SLR, Motordrive and Twixtor...
 

As I currently camera-less, I'm consider low cost approaches to create motion pictures.

I wonder about shooting shorts sequences (3-10) seconds at 3 -5 fps with SLR and motordrive, then using twixtor to render 24fps.

Anyone try such a thing or idea about how to test before I drop funds on camera and a bunch of film?

No way dude, you will get better results even with a hi8 !!!! or now that you have a SLR camera, remove the lens, and build a Agus35 (serach the forum), and get a Hi8.. that will be better than your current plans... even cheaper, and you wont have to wait until they give you thepictures and scan each one.

Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm looking for an "experimental" look, not realistic interlaced motion capture. If it looks a little "weird", that a good thing, i.e. kind of like slow motion at normal speed...

you can do almost anything that you can imaging in post production, but your quality is 100% dependent of your footage.

It looks okay...I've experimented with the demo of Twixtor and gotten fair results with it (used a friend's digital still cam). Depending on the motion of the camera or subject you can get some instances of warping/slow flickering which is an interesting error/visual byproduct that looks like a cross between that slow shutter dv look or the look that Michel Gondry used for the Rolling Stones video (which I think he morphed from frame to frame). You can find workarounds though, I'm sure...I didn't spend much time on the experiment.

On the software side, Retimer is available for AE as well, but the best retiming plug-in is only available for Shake or the Discreet Product line (Kronos, a part of the Tinderbox Furnace suite I think)--Chris Cunningham used SLRs and Kronos to do the Orange commercial (if you haven't seen it, here's the link)--

http://www.glassworks.co.uk/large/In...nge_PM_Big.mov

That's with a $5000 plug-in though.

Since I'm getting a Holga for Christmas, I'm exploring options (creatively and technically) to make a film in a similar vein (only using a cheap image degrading camera!). I'm also planning a sequence (sort of) using home-made pinhole cameras. I'm probably going to utilize some DV as well, but I want to print each frame out and scan it back in at a larger resolution to see if that gives me an interesting look. Lots of tedious work will have to be done, I know!

The downside to this, is that I will have to convince some friends to sit in on pixilation experiments while I direct them in stop-motion, or come up with something engaging sans people.

Just sharing some info, sorry about your financial situation and the loss of your camera. Digital video is great, but it is not the only way to make pictures...I'm sure you'll find a way to get back into your passion.

Get the 2000. The Fischer-Price 2000, that is. Pixel Vision.
No one ever mentions this cam. It actually has
been used in a (I think) widely released movie.
I heard of a guy who bought one at a flea market for
$5 and sold it on scambay for $400! The Deluxe Kit
came with a 4" black-and-white field monitor. No way?
Way!

P.S. For those unfamiliar with this cam, it records
audio *and* video on regular audio cassette
tapes.

I've always wanted one of these but the only reliable place I can find to get one is MacJava (if they have any in stock) and they're charging up to 700 USD for it.

It was used in spots on a modern version of Hamlet (Ethan Hawke, Bill Murray) and Nadja (or something)...both by the same filmmaker.

I remember coming across a site a year or two ago that had a process that laid down moving images onto records, and they could play them back on their own engineered record player if I remember correctly.

Man, have you ever seen the footage from a 2000?
I can't believe they made that for kids. Eerie!
I believe some people have modified them to
record to miniDV tape and just use the 2000 as a head with like RCA-out connecters.
I one time posted a link to a music video shot with the 2000.

Is This something like your thinking of? It was shot with an EOS 5 @ 5 fps then put into a PAL QT at 25fps. It's basically just a scanned sequence but it will give you an idea of the motion you can expect.

Adrian and Michael:

Thanks for the pointers & encouragement but both your links are not working...The FTP site appears to be down and the other does not allow hotlinking.

I've actually looked for a pixelvision before but they are quite expensive.

Stephen,

Obviously, yes, you're going to get quite an experimental look out of that.

You can experiment already, just take any old video footage you have, speed it up to 6x normal speed (which should give you 4 individual frames per second), then export that as a series of stills. Then re-import that sequence as a 4 fps file and run the Twixtor demo on it.

Should be an exact approximation of the look you're contemplating, but with no bux out of pocket, so you can test it and see if it would be satisfactory.

Barry:

I had the same thought this morning as I've got plenty of DVX100 24p to mess with.

Twixtor test was interesting at just 1fps to 24fps - though I'm still learning how to use the plugin (don't understand Twixtor Pro yet).

The links are working now:

Adrian, that's what I want to capture but then I want software (e.g. Twixtor) to interpolate the frames inbetween. Action shots are probably not ideal though).

Michael:

Cunningham's ad is very cool, though that's no what I'm trying to get.

I'm just wondering what frame rate I want to pay for 4, 6 or 10 fps...

Here's a HD Windows Media 9 file from a test I did. I used my wife's Canon Powershot A70 digital still cam, auto mode, handhelp continous shot at approx 2 frames per second (it started at 2.2 then tailed off). Shots were 2048 X 1536 jpg.

I then applied Twixtor 2 fps to 24fps conversion and output a uncompressed AVI at 1080p.

Then used Windows Media encoder to create this file. Intriguing results and I think 4-8 fps with a SLR would give great results (for my experimental needs

Twixtor Test

I didn\'t understand at what your were getting at, and then it finally hit me. A very cool idea, but you\'d be so limited in what you wanted to do. Maybe like Stephen said, if you can get a few more fps then it would look really nice.