I call Hot Rod Cameras Bluff with a $10,000 Bet (for Sharpest PL RF for Komodo)

[Bruce Allen]

It's critically sharp out of the box, and you can shim it from there. That's it.

In both directions?

I get adding shims... but what shims does it come with installed out of the box that you can remove to shim the other way?

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[GrahamClark]

No CNC machine can make parts that defy the physics of thermal coefficients.

Each lens mount is calibrated like a CNC machine, to speak of the process by which they're manufactured.

And like a CNC machine or machining equipment, we include a "certificate of calibration" for the serial # on the mount.

Again, nothing to do with accuracy of CNC machines, but rather the process of ensuring correct calibration +/- .00039"

Sorry to somehow infer a CNC is the cause of the solution – it's not. Just the inspiration for the customer experience.

 

[GrahamClark]

I was surprised too. Here was my very first test comparing it to the Vocas PL to the Breakthrough

Seeing is believing that is for sure right?

Vocas did a great job here with regards to performance. Of all the lens mounts, they were only .00079" off, no one else comes close as far as I can tell.

Anything with 3 zeros is thinner than the thinnest shim.

Yet a visually discernible difference is where the objective originates.

How do you shim that if there's no shim that thin?

One answer could be user-adjustable backfocus lens mounts with and without drop-in filters – another easy objective, and great user experience, in my opinion.

 

[GrahamClark]

Asking again: what default shims does the Breakthrough mount come preinstalled with? None? If so, that's an issue.

www.bruceallen.tv

Bruce, www.PL2RF.com

If it bears an uncanny resemblance to Cooke, that's because I've mentioned multiple times here that we've taken their exact system of .004" baseline so you can +/-

I consider it a simple and well understood system, so we followed suit.

We had two options:

#1 achieve critical sharpness out of the box on Komodo (for the first time) or
#2 resolve critically unsharp

We chose #1, if you or anyone else thinks that's a bad call, I have good news, every other mount I've found is your solution.

Go for Vocas, these guys nailed it on sharpness and weight for Komodo.

 

[GrahamClark]

So far I've seen mostly avoiding the question and then a single response, that somehow makes a vague reference to cooke shims. I'm not sure what that even means. Same in the video. I don't understand comparing to Cooke. When did they become the gold standard ?

I'd like to know this too because it's still unclear to me despite it being asked about by several in this thread.

The answer is on the page I linked multiple times, did you not see it?

I don't have any relation to Cooke, other than our CNCs machine in imperial and Cooke uses imperial to denote thickness, so it made better sense to us than millimeters.

I also prefer the stainless steel over the plastic.

 

[Bruce Allen]

OK awesome, thanks for answering.

Back to filmmaking for me now...

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[John Brawley]

The answer is on the page I linked multiple times, did you not see it?

No you mentioned it in a different context 48 hours ago and after being asked many times not until now have you actually stated categorically that the mount is shimmable. Thanks for clearing that up.

....Anything with 3 zeros is thinner than the thinnest shim...

I don't have any relation to Cooke, other than our CNCs machine in imperial and Cooke uses imperial to denote thickness, so it made better sense to us than millimeters.

I also prefer the stainless steel over the plastic.

You know the plastic shims are used for the thinner (smaller more critical) adjustments right ? Like silver in the Zeiss / Arri world is 0.0005"


https://woodencamera.com/products/pl-lens-mount-shim-set-arri-alexa-mini

JB

 

[Illya Friedman]

Wow! Graham, you did not disappoint.

There's so much to unpack now with 7-pages for me to go through to write a response. You may know I run a business and have a family so my days are quite full, but I'll endeavor to get to this as soon as possible. Many good points have been made already, and at the moment I don't have time to get into them all.

First, I'm going to start off by saying, congratulations. In the past 12-years since inventing the PL mount adapter I've seen all manner of copycat product launches by companies taking one aspect or another of the Hot Rod PL and bringing it to market, but never, NEVER, have I seen anything like yours.

I saw that you posted a video where you measured one of my mounts along with several others. But other than taking some basic measurement you didn't draw any conclusions? Clearly you looked at all the competing products out there before building your own, so you must have a reason for building yours the way you did. Would you mind sharing your thought process?

I have to admit you now have me at a disadvantage.

I have never seen your mount, so to go forward with your challenge, we'll have to agree on all the terms and criteria.

To start, you should send your mount over to me. It's only fair that I take a look under your dress, in the same manner you've looked under mine.

Actually, now that I think of it. Let's agree to devise a scientific and repeatable test. It's much better than relying on any 3rd party half-way round the planet. Then you can do your own test in your office- and I can do the same in mine. And best of all, so can anyone and EVERYONE else watching who wants to join in the fun! We can even make a party out of it live and online- that would be cool.

EVERYONE who wants can be a judge can, and they can see who's actually on the level. The great thing about a scientific test is it's super repeatable, anywhere and everywhere given some basic parameters.

I really ought to congratulate you again, it's takes real brass balls to throw your hat into this arena and make the claims that your pre-shimmed PL mount (which is what it is, right?), will not need any adjusting will be is a superior product to mine, which is not designed to be pre-shimmed and will be tested only after being properly shimmed on a testing camera. That's serious confidence.

Back in late 2008 when I started Hot Rod Cameras and there were no mirrorless cameras on the market, I had a lot of help from people in the industry (and out) who were very kind to help fill my head with everything I needed to know about light, optics, flange depth, manufacturing tolerances, materials, legacy film and digital camera mounts, testing systems, related equipment and the like. Over the past 12-years, I haven't stopped educating myself on how to make the eventual replacement for the original Hot Rod PL mount better. I've been working to improve all manner of what I believe are the most important criteria for a PL mount adapter, and I'm really confident in what's now been achieved.

They say success has many handmaidens, and I am here to say I know that to be true. Our mutual friends Phil Holland and Tim Daust are working with you on this project, clearly they are advising you the best they can. Is there anyone else in your braintrust you'd like to give credit to for educating you in regard to in the industry and this cinema product in particular?

Sincerely,

I.

 

[GrahamClark]

No you mentioned it in a different context 48 hours ago and after being asked many times not until now have you actually stated categorically that the mount is shimmable. Thanks for clearing that up.





You know the plastic shims are used for the thinner (smaller more critical) adjustments right ? Like silver in the Zeiss / Arri world is 0.0005"


https://woodencamera.com/products/pl-lens-mount-shim-set-arri-alexa-mini

JB

Yes, and for that thickness plastic is better than steel, for sure.

User adjustable backfocus mounts would allow adjusting between what's possible with shims, in-camera without disassembly, so I'm looking forward to that.

A concept from 1950's vintage photography accessories.

 

[GrahamClark]

In the past 12-years since inventing the PL mount adapter I've seen all manner of copycat product.

I got into this by making the world's first drop-in filter mount for PL and DSMC2, basically taking the 50+ filters we make (we're a filter company, not a lens mount company) and making them compatible with these cameras.

The mounts were just for "fun" as a necessity for our core business - filters.

I leave it up to the viewer to draw conclusions to be polite, but if I were to be straightforward I'd say you got smoked by the Chinese with regards to performance.

You can't shim your way to the finish line.

Bluff called, bet lost.

Unless of course you can produce something that outperforms the Chinese copies?

 

[GrahamClark]

EVERYONE who wants can be a judge can

I suggest a 3rd party like Denz be the judge, scientific results only, accurately measuring the mounts and providing numerical results, much like a spectrometer for measuring T% but for lens mounts.

But I do think side-by-side results from filmmakers on this thread, soon to come, can also be the real world judges.

It's simple really, just shoot at infinity and compare – that's it.

it's takes real brass balls to throw your hat into this arena and make the claims that your pre-shimmed PL mount (which is what it is, right?), will not need any adjusting will be is a superior product to mine

Yes, I'm of the assumption that manufacturing to exact spec and using a .004" like Cooke allowing filmmakers to +/- as needed.

Not my original idea, but it seems simple and straightforward.

Your PL mount feels sturdy and well made, I'm not slamming your mount, I had no idea how it would perform.

But after you falsely claimed our spectral data was bad, I had to call your bluff.

PS - No one on this forum or anyone that you've mentioned gave me your mount, I paid for it outright, so you could say I'm now a customer.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Phill Holland and Tim Daust- Is there anything we are not getting here? Graham you may not know that but there is this magic ring on almost every lens that you can turn and the image gets sharp..... you don't need to depend entirely on the adapter for the image sharpness... I never expected that would be such a revelation here- but here we are,,, Now in case there is an additional glass between the lens and the sensor cover- you may not be able to get the image sharp on some lenses at all but that has nothing to do with the adapter and everything to do with the flatness of the said additional glass element. For what it's worth I am willing to exercise angelic patience here ;-)

 

[Vance Colvig]

A user adjustable mount seems to be the best answer of all for precision setting of backfocus. It is little wonder why Fujinon MK zoom lenses have a built in back focus adjustment due to camera flange to sensor variations.

 

[GrahamClark]

Back in late 2008 ... Over the past 12-years, ... I've been working to improve all manner of what I believe are the most important criteria for a PL mount adapter, and I'm really confident in what's now been achieved..

I am seriously not belittling you here, but I made this thing for fun in a couple weeks as a side project to the drop-in PL RF to serve as a baseline for glass in the optical path.

3-4 machined parts, that's it.

This is a really simple thing, but without getting flange depth correct filmmakers can't hit infinity.

I like critically sharp images, but I'll admit maybe that's just an OCD landscape photographer thing.

You didn't come through on the bet you agreed to, but it was more of lighthearted fun to me all along, no hard feelings.

You said easy bet, I called your bluff, here we are, water under the bridge.

 

[GrahamClark]

Phill Holland and Tim Daust- Is there anything we are not getting here? Graham you may not know that but there is this magic ring on almost every lens that you can turn and the image gets sharp..... you don't need to depend entirely on the adapter for the image sharpness... I never expected that would be such a revelation here- but here we are,,, Now in case there is an additional glass between the lens and the sensor cover- you may not be able to get the image sharp on some lenses at all but that has nothing to do with the adapter and everything to do with the flatness of the said additional glass element. For what it's worth I am willing to exercise angelic patience here ;-)

Phil and Tim had zero input on development of this PL RF straight mount, which is a "simplified" version of our PL RF drop-in, which they also have not ever seen or used.

They have no relation to this discussion, except for Hot Rod falsely claiming our spectral data was not what we said it was.

In a given week I make lots of things, and send them out to filmmakers to see what they think.

This week I shipped out a DSMC2 direct filter mount to Mark Toia, today I made a full spectrum komodo to switch between IR and default RED OLPF, tomorrow I finish machining an ultralight plate that I'll send to Brian Corsello...

Tim and Phil are but two of numerous filmmakers who receive random things in the mail and I'm happy to hear what they think, zero relation to this PL RF straight mount, or the PL RF drop-in mount.

They haven't even received the PL RF drop-in mounts yet, but I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say after they've had a chance to put it to the test.

 

[GrahamClark]

A user adjustable mount seems to be the best answer of all for precision setting of backfocus. It is little wonder why Fujinon MK zoom lenses have a built in back focus adjustment due to camera flange to sensor variations.

Yes, imagine a backfocus adjust feature built into the lens mount, eliminating flange variances on both lens side and camera side without disassembling...

This invention is an open source patent from 1950's photography.

When I saw how shims were used, that was the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Kyle Wright]

I mean, right now this is an easy test. The Hot Rod RF to PL adapter can go on my camera and I get a sharp image. Anybody else can walk into their store, purchase the adapter, and get a sharp image as well. If you bring in your camera, they will get it shimmed to your specific camera, which I had done. The Breakthrough RF to PL adapter, on the other hand, can not make a sharp image on my camera. Or on anybody else's camera unless you get hand-picked as camera royalty. Because nobody can buy one.

Remember those drop in filters that were just around the corner eight months ago (they'll be here by Christmas! - though to be fair, they didn't say of *2020*)? Yeah, still not here and terrible communication with all the people that gave Breakthrough their money back in September(?). And don't forget the drama of the guy who got his whole order cancelled after complaining on an IG post about the wait with no communication (though Breakthrough quickly changed their tune on his cancelled order after that stunt blew up in their faces). Sure, the filter debacle is a subject for a whole different thread, but it's a peek at the customer service culture that's being cultivated over there (take their money and then ignore them). Then Graham comes in here with zero humility, acting like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Breakthrough probably makes great products (assuming they actually make them for more than just a few "camera celebrities"), but their public facing interactions (or lack thereof) have driven me away from considering them at all.

I think the Breakthrough RF to PL looks awesome (as in aesthetics). Sexier then the Hot Rod mount for sure. It probably functions well too. And the drop in filters look really cool, would have been great for extra lightweight gimbal usage, and the price point is hard to beat. But I don't want to give a company that acts like this my money. After seriously considering the drop in filters then slowly getting turned off by the company themselves, I ended up buying the new super slim Formatt ND filters instead. I did have an issue with my order and Formatt has been AMAZING getting it fixed and I'm glad I went with them as a company since they make a good product *and* take care of their customers without bad-mouthing the competition for page after page after page.

Full disclosure: I own a Hot Rod Camera RF to PL adapter. I wasn't given it. I wasn't given a discount of any sort. I bought it at full price with my own money. I'll admit, the mount wasn't perfect, so I made a suggestion in person and -what do you know- a week or so later they emailed me back to let me know they had made a change based on my feedback and to stop by at my convenience and they'd make the upgrade (I live nearby, so stopping by in person is far easier than mailing it in). This mount was only my second time purchasing anything from them, so we don't have any sort of established relationship that would get me preferential treatment of any sort. This was just good, old fashioned customer service.

For those curious about the change, I had noted that the locating pin was slightly undersized and that when seating a lens, there was a little more rotational slop than I'm used to before tightening the locking ring. Did it affect the image? Not that I could tell. But having used a ton of PL mounts before, I didn't like how it felt. Not a deal killer at all, as the lenses were locked solid once the ring was rotated to lock the lens in, but I was impressed they took my feedback, looked into the "problem", and immediately implemented a solution. Great customer service with fast and clear communication.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I am seriously not belittling you here, but I made this thing for fun in a couple weeks as a side project to the drop-in PL RF to serve as a baseline for glass in the optical path.

3-4 machined parts, that's it.

This is a really simple thing, but without getting flange depth correct filmmakers can't hit infinity.

I like critically sharp images, but I'll admit maybe that's just an OCD landscape photographer thing.

You didn't come through on the bet you agreed to, but it was more of lighthearted fun to me all along, no hard feelings.

You said easy bet, I called your bluff, here we are, water under the bridge.



Your statement above is wrong. Its only if back focus is wrong one way you can't hit infinity. If its wrong the other way you can go past infinity. Forgot which dirction, but I think short backfocus and you cant reach infinite, long backfocus and you go past it... or the opposite.

The microns you are mentioning above is such small numbers so all it does is to offset the focus scale for prime lenses just a super small fraction, at a degree where you cant fucking messure it with a tape messure and your focus scale is not even marked up at such fine level... so now why would it make your mount better than the rest? And no you dont see the difference when testing the mount on the camera with a lens shooting for the horison... All you get when having a hint of wrong backfocus is a focus scale offset and a small parafocal error. You need a backfocus messuring instrument to get it right on such small numbers as mentioned above.


Lenses should not be adapted / adjusted to fit a certain camera. They should be collemated correctly by the lens tech. As you don´t want to recollimate lets say a set of 16 lenses to fit a certain camera one day and then have to recolimate them to fit another camera the day after. So let the lens service person deal with the lenses and also make sure that the camera / lens mount adapter has correct backfocus.


The picture above says what? that the DZO mount is the most versatile and the Breaktrough mount is the most limited when it comes to backfocus? Or what does the fraction of inches numbers mean, is it the shortage of backfocus distance. Arri PL flange focus distance is 52mm correct, so does these numbers mean all these mounts are short by the numbers listed? No mount was long, but the BT is the longest / least adaptable? Should not those numbers be negative / with a minus before as a positve numbers would mean that they are all impossible to shim to correct back focus, or?

 

[Nick Gardner]

Soooooo... if we drop filters in behind a lens don't we have to adjust the FFD by 1/3 the thickness of the filters? So aren't these apples and oranges? And wouldn't you need a clear filter if no filter was used on the filter one?

Nick

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Soooooo... if we drop filters in behind a lens don't we have to adjust the FFD by 1/3 the thickness of the filters? So aren't these apples and oranges? And wouldn't you need a clear filter if no filter was used on the filter one?

Nick

Nick don't confuse things with your rocket science ;-)