I think you are right. You would need to mask the veiwfinder (or maybe mirror?)
to only show the portion covered with the CCD, otherwise composing would be a
problem.
Jim Couch
Tom Scales wrote:
> Shouldn't matter, should it? If it is focused on 35mmx24mm, it should still
> be focused on the 1/3" CCD, right? The difference in size causes the
> multiplier effect where a 100MM becomes a 200MM (or whatever).
>
> Focused is focused, right?
>
> (This is where we need Tim to weigh in).
>
> Tom
>
> > Some extra "focusing" would be required, I think, as the existing setup
> > focuses the image onto the film area (36mm x 24mm, isn't it ?) whereas the
> > size of the CCD is a fraction of this. We would need to have some kind of
> > lens to "shrink" the image to fit the 1/3" or 1/2" CCD.
> >
> > Distance from the back of the lens should be, as you say, similar. As
> with
> > the film, the image must be focused at the point where it hits the CCD.
> Of
> > course, the CCD is thicker than film, so the pressure plate may have to
> come
> > off & maybe a whole new (slightly deeper) back machined up.
> >
> > I thought of using the cylindrical spaces where the film "spools" normally
> > go for the electronics. Maybe use the winder if there wasn't enough
> space,
> > or for a large capacity memory card.
> >
> > The biggest problem I have come up against when thinking about this,
> > however, is the size of the CCD surface compared to that of the film.
> > Anyone got any thoughts ?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
--
Jim Couch
Tacoma, WA USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|