Still frames

Post by **etimh** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:43 pm

I'm interested in creating some still image frames to be inserted in this film I'm working on. Short of optical printing (remember, I'm a total analog/mechanical effects guy, NO digital editing), what is the best way to proceed with this?

I've already shot the images I want to use in 35mm and have gotten them printed 8x10. I figured I would just set up a copy/animation board and shoot footage of the still images. But is it best to shoot them at a given frame rate? Or maybe even single-frame?

Any experience with this or thoughts on the matter?

Tim

Post by **flatwood** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:53 pm

Shooting on super8??? I think the standard frame rate should work just fine. Are you doing a motion table type effect???

Post by **etimh** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:07 pm

flatwood wrote:Shooting on super8??? I think the standard frame rate should work just fine. Are you doing a motion table type effect???

Hey flatwood. Yes, Super 8, of course.

Wasn't sure about the frame rate but thinking that a slower frame rate might provide better resolution of the image (huh? I guess that's really irrelevant, right?). Thus my questionable conclusion that single-frame, animation-style, might be the best.

What is a motion table type effect?

Tim

YouTube · Post by **Andreas Wideroe** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:13 pm

Faster fps will give you sharper images.

Just make sure you have lots of light. I would shoot this in 24fps, maybe 36fps or faster (if your camera can do it).

/Andreas

Post by **steve hyde** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:24 pm

..well it sounds like standard "copy work", but with a Super 8 camera - so frame rate should be based on your projecting speed. (how much screen time for each image?) If you are letting the camera run as images are shuffled in front of the lens you will have to worry about motion blur so I agree that faster frame rates would produce sharper images. Given your shooting scenario I can't think of any advantages for shooting slow frame rates.. For best results, I suggest shooting in flat, yet bright, light.

Post by **flatwood** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:26 pm

etimh wrote:....a motion table type effect? ....

Oh, you know. When the camera moves around a large picture. You've seen that stuff on the Discovery Channel. Before digital they would buy a two axis geared bed on a copy stand. The camera would stay stationary and the table would move the picture around following preset points set in ona computer.

Those things were costing tens of thousands to buy and you had to laugh when the digitals put those machines on the obsolete list. I bought a small one on ebay a few years ago for a buck and sold it later for a good profit.

Most nowadays scan the pics in at high res and program motion in their editor. It works great.

Post by **etimh** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:23 pm

awand wrote:Faster fps will give you sharper images.

Just make sure you have lots of light. I would shoot this in 24fps, maybe 36fps or faster (if your camera can do it).

/Andreas

Okay, sounds good. Thanks. Maybe I'll try a couple different speeds and see if there is any difference. Good advice on the lighting--might have to experiment a little to avoid wash-out, glare, etc.

steve hyde wrote:..well it sounds like standard "copy work", but with a Super 8 camera - so frame rate should be based on your projecting speed. (how much screen time for each image?) If you are letting the camera run as images are shuffled in front of the lens you will have to worry about motion blur so I agree that faster frame rates would produce sharper images. Given your shooting scenario I can't think of any advantages for shooting slow frame rates.. For best results, I suggest shooting in flat, yet bright, light.

Yep, I use to do a lot of slide copy work back in the day--remembered it and thought I might be able to use the technique here. Screen time is definitely something I've factored and I know how frame rate works there. Don't know what I was thinking about that in relation to "image resolution," duh. No "shuffling" of images in front of the lens--just straight cuts where the stills are inserted. If I like the effect I have considered using an in-camera lap dissolve between still images, or, as a transition in or out of the still from a moving shot. We'll see how it turns out.

flatwood wrote:
etimh wrote:....a motion table type effect? ....
Oh, you know. When the camera moves around a large picture. You've seen that stuff on the Discovery Channel. Before digital they would buy a two axis geared bed on a copy stand. The camera would stay stationary and the table would move the picture around following preset points set in ona computer.

Yes, of course. Thanks for the clarification. A perfect example, though, of how the speed and ease of a new technological development completely undermines the effectiveness of an artistic strategy. All these easy "tricks" that they can do now in the digital environment are just that, easy tricks. And they look like it.

You could say that the indiscriminate over-use of a technique like the digital motion employed, as you pointed out, in so much recent documentary work has completely neutralized the visual power that this editing strategy might have once had. Selectively "re-framing" of historical visual artifacts like photographs for authorial emphasis has been a point of contention in the past, for some very interesting reasons. Now, because of its pervasiveness, it just looks and feels tired. And played-out.

Thanks everyone for the help.

Tim

Post by **flatwood** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:40 am

etimh wrote:......so much recent documentary work has completely neutralized the visual power that this editing strategy might have once had.....

Aint that the truth but it was very cool when they first started doing it. One of my neighbors ran Viper Designs out of a three car garage on his property. He was making major money making motion tables. I saw the one that went to the History channel. Had a vacuum base to hold the photos, very heavy for stability. He made a super nice camera crane too. That's probably not too far off - the virtual crane. Hmmm. Sounds like my next venture!!!

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:09 am

flatwood wrote:
etimh wrote:....a motion table type effect? ....
Oh, you know. When the camera moves around a large picture. You've seen that stuff on the Discovery Channel. Before digital they would buy a two axis geared bed on a copy stand. The camera would stay stationary and the table would move the picture around following preset points set in ona computer.

I used to do weekly product shots for an upscale local grocery store chain that wanted a kind of "Masterpiece Theatre" look to their product. A tight budget, of course, so I came up with my patented "board and marbles" approach, which worked perfectly. You take a large plywood board, (preferably hardwood plywood because it is smooth) and you put it on a smooth tile floor with marbles underneath the board. The camera hangs over head on a boom made of a counterbalanced 2x4. The board with the products, photos, etc, is then moved around below it smoooooth as silk. You can move the board laterally, or in circles or make compound moves. The camera can go up and down on the boom as it comes upon objects. Ridiculously easy to set up in minutes and as smooth as any motion control set ups that I ever worked with. We would put a table cloth on the board and it looked just terrific. I used this same technique later for a documentary on ants. We set it up in the field to shoot ants with a macro lens and we could just roll along and follow the trail. Again, it was very smooth.

Roger

Roger

Post by **flatwood** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:42 am

MovieStuff wrote:....my patented "board and marbles" approach, which worked perfectly. You take a large plywood board, (preferably....

Holey smoked ham!!! Thats brilliant. How did you come up with that???

Post by **teadub** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:40 am

Bauer has a macro slide adapter. You put the lens in macro mode, and it lets you focus in on a slide, mounted to lens hood. Like where you would put a filter. No motion effects, but sharp images from slide film, all you need is a white light source behind it like a light-box, or an lcd monitor. Slower frame rates (18fps) , with f 2.8 or greater is preferable so whites don't turn grey... or is it gray?...

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:48 pm

flatwood wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:....my patented "board and marbles" approach, which worked perfectly. You take a large plywood board, (preferably....
Holey smoked ham!!! Thats brilliant. How did you come up with that???

Necessity, of course. When we shot the ants, we put a small counterweighted camera boom (about 4 feet) on the board, itself. That board was sitting on marbles on top of another board we had leveled on the ground. Sort of a "marble sandwich". As you can imagine, the camera was not very high off the ground. We were shooting video and used a miniDV cam and could monitor our framing remotely.

Shooting in a studio is easier, of course. The camera we shot with was actually a full size broadcast camera and we moved the board with the camera stationary. Even though the lights were also stationary, no one really noticed the shadows changing. It was quite dimensional and easy as pie to set up.

Roger

Post by **audadvnc** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:06 pm

And I thought the Age of Invention was way behind us. That's the creative imagination in action!

Post by **etimh** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:39 pm

teadub wrote:Bauer has a macro slide adapter...

Oh damn, I completely blanked on using slide film with an adapter. As I said, I'm not going to need any motion effects so this would have worked fine. I think I'm going to rethink this and shoot some slides to see how they compare using this method. Thanks for the reminder teadub.

BTW, do they make black and white slide film?

Tim

Post by **tejas** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:11 am

Agfa used to make a black and white slide film called Scala. Now that Agfa film is defunct your best bet is probably eBay. I still have a few rolls in the fridge. I like to use it when I shoot 3D pics, it is the bomb. There are very few labs that process it. Although one is right by my home in Santa Ana CA (Main Photo). If you can, get some of this film before it is gone for good.

Peace,

Brian