|
Finally we did it...
Hi all,
after many tries, we finally build our adapter. We are using Maxxwell's Beattie which is moving in small circle on three shafts. Primary lens is Takumar 70-200mm, camcorder is Panasonic GS400. We bulid radio microphone, which is on fishpole. Receiver is connected to camcorder. After many nights without sleeping, we build our steadycam with two arms and three springs. So... Finally we hope we are ready to go to make some shots for our film. Do you have any ideas, hints or good points from your first real action ? Anyone want to give us some advice ? http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p960.jpg |
You did VERY good. BRAVO!
For steadicam (another beauty) you will love to use a 35mm (instead of 70-200) Show us a clip when you have it. |
Ah! That's the photo-negative enlarger you posted earlier. I used exactly the same one but in a very different setup. So you use it (not like me) also for rack focusing?
I remember you put the whole camera inside, did it work out? Yes, the steadycam looks great too. I wonder if it's as heavy as it looks, but I'm sure it isn't. Good work. |
wow if that is not a KICKASS homemade steadycam!!!!
LOVE THE RAW STEEL LOOK with rust and all!!! BRAVO!!! |
Steel looking of Steady :) - we cuted some steel out and made some bodypaint and added some more springs for better calibration. Do not know exactly weight, but its about 15kg with all components without camera on it.
It uses about 29 ball bearings :) http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p964.jpg And as you remember from before... We are using still the cool wildy looking thing (in fact the photo-negative enlarger as you wrote). But I built inside the GG oscilator. I have little problem with Mabuchi motor overheating, after fifteen minutes in movement its really hot... http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p962.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p963.jpg Hope everything will working fine... |
Daves,
Was that an Opemus in its days? I know is not Krokus (since I have one) |
daves: your steady cam is a work of art. 3 ccd with shallow depth on a steady cam . bravo
|
15kg and smoking a sigaret as if he he forgot he has the steadycam still on him. That's just great...
Too bad this board is called -Alternative Imaging Methods- in stead of -Home Made Gear- or something. I'd like to discuss these things and my own ideas on other equipment as well. Moderator: Isn't it a good idea to add -and home made gear- to the title of this board? |
Dan: I have both Krokus either Opemus, but this one you could see is Axomat4.
http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p982.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p978.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p979.jpg We passed first week of making our film. Lots of new experiences... Even if we had prepared 130mm and 70-200mm lens, we finaly used just 58mm lens. But the depth of field is very good: http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p987.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p991.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p994.jpg http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p1007.jpg But there is some grain visible - Anyone who use Maxxwell or Beattie : Do you have also visible grain ? Which side of GG do you use - Side with GG or side with fresnel ? http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p1008.jpg |
Thanks for sharing the pics with us. They are very good. YOU ARE THERE!!!! BRAVO!!!
Quote:
...... We use both sides at all times but each side serves a different purpose!!! Right?THINK!!!!!!!!! Which side does what? Why are both there? Fresnel does what? Matte side does what? Which side do you NEED to photograph? I could just share what I know/found, but that would not give you any power. (I might be wrong as well) The right questions will lead you to the right answers (I hope). Than you GAIN power (and I have someone strong to exchange ideas with) "Easy" is the path leading to dullness. "Hard" is sharpness achieved...(my understanding of real help) ....and........ don't make me get the hose!!!!...... (rotf) |
Wow... what a help :) Im not rolling on the floor right now, but anyway - I will reach the best I can get from Maxxwell. Believe me ;-)
Another idea which I have is to take Nikon GG, which has condenser implemented and I shoot whole 36x24 without any vignetting, and rid of the matte side, make it smooth and then make make grit much smaller than in original... I should reduce grain and I thing - get better results than with beattie. Just idea... time will show... Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
But in the other hand, I do not mess around... Im sharing all my free time to lots of hobbies. Im building replica of rally car S130RS http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p564.jpg, http://web.datriware.com/gfx_photos/articles/p377.jpg, Im trying whatever Im thinking about http://web.datriware.com/files/rapidtest.wmv... so if you give me that answer, I just want to kill that man :-D But I understand you, you are right, because if I do it by myself, Im the one who did it :) |
I decide not to use 58mm lens. I tested it with Takumar 70-200mm and I found the 58mm lens are projecting very small picture on GG, that means more vignetting. If I use Takumar 70-200mm, Im getting twice bigger projected picture. Also for vignetting is better to focus on infinity and then focus by moving lens closer and further to GG. Thats results from my testing. Hope usefull for you...
|
I have had the same experience with different lenses. 28mm gives a smaler image, 50mm gives a bigger image, but some vignetting and 135mm gives a perfect image, 80-200 zoom gives some vignetting and more light loss.
Anyone know what causes this? Is it the diameter of the lenses? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network