shooting at 1.667 fps ? 42minutes to 1 minute
Posted 30 June 2004 - 11:40 AM
and is a job for a dolly or mocon.....
but i am weird and all ive got is a steadicam
shooting content for our 360' cinema/stage for bands/concerts and events we have been working/developing on hard for years and did our first showcase at glastonbury last week. its a massive geodesic dome with a 25 kilowatt sound system and 2000 people capacity. due to the nature of the project (a load of hippies with vans generators and sound systems with not much else) the content is nt going to have the budgets to pay for wicked mocon units etc etc at least until we get some good gigs on it that are nt some evil co - orporate tossers (been offered plenty of them). so for now its unfunded art for the sake of it (and pretty wicked events and massive parties)
so back to the question ... shooting on a 360' lens using a digital camera that shoots one frame every 6 seconds this weekend.... some long sweeping shots through some disused warehouse complexs...
should i make the rig as heavy as possible ?
should i make it as long or as short as possible?
would antlers help or hinder?
ive got 2 bubbles (liquid ones) that im going to use to keep level
the contents going to be played back at about 7fps with a lot of "tweening" (fading between frames to give the illusion of a higher framerate) this is the equivilant of speeding up your film in avid by 4200 per cent (42 times) does anyone have any tips tricks or techniques vis a vis shots like this on steadicam
i.e. a 42 minute shot is going to play for 1 minute!
Posted 30 June 2004 - 01:06 PM
Make sure you dress smart
I had once a 4mm on a 16 camera and I was featured in shot often, that is about a 140 degrees lens and your fisheye will be around 180.
I did some shot like this on about 1 fps and personally didn´t like the effect, the movement was very jerky, although I really tried to hold it straight and still.
At that time we didn´t have the digital effects that could make it more bearable, so it might work now, with the post effects you are planning.
For 42 minutes of shot you might want to throw every weight off your rig!
Rob van Gelder, Bangkok, Thailand
Posted 30 June 2004 - 05:41 PM
How are you?
Ok so how long is the sled going to be - as it has to see over your head -correct?
Try and keep it as short as you can get away with.
I would try and shoot at a faster frame rate more like 1 every second or even faster 92 frames per second if the camera will do that) and then do you fx and speed in post - as if it does not work at that speed then you have to do it all over again.
The balance of the sled - you don't want to be too bottom heavy - jusy normal and above all comfortable - try and keep the sled near your body and take it easy and make sure you walk the course as many times as possible before you shoot.
Antlers might help if you have the space.
Also forget your bubbles just go off your picture and level the sled for the shot.
Other than that good luck and I would love to see it. - get some making of photos for the website.
All the best
Howard J Smith MK-V
Posted 01 July 2004 - 04:30 AM
its 0.677fps not 1.677 fps. my mistake
the camera its self, weighing under 500g can go at any height (way above my head) as the difference to cg is low.... but the " dead weight" to simulate a proper camera is what im trying to work out. so i should make the distance of couterbalancing weights as short as possible. interesting about no bottom weight
the angle of the shot itself is everything over 30' from the equator. shot through a 7megapixel camera through a "wineglass" mirror lens.. de distorted afterwards in post. hence i can t get a higher frame rate off the camera than 1every6seconds
im going to put a tiny lightweight dv camera on the longest lens possible as my "aiming" monitor
your right rob... i should have 2 high defs back to back on 180 lenses camera body becoming so long my smartly dressed body would not be seen. or as were ding later 5 x pd150s or smaller.
ok... ill just have to try it out
Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:04 PM