whick format ?

Lucas Lightfeat - library · Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:13 am

Can you post us a picture of your adapted camera. I'm curious - a medium format camera with a DV cam sticking out of the top veticaly (is that right?)- now that's inventive. I'd love to see it. How did you mount the cameras together? I guess now you have to buy $1000 primes for the DV camera, huh?

Lucas Lightfeat, not logged in

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 3:06 pm

We haven't made a picture of the construction yet, because we only had the sony DV-cam sticked together with the middle-format-camera. But I'll try to make a picture of the construction and post it. I'll take a few days for sure. You could give me your e-mail adress as well and I mail it to you when it's been done.
filmshooting.1.nico@spamgourmet.com
We have 3 used primes, old russian and former GDR ones..for about 150 EUR/$.
Nicolai

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:15 pm

I also want to see a picture of your system.

If it works! I'll take my Kiev 88 medium format camera (is cheap and have a lot of good lens and adapters) and make some test too

Regards,

jchanbr

Post by **mattias** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:19 pm

i'd love to see some more and higher quality clips. the problem with these setups is that you can often see the grain from the ground glass. the "film grain" people recognized in a few of these shots could very well be that, but unlike film grain this would be static and thus much more visible. that 35mm adapter thing uses a rotating ground glass to get around this problem, but i guess a large enough one would do the trick as well.

this priciple can be used the other way around as well, which i've actually done once. shoot the scene on video and then shoot the lcd of the camera on film and voila: instant "video look". :-)

/matt

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:21 pm

you're right, matthias. the grain is quite visible...but here again, miniDV is doing a us favor with its dct compression scheme which makes the grain "move" from picture to picture, just like film. I used grain surgery, which did quite a good job. the picture becomes a little bit softer (looks like canon xl1-frame mode-softness) but there's less grain.

full PAL resolution

video.3.nico@spamgourmet.com (drop me a message and I'll send you a picture of the construction when I have one)

Nicolai

Post by **jessh** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:43 am

Nicolai wrote: OK, I see...you're a little pissed of by my post. (I won't do it again, promised.)

woops, I actually am NOT pissed, especially not at you. I guess I was in a kind of bitchy mood last night though, please accept my appologies!

I have nothing against what you have done, I am actually all for it. As I said before I am all for using whatever means gives you the asthetic you are looking for, and for the most part I really like what I have seen so far of the system you have devised. It has a unique look that is very different than what you would get from shooting on super8 or 16mm. Depending on how big the ground glass is and how much of it you are using, you may even be getting shallower depth of field than you would with 35mm.

Part of my bitchiness was due to the frustration I have had with some people I have worked with who insist on shooting video because film is "too expensive", yet they will spend $4000 on a video camera that will be outdated before I ever spend that much on film, and then insist on trying as hard as possible to make it look "exactly like film". for the most part I just laugh at them :-) I of course am not saying I have anything against video, or against trying to make video have an asthetic similar to film, I just feel that video should be treated as what it is, a different medium with its own postivie and negative aspects, and not a "film-replacement". okay enough ranting, it isn't even targeted at you, and it doesn't have much of ap lace here, I just felt the need to explain my last a post, and of course it turned into another rant :-)

I look forward to seeing the finalized version of your setup as well as the results!

~Jess

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 7:18 pm

No, we don't "insist on shooting video because film is "too expensive"", we were actually planning to shoot this on super8...but our construction is the only inexpensive way to squeeze film-like images out of digital video. Even with our setup it is impossible to match exactly the look of film, basstruc and mr_floppy were very clear when they said: "MiniDV, for sure.
Mini 35 adapter, probably. / XL1 with mini35 adaptor."
But anyway we want to deliver the best quality possible to our client at an ultra-low rate. If he likes his finished video...more clients are willing to book us and pay for our services. By the way, we spend about 150-170 bucks on the setup, the videocamera is from the bass-playing guy on the picture with the two men...no need to pay 4000$ for a new camera.
You're right, our invention is not a film-replacement, it was never intended to be, it has a lot of inconvenients as well, it's simply another approach get away from DV-aesthetics. (I have to admit that I'd shoot 16mm if we would get enough money).
Nico

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:41 am

Greetings,

If the grain effect is from the ground glass, it will be static and not have the "bubbling sand" look that the dancing grains of film has. A cheaper way to acheive this static grain effect is to put a pair of pantyhose over the lens like Hill Street Blues did.

Good luck.

hajjmahmud · Post by **hajjmahmud** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:45 pm

What about a more detailed description (pix) of the setup?
thank you,
Mahmud

Post by **jchanbr** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:15 am

Look here:

http://www.kopfrauschen.de/view_de.php?page=dv35m

have all details $\:D/$

to translate use http://babelfish.altavista.com

regards,

jchanbr

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 9:43 pm

have a look at this page:
http://www.kopfrauschen.de/view_en.php?page=dv35m
I did an quick and dirty english translation.
Ciao, Nicolai

Post by **flatwood** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:08 am

what a great idea. you guys are all geniuses!!! thanks for the translation of the webpage. its fascinating what you've come up with. im not clear on the purpose of the 45 deg mirror tube though??!?

nicolai · Post by **nicolai** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 4:52 pm

we use the mirror device because of the flipped image in the viewfinder of the pentacom camera...it is not upside down but the left side of the ground-glass projected image corresponds to the right side of the actual image (framing). we use this additional mirror in order to get a correct image.
nico

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 02, 2003 9:06 am

boy does that setup look ghetto. Duct tape and everything. :roll:

nicolai · Post by **nicolai** » Fri May 02, 2003 4:05 pm

Anonymous wrote:boy does that setup look ghetto. Duct tape and everything. :roll:

don't you think it more important that it WORKS even though it looks a bit weird?

Filmshooting

whick format ?

Crazy camera

..

Re: ok..ok

Re: ok..ok

dv35m test project

link

english translation