So we need to make this whole thing inline and use a ground glass as I said. In order to do this effectively we need two things out of the ground glass or whatever we use to stop the image.

1) High light transmittance. If the glass is too opaque, you wont hardly see the image because it will be too dark. But it cannot transmit too much light straight away otherwise we will just see the camer lens through the ground glass. So it needs to be diffused heavily on one side, but thinly.

2) Low Grain. If it is too visible with grain, you will see it in your final image every time you move your camera, and if its real heavy you will see it in static shots too. Its not like ever moving film grain, it looks like a thousand specs of dust that someone forgot to clean on the lens.

So it has to be a uniform, finely grained, diffused surface on one side of the ground glass, and the actual glass has to be thin enough to let a lot of light through without losing much.

Here is where the static and moving GG (Ground Glass) adapters diverge.

D. Static GG's and Moving GG's - the difference

Static adapter creators have tried everything from Beatie Intenscreens to acid etched glass to aluminum oxide scratced glass to just about anything you can think of. So far the BEST success I have seen has come from the Beattie Intenscreen, but I have only seen what was posted from Steev as mov's. I have been using a Nikon Type D Focusing screen. They are basically an all in one magnifier (plano convex lens which I will talk about in a moment) AND ground glass. It is very efficient, but semi costly @ $30 per one, if you can find it. It is the same size as a 35mm frame, which is not by coincidence, which again I will explain in a moment. HOWEVER, the ground glass is incredibly thin coating so it does not withstand much wiping of any type or it will start to lose its coating. I have also found a perfect piece of injection molded plastic that seems to do maybe even a better job than the Nikon with eliminating grain, but the light transmittance is probably 1 fstop worse.

Moving Adapters incorporate a portable cd player motor, a clear or frosted cd or GG spinning on the portable cd player instead of just the static GG. This radically eliminates any grain, but introduces many new problems such as vibration, size, and necessity to understand basic soldering etc. Personally, I don't see advantage to it only because I have had so much success without needing to do that. Believe me, when all is said and done I think either I or someone else will find the perfect GG or equivelent that will eliminate the need to get rid of grain because there won't be any to be seen.

Play around with different materials to understand what all of this means, particularly clear materials.

E. Lens to the Ground Glass, now what? Plano Convex.

Where are we now? Well we have the image going through the lens, hitting the ground glass at a precise distance that is approxamately 2" away from the rear element of the lens. Open up the aperature completely on the lens and check it out, its an image! How cool! If you can, try and focus the lens, and OMG it focuses! We're close to having the whole adapter now!

Well, there a slight problem. Remember the magic size of the 35mm frame and the focusing screen being the same size? Remember how I said we need a magnifier (actually a plano convex lens)? Well its not by accident. See, every 35 mm lens projects an image that is actually round and takes up a much larger size than the size of the 35mm frame. But only the size of the 35mm frame, in the center of the projected image, is usable. The surrounding area of this, all the way to the outside of the image, gradually loses its light intensity, and is more or less unusable. This is called Vignetting. This is not good for your image, it looks very poor. You can *spread* the light, with a plano convex lens, and slightly magnify the image itself, making the whole image bigger for your video camera to capture, but you will not be able to pull *all* of the frame. This is exactly why I use the Nikon focusing screen. The size is exactly the maximum size you can get from the projected image, and the plano convex lens on the front of it maximizes the light all the way around the image. Not to mention it is already 4x3, so the camera frames perfectly.

F. Hey its a nice image now, we're ready to shoot it right?

Pretty close. Now you have to determine the capability of your camera as fas as what the minimum distance it can focus on is, ie. macro. Can you put something right up to the lens and focus on it? If you can then you are ready to read part II and start building the adapter. If not, you will need a macro lens. At minumum you should get a +4. A great one to get to start is the +4 +2 +1 Hoya kit that is relatively inexpensive. Or you can get a +10 Hoya which I just bought. So now I have +17 but I think it may be overkill. But wait until you read Part II so you know exactly what you need.
__________________

Sidenote: Wideshot, what sort of 35mm adapter did you make?

Static, kind of custom, but nothing is really different from the traditional design.

+1+2+4+10 Macros > Plano Convex > GG > Lens
 
Last edited:
its all about getting that "film look". Its obvious when you look at a dv production when compared to a production on film, the depth of field is drastically different. It frustrated me for the longest time, i would look at some of my short films and despite all the filters i could apply they never really looked film. No matter what it was impossible to get that cinematic depth of field. I discover these adapters and suddenly mimicing that film look is one step closer.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the links, Wide. Some great stuff on those.

Correct me if I am wrong. I was told that if you were to somehow detach the lens from the DVX (;)) and stuck it on a film camera, you'd get vitually the same depth of field. I was told it was mostly about lenses, and a little about the medium. I was lead to believe that the reason you could not achieve near film look with the DVX was because of the undettachable lens.

Both of the grabs I posted were shot with the lens wide open, no moving the camera to adjust the DOF. However, following one of your links I saw some of the grabs with a DVX and an adapter and was blown away.

Wide, On your grabs, did you do any expirements moving the camera around to adjust the DOF?

Poke
 
I think some folks are staying out of the discussion because they feel intellectually inferior to you guys...or maybe that's just me.

Thank God Poke put it in print....I thought I was the only one who's head hurt. I'm fascinated, but when you post the tutorial...please explain it for me like I'm a ma-roon. :hmm: or is THIS the tutorial? Egad, I am a ma-roon!
 
DOF is a complicated issue. Basically, in the end, it is the size of the CCD's that kill a digital camera's DOF. That's not all, but its the most detrimental. See, compare the 1/3" or 2/3" size of a CCD to a film frame. Aperature also plays a huge role, the smaller the hole the greater the DOF. I'm no expert when it comes to lenses, but I would say still 35mm lenses and movie primes are more sophisticated than video camera lenses.

Here's a series of 3 clips where I've tried to demonstrate the DOF. All I've done is slightly boosted the saturation, brightness, and contrast, because I don't really have those options while shooting. And letterboxed slightly.

(right click and save)

DOF-Test1.wmv
 
Last edited:
To add to what wideshot has said:

DOF depends on the combination of both CCD size and focal length (as well as aperture).

The larger the CCDs are the longer lens you have to get to achieve the same field of view. Longer lenses = shallower depth of field (both psychologically and physically). Medium format film photographers run into this. Since the medium format film size is much larger than a 35mm film size you have a lot less depth of field. This can actually be detrimental because it makes getting everything you want to be in forcus in focus (opposite of the small CCD size problem!).

The lens on the DVX, at it's widest setting, is a 4.5mm lens! To achieve the same field of view with a 35mm camera you would have to use approx a 32mm lens! This creates a huge difference in DOF to say the least!

In my opinion this is the reason digital seems too sharp to many people. While it can be oversharpened, I think, this mostly comes from the fact that everything is tack sharp in the frame. 35mm film is very sharp. It's just selectively sharp!
 
I know you guys have beat this thread to death and honestly I did't read all of it but I did get through some. Also I realize you're talking about something a bit different but I just wanted to share my experience with the concept.

Last spring I shot a series on the Panasonic DX900 DVCPRO with the Pro35 adapter utilizing a full compliment of 35 mm lenses. The adapter employes the spinning groundglass concept. And is placed behind the lens. That coupled with shooting 24p and a certain amount of atmosphere smoke (quite controlled) we created a look that was not only acceptable but embraced in short order. I'd be quite happy shooting in this format again. The pro35, although a whopping 25k (cnd) to buy, is well worth the investment for a production house looking to work in digital with the desire to look like film. Of the concept, I have to say I am a convert!

Here is a trailer of the series. Unfortunately the series will currently only be shown in Canada this summer. Linked removed by mgmt. You will find the link under the Video heading in the middle right of the page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was a funny trailer.
smiley_pac.gif


Was that Margot Kidder, btw?
 
Hey WideShot,
I was actually curious since you and Shaw constructed these yourselves if you guys have made any modifications since then.

I started doing some very early research for a project which I would consider purchasing a mini35 for XL1/2. I don't think I would attempt to build one.

I was interested in people's opinions and experiences, especially with 35mm SLR lenses.
 
Last edited:
You have $10k to blow on a P+S mini35? (or however much the are)

I made mine for under $200 including the lens. I'm very satisfied, I just need a better camera than a VX1000, but oh well.

I love working with the 35mm lenses, but you MUST have as low of an F or T stop as possible because you need the widest aperature opening you can get. remember, you're not going to control the exposure with the 35mm lens, but with the vid cam.
 
I think the P+S Technik adapter is about $3000 without lenses. Do you want to try your hand at an XL1/2 adapter? :)

As I was saying I just began doing some 'early' research here. I have plenty of time. All I am certain of at this point is that it will be either DV with mini35 or HD (but not HDV). For HD I would prefer the new Panasonic camera. For that, I would also like some kind of mini35.

So that's all for now. I'm not goint to go and spend 10k on a P+S adapter (yet).
 
http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a68299...b956bf08085256a8400801da2?OpenDocument#Prices
P+S $ 7,455 But then you need an adapter and mount which will put you over $10k.

I'd attempt an adapter for someone but I dont have an XL1/2.

micro35.com you can probably get one of those around 1k.

You might check out this 35 setup on HDV that made this music vid, its an adapter similar to what we have but with an FX1: http://www.theblacksheep.be/temp/norma.mov

And this was shot with the P+S with HDV: http://www.hmanvisions.com/clips_2005_1.html

Once again the Panasonic will cost around $10k once you get done buying the storage cards you need. FX1 is $2900.

The Nikon TypeD's are really tough to find. I had to go to a local shop to get one in LA.
 
Last edited:
Would the micro35 achieve the same quality as the P+S? I noticed the image would be inverted and perhaps more loss of light, but besides that, would it be granier or 'worse?'

Thanks for the links. The hman clip did not work for some reason though.

I've only played with the FX1 at Apple stores. I never shot anything with it. They do have footage on most Macs at Apple stores that was shot on FX1 that you can edit. Most of it did not impress me too much (some of the compression is noticeable in shots with lots of movement). Maybe a Z1U would be significantly better. That's why I was waiting for the Panasonic. I'm not too big a fan of HDV. I would rather shoot PAL, but HDV is tempting for the price.

Maybe I can give you my XL1 to play with :)
 
I can't speak for comparisons because I've used neither the real P+S mini35 nor the micro35. However, there are samples available from the micro35 website that certainly look good enough to me.

Also, there is letus35.com which is $300 I know nothing about this adapter, except that it fits a 58mm ring, and there is a mpg available on their site which looks good but its not enough for me to judge on.

I'm not in LA right now otherwise Id love to take you up and build you an adapter, I'm 1600 miles north, so I doubt you want to ship it here ;)

I'm not going to argue the merits/demerits of HDV or the Panasonic, Ive done so in other threads, but I would say that HD of some flavor + 35optics is certainly much closer to what we want as Indies than anywhere we've ever been before.
 
Never heard of the letus adaptor but I've stumbled accross the guerilla35 adapter which looks a little more promising. (http://www.guerilla35.com/).

I'm not in LA at the moment either (2600 miles north east). Perhaps another time. ;)

I have some nice 1:1.7 primes that got me all excited about this. None of my SLR's have removable viewfinders otherwise I probably would have started messing around with a marla style mini35 :rolleyes: (as if the XL1 is not big enough already!)
 
Back
Top