Finally we did it... at DVinfo.net

Daves Spi · April 22nd, 2005, 12:58 AM

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

Dan Diaconu · April 22nd, 2005, 01:16 AM

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.

Oscar Spierenburg · April 22nd, 2005, 04:50 PM

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.

Obin Olson · April 22nd, 2005, 05:15 PM

wow if that is not a KICKASS homemade steadycam!!!!

LOVE THE RAW STEEL LOOK with rust and all!!! BRAVO!!!

Daves Spi · April 25th, 2005, 02:58 AM

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...

Dan Diaconu · April 25th, 2005, 08:31 AM

Daves,
Was that an Opemus in its days?
I know is not Krokus (since I have one)

Richard Mellor · April 25th, 2005, 04:42 PM

daves: your steady cam is a work of art. 3 ccd with shallow depth on a steady cam . bravo

Oscar Spierenburg · April 25th, 2005, 06:02 PM

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?

Daves Spi · May 3rd, 2005, 01:44 AM

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

Dan Diaconu · May 3rd, 2005, 09:24 AM

Thanks for sharing the pics with us. They are very good. YOU ARE THERE!!!! BRAVO!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

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 ?

Yes, the grain is there at all times. But is up to you to trick the eye (through the speed of movement combined with the shutter speed) and make it look like.... is not there. THINK! and EXPERIMENT!!!! you have it!
......
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)

Daves Spi · May 4th, 2005, 12:49 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Thanks for sharing the pics with us. They are very good. YOU ARE THERE!!!! BRAVO!!!

Yes, the grain is there at all times. But is up to you to trick the eye (through the speed of movement combined with the shutter speed) and make it look like.... is not there. THINK! and EXPERIMENT!!!! you have it!
......
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)

Dan Diaconu · May 4th, 2005, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

I will reach the best I can get from Maxxwell. Believe me ;-)

That's the spirit!!!!!!!! BRAVO AGAIN!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

and rid of the matte side, make it smooth and then make make grit much smaller than in original...

Been there/done that (July 2004). Good luck!... and do not take my sense of humor too seriously, please. I mean no harm and no offense, just joking...

Daves Spi · May 4th, 2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

and do not take my sense of humor too seriously, please. I mean no harm and no offense, just joking...

Thats ok, I'm not so long at forum, but I know you and your humour :) If you do not read me, that does not mean I do not read you...

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 :)

Daves Spi · May 13th, 2005, 04:01 AM

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...

Oscar Spierenburg · May 13th, 2005, 08:36 AM

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?

April 22nd, 2005, 12:58 AM	#1
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	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 __________________ Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

April 25th, 2005, 02:58 AM	#5
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	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 At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

May 3rd, 2005, 01:44 AM	#9
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	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 __________________ Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

May 13th, 2005, 04:01 AM	#14
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	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... __________________ Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

April 22nd, 2005, 01:16 AM	#2
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	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.

April 22nd, 2005, 04:50 PM	#3
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	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.

April 22nd, 2005, 05:15 PM	#4
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	wow if that is not a KICKASS homemade steadycam!!!! LOVE THE RAW STEEL LOOK with rust and all!!! BRAVO!!!

April 25th, 2005, 08:31 AM	#6
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Daves, Was that an Opemus in its days? I know is not Krokus (since I have one)

April 25th, 2005, 04:42 PM	#7
Richard Mellor Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: cambridge ma Posts: 247	daves: your steady cam is a work of art. 3 ccd with shallow depth on a steady cam . bravo

April 25th, 2005, 06:02 PM	#8
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	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?

May 13th, 2005, 08:36 AM	#15
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	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?