Reconstruct the Lens

A while ago, I made a so-called Gaudy Lens using old Olympus Film camera’s

lens barrel.   The Lens I’ve taken out from the camera was, usable optics — still

it was disassembled state.    In honest feering, I’m not keen to the lens itself —

38~80mm F5.6 “super” zoom is not impressive at all though, I just wanted to

reconstruct the lens for a kind of a game.  🙂  —– Putting back the gears etc to

reconstruct the focus control etc — though, since the lens was no longer in the

main barrel, there was no structure to hold the optics in the position = I needed

to improvise some structure to fix the lens position.

As seen on the photo above left, optics was tested while stucked by a plastic patte.

And an aluminium plate was made to fix to the rear element and the plate was

screwed to the front unit, then the exact distance was adjusted. (photo above right)

—– by the lens design, the zooming was made by the position of the rear element

— but now, the lens was mounted on the DSLR body, and no zooming mechanism,

the lens works as a 60mm F5.6  only.  —– The game done.  🙂

(You must be amazed how the camera lens can be handled in such a casual manner.

= Yes, they were made by just another human. = It’s not a rocket science.   😀 )

[] 

Google Account — What ?

If you are a user of G-mail, G+   what ever the Net-account on Google

or a Net search on Google, you may have received a mail like this from

them.  —– Do you think is it  a convenient way to deal with Net or

devices ?  = If you go to “My account” to register this is my account, you

will find lots more information needed to tap-in — to each account !    

And to “SECURE” your account for recovery you need to put your

PHONE NUMBER ! —– ? ? ?  wait a moment ?    

Most of your friends knows your number.

 = by pretending that you forgot the Password and tap into with the

number === someone might just HACK IN !

Giving the information to connect all the account under one entry = 

this is the most valuable information to sell !

Then a company or shop can do a telle-sale through direct phone 

while knowing all sorts of your information, preferences, even 

ethnicity  (by the choice of language)

—- When Google does this “On behalf of the shop”, they would

say “Privacy rules were not broken”.  

( This is how the AD was precisely targeted.)

Are you silly enough to dance with them ?

If you hand your possession to somebody, all the trouble starts,

if the person is trustworthy or will it be in the safe secure

keeping etc ?   The best measure is not to hand your possession

to others in the first place.

And the most secure way to deal with the Net is, give least

information, alongside a pseudonym, false DOB, etc with

complex password, and conceal the trace or connection to other

account as much as possible. ( = This is the way I’ve been avoiding

to receive spam and the fraud. It’s no point to trick false person.  😀 )

Convinced ?  []

Gaudy Lens — with one F-stop “less gaudy” Image

Gaudy lens was intended to fill the gap between “Double-Density Pinhole”

and the “Two Element homemade Lens” with added convenience of the

easy focus.  In a quality of the image, DD Pinhole has no details of the subject

= totally paintary image.    And an omnifocus Two Element Lens has certain

softness, still not so strong. —– I wanted to have somewhere between.

 Though, the original Gaudy Lens 

 showed too strong halation = so that,

 I made it a bit less by reducing its

 effective aperture for one stop.

 = 33mm x 0.7 = 23mm (equivalent 

of F1.8 down to F2.5) 

(It was done by placing a black paper with 23mm hole, back of the lens.)

So, they are the answer. = fuzzy enough but not too much.  🙂

[]

Gaudy Lens, gaudy images

They are the pictures of the first field test of a homemade lens I described

on the previous post, the Gaudy Lens.

The lens is a single meniscus magnifier lens with no coating, hence a lots of

aberration, halation was unavoidable —– in fact that was what I wanted

and the very purpose to make this lens.

Same as a bright light, the strong bright color causes strong halation too.

— even worse, the fuzzy image needed to have a bit more contrast =

increased highlight = brighter color spread more. It’s an orgie of the color.

Thank you very much to see all through the photos.  In the next post, I’ll put

a bit more moderate version of the same flowers.

(With a trick of a piece of small paper.)  🙂

[]

How about a Glittering Gaudy Lens ?

Do you know, this is called “Kawaii” in the Japanese norm today.

Settle with flowers to create Kawaii image was rather casual approach though,

otherwise — kitten’s picture if not small child or young girl.

— But these days, to deal with child or young girl, the risque is too high.

So, I would rather choose a camera. —– best of all, it’s cost virtually nothing.

Here, it was a 30 years old Olympus film camera.    The camera of that

age is much easier to disassemble and to utilize its mechanism.

 The camera then had auto-winding-up, rewind (Photo above left = the 

train of gears on the bottom of the body convey the power of the motor in

the winding-up spool to the rewinding fork), auto-focus, collapsible lens

etc, very useful mechanism though, “fully auto” then did not necessary 

had everything. = The exposure control was done by one mechanism = 

= two L-shaped blades worked as a Shutter and an Iris same time.

(Photo above, right)   Under the bright light, the blades open very little  

and close quick = worked as high speed shutter with small F-aperture.

And when it was dark, blades will fully open and close after a while, 

so in any condition, it gave a combination of somewhere between.

(Though, such mechanism is not useful anywhere else.)

What I found useful was their zoom lens barrel.  I removed all the lens

and the mechanism then I put a single meniscus lens. (So that the zoom

barrel became a focusing helicoid for the lens which can give the focus

from infinity to 1/2 close up.)  This lens has about 60mm focal length

and the diameter of 35mm = effectively F1.8.

The lens had no coating and such single lens has a lots of aberrations and

the halation of which I’m after and this lens got glittering gold encoder.

— isn’t it gorgeous or bad taste ?  😀       ( I didn’t put — it was there.)

Incidentally, this lens showed this character (and see the difference)

[]

Fancy a Fancy Lens ?

Among my weird looks (often its function too) lenses this is the most fancy one.  

It was made out of the front element of a cheap fish-eye converter and 

the focusing element of the discarded Canon G9 compact camera.

(As the focusing lens had stepping motor built-in, I thought I could make

“Focus Shift” unit though, it didn’t work with strong front concave lens)

So, this fancy lens does just ordinary job = able to take mediocre photo.  😀

Just like as a 60th Instamatic Camera, (though on a rather expensive setting)

the lens works just as a camera lens and produce “so so” kind of the images.

— still, considering it has only two lenses = front concave lens and the lear

convex lens and no focus at all,  it wasn’t too bad.

—–> with a kind of routine test here, this lens showed this character :

Since this wasn’t an omnifocus type of the lens, I needed to give a focus for close shot.

(Lens wasn’t fully inserted into the camera = about 2mm lifted-up from the mount)

= with the best focus, its image was surprisingly good ! (Photo left and the center)

But, when lens was fully mounted, the image was hopeless. (Photo right)

—– I’m not sure whether this lens ever become my fancy  🙂

[]

Forget me not — by Focus Shift (yet again)

Yet again Focus Shift photos — in fact all of those flower photos in the park 

were taken in one session, just in a different corner.

The lenses used were either Canon FD 50 mm F1.8 or Canon EFS 18~55 mm IS-II.

The photos which showed closer, hence more out-of-focus bokeh were taken

by 50 mm lens otherwise they were taken by EFS zoom (often on wider setting).

[] 

Rhododendron in the Park — by Focus Shift

Long time ago, I was seeing the Rhododendron in the mountain.  

Then I saw them in the Kew Garden —– I’m afraid those memories

 are getting afar and fading.   Now, I’m seeing a bit in a local park,

— may be I should be contented or I need to be thankful that I did

have the struggle to go through gorgeous bush of Rhododendron.

I don’t know why the fragile sister of Rhododendron was named Azarea.

To know about the “Focus Shift” please go to the previous post and the links.

[]

Flowers in the Park — by Focus Shift

In here the shots of the Flowers in the Park, taken by Focus Shift 

using the Canon FD 50 mm F1.8 or EFS 18~55 Zoom lens. 

Well, not necessary everything was flower.  🙂

Since this plant above is a cousin of Hydrangea, the white decorative part around 

are not a flower, in strict botanical term, they are called sepals (a kind of leaf).

As the camera was hand-held, not only the Bokeh created by the shifted focus

(= intentionally added out-of-focus bokeh) but also the blurr by the shake

might be mixed as well.  Shifting the focus on the Canon EFS zoom was done

by driving their AF motor and the FD 50 mm lens was purposely modified to

do the shift.

[]

How weird ! ? ? ? — Where the Ghost came from ?

While checking the photo taken by motorized Canon FD 50mm lens,

I found that those photos were utterly odd.

Those two were the consecutive photos, next to each other.  Though, 

the data recorded was — the left photo = A0452 , 4.2MB / Right photo

= A0453, 3.6MB and strangely  both were taken 14:29:44 (= exactly the

same time — of course, on the same 44th second, my 5D could have shot 

5 frames though the camera has been set to shoot only a single frame).  

What odd of those photos were —– obviously the camera shot the same 

flowers, yet they don’t look the same. = some flowers were stationed 

still, looks not exactly the same.  If all the flowers in the right photo

really existed on front of the lens, why they were not in the left photo.

And if the left photo was the real one, where all those additional flowers

= ghost images came from.  There was no similar image on any of the

preceding shot = no possibility of the memory mix-up in the camera.

A0452

A0453

If you download each photo and see each of them by alternately clicking 

next and back again = you can see which flowers keep the same position

and which flowers appeared and disappeared.  —– ? ? ? —– How wierd ?

How those flowers could disappear.   Were they existed there at all ?

Have you seen like this ?  Such happening was the first ever in my life

= the spooky images I never encountered before.   

Of course, I didn’t manipulate the photo at all (a bit brightened though) 

and the photo wasn’t a copy of the other.  —– Could anybody explain,

was that caused by the camera’s malfunction or else ? — But how ? ? ?

Please give me your opinion.

[]