In my past HD helicopter projects we shot at 23.98 psf with a 1/48 shutter
speed. (This would be equal to shooting film at 24 FPS at an 180 degree
shutter) with great results. I also shot 29.97psf with shutter at 1/60
with great results. You could shoot at an increased shutter speed to cripsen
up the sampling but this may cause the stepping effect that most find
bizarre.
Tyler mounts need extra attention with HD. You must isolate the lens more
so from vibration than standard def or even film I have found. Tyler makes
an HD zoom mount that works well. Add this to your order with zooms. Also
it's best to have a paint box (Sony RMB 150 or 750) (Panasonic AJ-EC3P)
for camera control during flight. Even if you are not a menu-jockey paint
boxes do give more control of the camera's basic functions.
The Pro 35 adaptor I feel will only add to your vibration isolation problem
when flying...You might want to really test that one first before you
hang the whole shoot on it. As an added insight the Pro 35 is a cool tool
but the only real reasons to use this option is for depth of field issues
or if you already own good 35mm glass. This is just an opinion....fellow
CML people.
A Tyler Nose 2 mount is not a stabilized platform like Wescam or Spacecam.
You will want to stay wide with your lens choices for obvious reason.
I don't feel the depth a field issue warrants the added complication of
the Pro 35 and it's moving ground glass with vibration during flight.
But it's your job....and this is just the opinion of one menu-jockey.
Also cables strung on the outside of the helicopter can pick up radio
interference from the communication system that could end up on your tape!
This happens often with camera head on mount - deck in cabin configurations.
Take a test flight and ask the pilot to bring a hand held radio to talk
with air traffic control. I found this to work best on my last flight.
If you have any other questions about installing mounts or HD in the air
contact me off line.
Fly safe.
Mike Spodnik SOC
HD cameraman (Sometimes Airborne)
Ashland, OR
>I don't feel the depth a field
issue warrants the added complication of the >Pro 35 and it's
moving ground glass with vibration during flight.
Using the Pro35 for airborne usage makes no sense to me at all - why would
anybody want to use this on a helicopter?
+++ Florian Rettich +++
+++ Europe based DIT / vision control +++
Florian Rettich writes :
>Using the Pro35 for airborne
usage makes no sense to me at all - why >would anybody
want to use this on a helicopter?
The idea was to test what an 8mm lens looked like when rear projected
onto a dome. Seven lenses were tested on both the Cinealta and the Varicam
including HD zooms. I explained in the original message that we were steering
away from the Pro35. That said, we will use it for situations where we
need to use proprietary optics with PL mounts and the budget does not
allow for film.
All the best,
Michael Samstag
Samstag Productions
Director of Interactive Photography
Knoxville, TN
http://www.dvd360.com
Michael Samstag wrote:
>The idea was to test what an
8mm lens looked like when rear projected >onto a dome.
Sounds interesting.
What experiences do you have using the Angenieux/Zeiss adaptor with non-Zeiss
lenses? (color artefacts or something else)
Do you use custom built lenses?
+++ Florian Rettich +++
+++ Europe based DIT / vision control +++
>Sounds interesting. What experiences
do you have using the Angenieux >/ Zeiss adaptor with non-Zeiss
lenses
We have only used custom lenses but we have noticed several
problems with
the Angenieux adapter:
#1) DOF is much shorter (which is actually
a problem for us with fish eye lenses)
Copyright © CML. All rights reserved.