Cheap video tap cameras

This is a good link for cheap video tap cameras.
http://www.pelikancam.com/cgi-bin/pelikancam/pum.htm

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Roger,

Reading past posts, I know you're a pretty clever guy... so, here's my question:

These little CCD cameras would still require some sort of adapter to be used in conjunction with your eyepiece/viewfinder, correct? (I have something similar for my Arri, and it came with an adapter.)

Back to what a clever fellow you are... is an adapter something you could fabricate and sell to the rest of us, if we were to invest in one of those mini-cams to use as a video tap?

Could an all-purpose adapter be created for individual S8 cameras? For example, could you fab an adapter that is fitted for a Nizo 40xx/60xx on one end, and has a clamp or some other sort of adjustable device on the other end, to which any little CCD mini-cam could be affixed?

What do you think?

Ronson

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ronson:

Could an all-purpose adapter be created for individual S8 cameras? For example, could you fab an adapter that is fitted for a Nizo 40xx/60xx on one end, and has a clamp or some other sort of adjustable device on the other end, to which any little CCD mini-cam could be affixed?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Ronson!

Well, for starters, thanks a heap for the compliments. (Say, would you mind writing my dad a letter telling him I'm clever? I think he'd argue the point.)

Anyway, I could design a bracket that fit the particular video cameras on that website. However, making a universal bracket that would fit any super 8 camera on one end and any video camera on the other end would be a pretty tall task. Too many variables to be practical since how how one aligns itself on one end of the bracket affects how the other will align, etc.

It would have to be so "modular" that it would be the equivelant of an Erector Set where you'd end up practically having to build it yourself. I don't think that would be very handy.

On the other hand, if one end fits that particular video camera (on the website), then the variables are limited to how it mounts on the camera, which for super 8 is more predictable.

So, the answer to your question is "yes" and "no". I could probably design a universal bracket but only for one kind of video camera.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

"...if one end fits that particular video camera (on the website), then the variables are limited to how it mounts on the camera, which for super 8 is more predictable... so, the answer to your question is "yes" and "no". I could probably design a universal bracket but only for one kind of video camera."

Whoops, sorry, Roger... I guess my post wasn't worded very well (kind of embarrassing, coming from a writer).

Though, I understand your answer perfectly.

What I was asking was not about a universal bracket for any S8 cam, but rather, a bracket that would be fitted for one particular S8 cam on one end (like a Nizo 40xx/60xx, which I'm assuming have the same eyepiece), and univeral for any video cam on the other end... allowing for a multitude of taps to be used with one particular S8 camera... the idea being, you'd be more likely to hang onto your S8 camera than your tap.

In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said was possible!

(My version wouldn't be as practical, on reflection.)

Okay, second question:

(and not to create more projects for you, but since you're the clever one...)

Could you create a adapter bracket for an altogether different video tap?

Like, say... the one I already own? http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

And what's your father's email address? http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

Ronson

------------------

What would be the exact use of these small cameras? I guess I dont understand what you guys are using them for. I have a few of the exact cameras laying around and if they are useful let me know what for.

Lee

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by leesnedaker:
What would be the exact use of these small cameras?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a video assist, which is a way to record on video tape what the movie camera is seeing. This is handy for rehearsals or playing back a scene to check performances before striking a set and moving on to another location.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Like "Lee" I don't see what these cameras are for????

I don't want a video camera on my viewfinder. Then what is focusing the camera??????

I have a video tap on my Aaton and it is the worst thing I can ever have on a set!!!!!

Next thing I know I have 10 people hovering around the video tap and they are all DP's in an instant.

Video taps are great in many ways--But if I have my choice I don't like usinng them. And, A Tap that goes on the viewfinder is even worse. Then you are depending on a video siganl to tell you framing, color, focus and a whole world of choices that should never be made by a CCD camera.

I understand the quest for a Tapped S8 camera but I am not buying in. Good Luck

------------------

Try to use a crane without a video tap

M

p.s Roger, just build an adapter that fits into 1014-XLS : )

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:

I have a video tap on my Aaton and it is the worst thing I can ever have on a set!!!!!
Next thing I know I have 10 people hovering around the video tap and they are all DP's in an instant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have to agree with Nigel on this but for a different reason. As a general rule, I don't use a video tap except in two instances: 1) With a remote boom where it is impossible to operate without one or 2) If someone else is operating the camera while I direct.

In either case, I have general rule on the set that only the operator and myself can see the footage. The reasons are several. For starters, the time required to watch a take is the same time necessary to shoot another take. That's just plain wasteful, from a production schedule standpoint.

Also, most actors, even experienced ones, can't see the "big picture" of how the performances and takes fit together. Therefore, they don't understand that what they are seeing isn't the final product. If they don't understand what they see, then they start to subconsciously affect their performances to "fix" something that isn't broken.

Worse, they can lose faith in the director because they think he/she doesn't see the "obvious" problems with the scene when, in reality, there is no problem at all. It simply hasn't been edited or scored or affected by any of the many other post production tools that can make a good actor look great.

So, ultimately, while I know how to build video taps, I generally don't use them except in specific circumstances and, even then, very judiciously.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

i agree with roger. i would just like to add that video assist is pretty good for steadicam/glidecam/boardcam/plastic bag cam operation as well...

/matt

When ever I have brought out the Video Tap. People spend all day long looking at a monitor that doesn't really show you what you are getting to begin with.

I also hate to use it because it means that the director will often be sitting there trying to be a DP. Which then makes me nothing more than a CameraOp.

Do they have places??? Of course. Steadicams are the best example. But the best place for a Video Tap is in your closet next to your camera case.

Good Luck

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
When ever I have brought out the Video Tap. People spend all day long looking at a monitor that doesn't really show you what you are getting to begin with.

I also hate to use it because it means that the director will often be sitting there trying to be a DP. Which then makes me nothing more than a CameraOp.

Do they have places??? Of course. Steadicams are the best example. But the best place for a Video Tap is in your closet next to your camera case.

Good Luck

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will have to disagree. There are too many reasons (most already articulated) to use than not to use. In reagrds to 'hands on' directors/producers/clients.. they are more of an annoyance than a threat.
And those crew members standing by the monitor not doing their job.. a question that begins with "Are you sure that you....?" usually gets them back to what they are supposed to do.



------------------

Another good reason to consider using a tap:

Over a year ago, I had lazik surgery on my eyes, to correct some astoundingly bad vision (20/650).

Everything has been peachy since then (20/15, better than perfect)...

...until I tried to keep my eye against an eyepiece for longer than a few seconds, at which point, my eye started to water like crazy. I couldn't keep it open to look through the eyepiece.

So, now I'm considering using a tap again.

Plus, as a director who prefers to camera op when he can (so long as I have an experienced cinematographer running the lights), a tap can be a very useful tool.

And the main reason I prefer to cam op is because I've been burned by DPs who said they got the shot, when in fact, they did not. At the very least, a tap would offer video playback opportunities for those dicey moments...

Or, I could just find a DP that I could trust implicitly. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------

Roger, another thought...

Something that I've never seen for a Super-8 camera is a T-bar viewfinder that would allow for a video tap *and* an eyeball against an eyepiece, like you find with some Arri SR packages.

Is this something that could be fabbed, maybe with a couple of tiny mirrors to bounce the real eyepiece image... one to the tap and one to the secondary eyepiece?

Think you could do it? Because I'd sure pay for it! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------

Hey Roger!
Well, while we're employing you do build stuff, I've got a question for you. How hard do you think it would be to modify a follow focus rig to a super 8 cam? I realize that most people wouldn't understand the use for one on a super 8 camera, but I can think of a few cases where I could.
Any thoughts?

------------------

*very* watery eyes when kept open too long is a well known and documented side effect of the lasik process, due to the fact that the eye actually gets drier for some reson. i experience it too all the time. and don't you just love the "black pro mist" effect in high contrast night situations? that's why we're not allowed to fly airplanes commercially. :-)

/matt the hawk

I like that... Black Pro Mist. I'll start using that to explain it.
I gotta say, Lasik is the best thing I've ever done, even with the big negative side effects (oh, wait, there weren't any...)


------------------
Mikel Z

Somebody mentioned a T-bar for the viewfinder. I don't think you need to get this complicated. A simple swinging bracket for the video camera would be a LOT easier and cheaper to design and implement. Sure, you don't get to see both the viewfinder and the monitor screen at the same time, but so what?! Compose your shots and focus through the viewfinder, and then swing the video tap in for the steadicam shot.

Marc S.

------------------

Marc S: "Somebody mentioned a T-bar for the viewfinder. I don't think you need to get this complicated..."

It isn't a matter of complication. It's a matter of need. If you are one of the lucky ones who has had Lazik surgery, the one filmmaking side-effect is that you can't keep your eye open for an extended period against an eyepiece, due to rapid drying, followed by rapid watering.

The ideal gizmo -- which is what I was describing -- would be a T-bar adapter for the viewfinder, so that it wouldn't be necessary for said Lazik recipient to look through the viewfinder at all, assuming he has a reasonably competent cinematographer.

In my case, as the director, I gander at the video tap monitor, while the shooter glues his eye to the viewfinder... the same as the world over, when it comes to the whys of using a T-bar adapter, except that this is more for comfort, than for convenience.

A swinging bracket would not be an answer to this very specific problem.

In addition, if, as a director, you have a very specific shot(s) in mind -- in my case, I always storyboard the entire script, in detail -- you will want to know for *certain* that your shooter got the shot, if indeed you are not shooting it yourself.

Which, if you've had the Lazik surgery, is perhaps the one thing that isn't as easy to do, post-surgery.

Otherwise, I think some sort of swinging bracket is a great idea. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------

Maybe if you could do a customized T-bar job. For example: A tube piece that would "slide" over the existing viewfinder. This piece could have an enlarging lens so as to see "through" the viewfinder And then through a prism (much like you'd find in the Bolex Rx 16mm cameras) the image would reflect upwards onto the video assist camera lens. God I hope this makes sense to others besides me! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/redface.gif)

PhilF

------------------

I would love to have a video tap for two reasons others mentioned:
1. Steadicam
2. Crane shots (or crash camera shots, like hacing the camera partially buried in the road as a car goes over it, etc.)

However, I too would never want one used any other time.

The first time I ever saw a photo in American Cinematographer of a crowd standing around a monitor viewing playback, my first thought was "jeez, what a freakin' waste of time! That at least doubles the amount of time it takes to shoot a scene."

Forget the fact that everyone is going to sit there and give their opinion, if the DP or whoever is running camera doesn't know their sh_t enough to know if the shot is correct, then hire a new camera op.

There is always risk when you shoot, but video is so substandard at telling you what image you actually got (especially from a video tap), that you probably wouldn't know if the shot was crap anyway, unless it was something truly grossly horrendous.
And if you didn't notice that while the shot was underway, you need to go into real estate, or something other than making pictures.

Matt Pacini

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

There is always risk when you shoot, but video is so substandard at telling you what image you actually got (especially from a video tap), that you probably wouldn't know if the shot was crap anyway, unless it was something truly grossly horrendous.
And if you didn't notice that while the shot was underway, you need to go into real estate, or something other than making pictures.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well modern video taps on Arris and Panavision cameras are really quite good. There is plenty of detail. In fact I know quite a few people that tape the output off the feeds and use them to start editing with until their footage comes back from the lab. However, as I mentioned before, I also don't like having them unless it's for remote viewing OR if we just had a really complicated dolly shot and I want to make sure it works before striking the track. Other than that, I think video assist and playback is a waste of production time.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html