
Signature
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
> Also worth noting, if this is half the format size, it has a field of
> view like a 14mm on a 35mm SLR (on the intended cine camera).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Bay Natives
> http://www.baynatives.com
Thanks guys for the info. So any lens that is for 16mm film movie
making would double in focal length on a 35mm still camera?
14mm is still pretty wide. I could live with that.
Is it possible it could cover the whole 35mm frame?
Thanks everybody.
SW
Paul Furman - 07 Nov 2006 16:04 GMT
>>Also worth noting, if this is half the format size, it has a field of
>>view like a 14mm on a 35mm SLR (on the intended cine camera).
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Is it possible it could cover the whole 35mm frame?
Nope so you'd still have to crop it even on digital 1.5x frame so (don't
trust my math) it would end up as a 21mm (35mm eq.)field of view with
fewer megapixels. Cropping is the same as zooming. And it's not a
fisheye so leaving the black circle would be sort of pointless.

Signature
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
Nicholas O. Lindan - 07 Nov 2006 16:35 GMT
> Thanks guys for the info. So any lens that is for 16mm film movie
> making would double in focal length on a 35mm still camera?
????? No. The lens is for a 16mm movie camera. When used on a
movie camera it provides about the same angle of view as a 35mm
lens of 4x the focal length. So if it is a 6.5mm 16mm movie lens
it will behave when used on a movie camera somewhat like a
24mm used on a 35mm camera. It doesn't matter what camera you
put it on it is _still_ a 6.5mm lens.
> Is it possible it could cover the whole 35mm frame?
Pigs will fly before that happens. You will have a ~12mm
circle in the middle of the 35mm frame.
To put this camera on a 35mm first go into the mirror box
with vice grips and rip that ole mirror right out of there.
Now wrap the lens with duct tape till it jam-fits into the
mouth of your Nikon fxx. The viewfinder will be useless so
cover that up with duct tape also. Remove the back of the
camera and place a reticule across the inner film rails.
Using a microscope focus the aerial image onto the reticule.
Glue the lens into position with fiberglass-epoxy so it
doesn't move. Load the camera up with film and take your
picture.
For $9.95 & up you should be able to find a 3rd party 24mm lens
on ebay. That sounds like a better solution to me.

Signature
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
William Graham - 07 Nov 2006 20:01 GMT
>> Thanks guys for the info. So any lens that is for 16mm film movie
>> making would double in focal length on a 35mm still camera?
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> For $9.95 & up you should be able to find a 3rd party 24mm lens
> on ebay. That sounds like a better solution to me.
You might be able to retrofit it to an APS camera, or some smaller point &
shoot format....It might be fun trying, if you're into stuff like
that......These cameras are very cheap right now, so it wouldn't hurt to
wreck a few...
Peter Chant - 08 Nov 2006 18:38 GMT
> You might be able to retrofit it to an APS camera, or some smaller point &
> shoot format....It might be fun trying, if you're into stuff like
> that......These cameras are very cheap right now, so it wouldn't hurt to
> wreck a few...
How about a 110 camera? I beleive those used 16mm cine film in the
cassettes originally. Still it might not have the coverage as I beleive
that, as with 35mm, the still image rotated by 90 deg and larger than the
cine film gate.
Pete

Signature
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Richard Polhill - 07 Nov 2006 16:43 GMT
"Scotty" <scotty.welton@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1162913788.845401.156830
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> 14mm is still pretty wide. I could live with that.
No. 14mm is short. I have no idea what it's angle of view is (which gives
the covering power at its focal length focussed at infinity) but I
guarantee it isn't going to be wide enough to cover 35mm frames.

Signature
invalid = com
Richard Polhill - 07 Nov 2006 16:49 GMT
"Scotty" <scotty.welton@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1162913788.845401.156830
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Is it possible it could cover the whole 35mm frame?
Apart from that you'll never be able to mount it close enough to the film
to focus further than a couple of inches away.
Lenses shorter than about 40mm for 35mm SLRs are retrofocus lenses. That
means they can focus at infinity even when mounted further from the film
than their focal length. You will not be able to adapt the lens onto an SLR
as the mirror will be in the way.

Signature
invalid = com
Paul Mitchum - 08 Nov 2006 21:01 GMT
> > Also worth noting, if this is half the format size, it has a field of
> > view like a 14mm on a 35mm SLR (on the intended cine camera).
>
> Thanks guys for the info. So any lens that is for 16mm film movie making
> would double in focal length on a 35mm still camera?
It depends. :-)
> 14mm is still pretty wide. I could live with that.
>
> Is it possible it could cover the whole 35mm frame?
It might be if you used something like an extension tube or bellows, but
if you're doing that, you might as well just buy a less exotic lens and
retain the ability to focus beyond, like, an inch. :-)