Wolverine-Hawkeye Telecine

[Chris LaRocque]

Thanks Stan

Just to ensure my understanding. The specified 16mm and the 12mm lenses are close to their optical limits in this application. Increasing the size of the captured image by using the entire area of the sensor will not improve the image detail significantly, certainly not the amount implied (in my mind) by the 25% increase in total pixels (digital resolution?) from 1920x1080 to 2592x1944. I'll simply get a better impression of the optical system limitations. The edges of the test frame tell the tale.

I'd still like to hear from David and Bruce but it sounds like I want better glass.

Regards

Chris

[Stan Jelavic]

That is correct Chris. Increasing the size of the image by shortening the spacers does not improve the image perceived resolution. The image corners become soft.

Based on my tests, the optical limit of 12mm lens is with the 8mm spacer and of 16mm lens is around 20mm. This is with the BUC02 camera. The spacers for the UX226 camera are shorter because there is a 5.5mm plate that is a part of the lens holder.

We have spent quite a bit of time on this subject and it is hard to get something better than the current 16mm lens in M12 mount. There is a good choice of C mount lenses but those will not physically fit the Wolverine mounting hardware.

One more note. Going with a shorter spacers will require longer lens mount or an extension can be used.

[David Brown]

Hi Chris

You can never go wrong with better glass, only broke! A lens with soft corners can go unnoticed with motion pictures. Your attention is focused mostly in the center.

The only lens choices are 12mm and 16mm. There are no other focal lengths in range with M12.

You can't fill the sensor with the image. There must be an unused margin for centering the image. If you are capturing 8mm & S8mm, the image centers are significantly offset. There are some mechanical centering stages to move the camera's position in X & Y. I don't think there is room to mount them in the Wolverine without serious modifications.

This one is cheap (compared to those from Edmund Optics!)and also has rotation.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082D7XZ5D...v_ov_lig_dp_it


My lens is mounted on a different board camera than the 72BUC02 and is using a different sensor projection.That can also provide extra magnification without increasing film to sensor spacing by using a lens for a larger sensor.



(The lens: 2/3" 16mm f5.6 10mp M12 Macro with IR cut filter.) f5.6 helps with overall focus too.

If you have a lens and camera board and want to see the results at different magnifications, I highly recommend setting up the camera outside of the Wolverine. A small microscope stand with a gear driven spacer. Not very expensive. Or anything you might put together. Just remember the magnification is high and it can be easy to get the subject and camera skewed.


These are getting more expensive! Ebay or Ali Express?

https://www.amazon.com/Aluminum-Micr...ustrial&sr=1-3


Use a dollar bill and a lamp, or if you have a good 8mm source that you can use and a simple diffused led light. Even if the 8mm film camera was not focused on anything or was blurred by moving too fast, you can always focus on the film's grain. Commercial 8 & S8 prints are all soft, nothing beats 8mm original film. They are good for testing stock until your ready to go!

Vary the spacing of the sensor to the subject to see different magnifications. It's best to start with Stan's calculated spacing and then change the distances up or down, remember to refocus.

I found making various spacing changes while mounted in the Wolverine, maddening!

My computer uses a 28" 4k monitor, my TV is 66" 4k. Regardless of the captured images' final cropped dimensions, I render at 1440 x 1080.

Then it is easy to let the 4k display double the source.

My films are mostly shown on a television or a phone/tablet. Sometimes a computer too. It's all over the map.

So would I recommend 16 over 12?

Bigger is better and though it might not be sharper, there is no loss for the extra size. I started testing with a cheap 16mm from Amazon. $5-10?

I will need to search the forums for image comparisons. Stan has also posted 12 & 16mm lens comparisons. I do find searching the forum a bit clunky. Wish I had something that would download all posts and organize it!


I'll need to revise this. It's late. The microscope stand will not work as shown above.

[Stan Jelavic]

Lots of good inputs David. Here is side by side comparison of the 12mm and 16mm lenses. If you zoom in you will see that the corners are sharper with the 16mm.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0Y...ew?usp=sharing

[Chris LaRocque]

Thanks David

That gives me much more than I had before. I agree that searching the forum is... troublesome, inconvenient (pick your adjective) but it's better than some.

Stan, the two side by side images do show an improvement in center field edge resolution with the 16mm and the edges are no worse than the 12. It may be partially perceptual on my part because of the slight blue shift of the 16 relative to 12 image? That may push me to the 16mm lens from the Imaging Source though I'll need to move the switches to accommodate the 20mm spacers. They want USD$100.00 for the new mount and lens with IR cut.

What do you two think of my opinion of camera motion softening the edges of near subjects. Is this "a thing" with std / S8 film or am I misinterpreting the softness of the lens? When the operator stops a large translation I occasionally get a very clean frame which is what made me consider "bob and weave" as the source of the softness.

On the subject of Wolverine frame replacement, I have an old Brownie projector which was gutted a while ago. I might look at laying out the gate and transport on a table.

Thanks Again

C.

[Stan Jelavic]

On my laptop the 16mm and 12mm are close for the center of the image but the corners look sharper for the 16mm.
If you go with the 16mm lens then I would suggest Aico, will enclose the info at the end of the message.
Possibly get the longer holder from Imaging Source and the lens from Aico.

It is very important to get the F5.6 aperture with the 16mm to get the sufficient depth of the field.

Taking about the depth of the field (DOF), the close objects filmed with the 8mm camera could have fuzzy corners just because the shallower depth of the field. The motion can also contribute to that depending on how far the objects are in the center and the edges.

Here is the aico info. You will have to go to their website and request a quote.

16mm lens
Model: ACH1656MAC
Quantity: 2pcs
Price(EXW): US$75/piece
Payment: 100% T/T in advance
Validity: 30 days
Shipping fee: US$30 by DHL to United States

The lead time for 2xACH1656MAC with 650nm IR cut filter will be 20 days after receiving payment.

Paypal is acceptable for the order, pay by paypal: info@aico-lens.com.

Best regards
Amanda
Aico Electronics Limited
Room 1204, Kairuijinzuo, No 1505 kejiguan Street, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Tel: 86-571-86619019
Fax:86-571-81069179
Email:sale3@aico-lens.com
Skype:amandazou123456
Tel:18324459426
Wechat:aico18324459426





www.aico-lens.com

[David Brown]

Just to clarify the earlier post #1353, the microscope stand used as a variable extension, like a bellows.



This is funny, but I didn't have to fabricate anything. The gap would need to be shielded from light.

[Stan Jelavic]

Added some camera spacers usage to the V14 of the user manual.
https://github.com/vintagefilmography/Hawkeye

[Kamel Ikhlef]

Hello,
Here is my advance on the integration of a mini slider to facilitate the focusing on hawkeye with TIS camera.
Now Ihave to print all this parts and do the tests. I had to reverse the slider to make room for the switches.
Hope this will work once all the parts are done. I will post the files when the tests will be good.

[Stan Jelavic]

Looks pretty impressive Kamel. What tool do you use to do the 3D design?

[Kamel Ikhlef]

Thank you Stan,

Now, I have to print all these new parts and certainly I will have to make some adjustments and redesign and reprint
( it is the joys of 3D printing). It is always a bit long phase (But during printing we can do something else).
But I'll be happy if it works (Not yet won).

I am using the free spark mechanical design software, Sometimes autodesk fusion 360.

https://www.rs-online.com/designspar...nical-software

[Stan Jelavic]

I use that software also. Do not use it often so pretty rusty at it.

[Chris LaRocque]

Hey Stan

I was looking at your notes about spacers today, please confirm those are between board dimensions. Can I get by with a precision of 4? I also saw the STD 8 image size listed as 2.816 x 2.2528 rather than 4.5 x 3.3. That's the size of the image projected on the sensor; yes?

Regards

C.

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Chris,
The spacers are between controller board and the camera board for BUC02.
If you have a 12mm lens then with the BUC02 you cannot go larger than 1280x1024 because the lens optical resolution will get degraded. If you want more resolution then you can go with the 16mm lens.
Hope this helps.
Stan

[Chris LaRocque]

Thanks Stan

I was referring to the 12 digits of precision for the spacer length in the lens comparison table on page 36 of the Wolverine Manual rev 14. I suspect that 4 or 5 digits of precision for spacer length will be fine? Also, I believe that the items labeled image width and height are the image size as projected on the optical sensor?

I'm working through the process of changing to the 16mm lens and want to update my uC to the latest version. Is the gen 12 code at Github "vintagefilmography/msp430" the latest? I cloned the repo but will need to create GNU cross compiler for the MSP. The ELF file "freq_gen_12_hdr.out" in release doesn't appear to be a proper image file. I guess that TI's Windows tools pull the image from the ELF file during write?

Thanks

C.