Printable View
Here is 3 images of my first anamorphic super 8 setup.
It costed me 30 USD of lens (Proskar 2x) and 4 USD of parts for
lens and matte box support legs.
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/leicinascope.html
Now I have to buy one K40 on next Monday and start shooting test footage.
_________________
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
www.sorb-i-tol.com/transfer8mm.html
Hi, Jukka!
Looks great! Here's a bit of advice (based on long ago anamorphis 16mm work): Use a short block of wood or aluminum and move the camera and lens assembly back so that the pivot point of the tripod is about middle of the camera's lens. This will create a nodal point pan head and will remove virtually all the distortion from your pans. Ideally, you'd also be tilting on the nodal point, as well, but that's trickier to set up and isn't as necessary. But moving the camera back will make a really big difference in reducing distortion when panning. Can't wait to see the results!
How did you make the mount? Or did the Bauer A 512 Matte Box come with all those attachments? Did the anamorphic lens just screw onto the lens you already have on that camera? Tell us more!
I made this setup using AM lens support from my Eiki NT-2 16 mm projector, 2 steel plates I bought
from local store called Biltema and couple bolts etc. Here is the picture I put some text of parts:
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/leicinascope4.jpg
Looks cool, but does it work?
Have you shot any footage yet?
I think we'd all be interested in seeing some still frames from that beast!
matt Pacini
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Looks cool, but does it work?
Have you shot any footage yet?
I think we'd all be interested in seeing some still frames from that beast!
matt Pacini</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not yet, I finnished it on last Saturday (during that day I posted these photos), I'll buy one K40 roll today and try to shoot the test asap.
I'll make an own net page for this test including some mpg-footage transfered with my Wp-3 and some still frames too.
I have already tested/calibrated the setup without the film and I noticed I can use it from 30 mm (in the real it's 15 mm, cause of this 2x AM lens) to 64 mm without any vignetting. No problems with matte box either.
In the future I'll need one bigger AM lens (bigger rear diameter) to avoid wider side vignetting of the lens.
Anyway this is my first test with AM lens (costed me 30 USD), so putting little more money, I'd get for example Kowa PA35 lens (54mm at the rear), which would be better for my needs.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 28, 2002 12:47 AM: Message edited by: jukkasil ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Looks great! Here's a bit of advice (based on long ago anamorphis 16mm work): Use a short block of wood or aluminum and move the camera and lens assembly back so that the pivot point of the tripod is about middle of the camera's lens. This will create a nodal point pan head and will remove virtually all the distortion from your pans.
Moviestuff </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Shouldn't the axis of rotation be around the film plane, not the middle of the lens? I'm not trying to be cocky, Moviestuff, as you usualy seem to know what you're talking about, but I always thought that was the case.
Many thanks
Lucas
Lucas,
Moviestuff is right about rotation on the Nodal point. If the pan or tilt happens at the optical center of the lens, the FG and BG will have no relative movement. If you are shooting with a long lens, film plane pans and tilts will have perceptible distortion.
souper8
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
Shouldn't the axis of rotation be around the film plane, not the middle of the lens? I'm not trying to be cocky, Moviestuff, as you usualy seem to know what you're talking about, but I always thought that was the case.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't get so cocky! [img]wink.gif[/img]
If you want to eliminate distortion, you pan and tilt on the nodal point of the lens. The nodal point is the point where the rays converge to a point before spreading out inverted on the way to the film plane. If you pan and tilt the around the nodal point, then you are allowing the camera to move along the natural curve of the field of view of the lens. Objects in the foreground (like model airplanes!) will appear to be "locked" to the background and will not create any type of paralax problem. Likewise, that will remove distortion from super wide or compressive lenses like anamorphics.
Roger
Does this only apply when using an anamorphic adapter, or is it something that should be attended to at all times?
My Bealieu 4008ZM2 attaches to the tripod at the camera's handle, considerably behind the nodal point and even the film plane itself. (FTR, the lens is a 6-66 Angienieux.)
I haven't done a lot of panning & tilting in my past, mostly due to krapply tripods. Am I missing something? What should I look for when panning?