stop-motion

[Filip Plesha]

Has anyone here been doing stop motion animation?

 

Do all MP cameras have the capability of shooting one frame at a time?

And one more thing, is it possible to shoot stop motion with a still camera (using MP film), and optically print it to 4-perf 35mm? In other words, is the 35mm photographic frame identical to vistavision? I know it is the same number of perforations, but is the frame area the same?

 

thanx

[David Mullen ASC]

No, most 35mm cameras do not normally have single-frame capability. But it's not a big deal to add an intervelometer to them to allow it.

 

Yes, a still camera is the same format as VistaVision. In fact, ILM used a Nikon still camera to shoot the stop-motion mine car chase in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" because the camera had to be small enough to travel down the tracks of the miniature mine.

 

There is a certain precision that comes from using a heavy camera like a Mitchell in that it doesn't move when you reload it. For something with a lot of movement anyway like the mine car chase, that didn't matter.

[Filip Plesha]

And what cameras are usually used for films like Chicken run or Nightmare before christmas? Mitchell-fries?

 

Allso, what filmstock has been used for these films? (the two i specified)

I remember hearing somewhere that Nightmare BC was shot on 5248,

is that right? (if yes, how come they didn't use even slower film (5245) for even finer grain?)

And what about chicken run? What film stock was used there?

 

Thanx

[Sam Wells]

Yes, a still camera is the same format as VistaVision. In fact, ILM used a Nikon still camera to shoot the stop-motion mine car chase in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" because the camera had to be small enough to travel down the tracks of the miniature mine.

It also should be pin-registered.

 

Forscher had a pin-reg mod for Nikon, I'm sure others do.

 

(I had a friend who did a DIY pin registration for an F2, very elegant (looked Mitchell like),

he was using it for multiple pass slide graphics, combined with a kind of moco'd mini- lathe bed. He was actually sucessfull for awhile in competing with some big firms using mini-computers or mainframes.

 

But when it became doable on desktop, workstations :(

 

-Sam

[harryprayiv]

And what cameras are usually used for films like Chicken run or Nightmare before christmas? Mitchell-fries?

 

Allso, what filmstock has been used for these films? (the two i specified)

I remember hearing somewhere that Nightmare BC was shot on 5248,

is that right? (if yes, how come they didn't use even slower film (5245) for even finer grain?)

And what about chicken run? What film stock was used there?

 

Thanx

I know that most/all of the pro's use Thing-M motors. Thing -M's were definitely used on Nightmare Before Christmas as well as motion control. Not really sure what cameras were used on Nightmare, though.

[Filip Plesha]

I remember seeing some behind the scenes image from Nightmare before christmas where they were shooting the santa claws. They were using a black

camera of more traditional design and it had 3 lenses, sort of like bolex. But it had to be 35mm so i have no idea what it was.

 

By the way, I allso heard that they used a Nikon F2 for the animation

of the trench sequence in Star Wars because a regular vistavision camera couldn't fit inside.

[Filip Plesha]

I just found out after a long search on the internet (pretty hard to find info on this production). It was a Mitchell 35mm camera (plus i found another picture where you can clearly see the mitchell magaze sticking out)

[Mitch Gross]

By the way, I allso heard that they used a Nikon F2 for the animation

of the trench sequence in Star Wars because a regular vistavision camera couldn't fit inside.

Actually I think they used a snorkel lens with the camera mounted vertically on a gantry rig above the "trench." To "waggle" the wings as the fighter levels off in the trench they tilted the trench itself on a gimbal.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, they didn't use a Nikon still camera for the trench sequence because it wasn't stop motion. They did use Nikon still camera lenses though on their VistaVision cameras.

 

"Chicken Run" was mostly shot on Fuji F-125T; apparently in testing they found that it had less repricosity failure (sp?) than Kodak 5248 and they were doing very long exposures sometimes. It then went through a D.I. "Nightmare Before Christmas" was all shot on 5248.

[Filip Plesha]

Well, i guess that was just a silly rumour (the star wars thing)

 

I wouldn't be suprized if motion picture film in general have higher reciprocity failures because they are made for short exposures in the first place

so there is no need for good reciprocity.

 

Anyway, why did they use such long exposures?

I mean even if you use a bedside nightlamp you won't need more than

1 second for a nice f-4 aperture with such a slow film.

well, i guess they probably wanted small apertures for more deph of field, right?

[Mitch Gross]

well, i guess they probably wanted small apertures for more deph of field, right?

Exactly. One of the first signs that a miniature is so small is that the relatively longer lens used to capture the appropriate frame will therefore show less relative depth of field. Also tiny practical lights inside spaceship models are not very bright or they'll melt the plastic. I recall reading about exposures using T45 and needing to be accurate to 1/10th of a stop to get clean mattes.

[Dan Salzmann]

Another factor is the size of the model. The smaller the model. the faster a frame rate you'll be likely shooting at to smooth out motion. On lower budget productions, the lens won't be sufficiently stopped down because of the extra exposure needed for the slo-mo making for less depth of field.

[Filip Plesha]

Dan, we are talking about stop motion. There is no frame rate involved in the shooting process. You can shoot one frame now and another after lunch.

[Dan Salzmann]

Absolutely right! I don't know what was on my mind!

[Ragnar Brynjulfsson]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but thought I would pitch in. :)

 

For "The Wrong Trousers" Aardman used long exposures for some shots to create motionblur on the cameramovement (like in the train sequence at the end). I don't know if they did anything similair for Chicken Run, but it wouldn't surprise me.

It also makes sense to use long exposures rather than lots of light for better focus when shooting miniatures. You don't want to have a huge amount of lights on a miniature set as it will quickly get too warm and if you're using plastecine it will go too soft or melt.

 

I used to do some stopmotion, but it was all either with my old Bolex or with studio TV cameras connected either directly to a computer or a writeable laserdisc system (don't remember what it was called). If I was doing stop-motion today I would probably look into using a digital still camera for it. The quality is getting quite good and some of them have consisten exposure from frame to frame (amazingly many don't).

 

Cheers,

 

Ragnar

[K Borowski]

. . .or you could just use film. Haven't you been paying attention to the problems that digital still cameras *still* have with doing time exposures? Why not just use something that works?

[Filip Plesha]

One of the problems with using film for home-made stop motion

if you are using a still camera is registration. And price of course.

For making amateur stop-motion just for the sake of art and fun film is just too expensive.

 

Personally i would like to make stop-motion animation at home with a couple of photo lights and a still camera, but it is way to expensive. For a 5-propack packing of Kodak portra 160ASA film i usually pay about 38 dollars when

you convert it to dollars. For a 400ASA it is about 46 dollars. If you put a price on the lenght of film that is a lot more expensive than motion picture stock.

And one packing of 5 rolls is about 7.5 seconds of film. For a 5-minute short film it would cost 1500 dollars just to expose the film. Not to mention the processing and scanning (for computer editing and DVD output or whatever). THis is too much for playing at home.

[schnozzle]

There's lots of inexpensive software made for this very purpose--if you don't want to use film I think this approach will be less of a hassle in the long run. A friend of mine recommends this highly:

 

http://www.istopmotion.com/

 

You do need a Mac and a camera with a usb or firewire connection, but once you get it running he says it's easy to use and works great. I'm not sure what the pc equivalent is, I should find that out since I don't own a Mac myself.

[Filip Plesha]

I think this aproach is for hardcore animators who enjoy animation only.

If I was doing stop-motion i would mostly be concentrated on the photography and the look of things, and for I couldn't use a simple sd camera and be happy.

 

But I can alway enjoy my self by doing miniature photography (still images) with film though

[schnozzle]

For hard-core animators who enjoy animation only?

 

I can't agree with that. I do both animation & live action...I dunno, it's just a tool, it's not expensive, and the learning curve isn't that steep. It's not like buying an old Oxberry or something.

[Filip Plesha]

I ment "animation only" in the limits of animation films.

I ment, animating , not doing beautifull cinematography or whatever. You misunderstood me.

 

For someone that wants to make stylistic images that he can project in cinema this is not good. But for someone that wants to be animator and not a DP, this is a great tool.

 

Animating stop motion is a trickey subject. When you are doing live-action, you usually have a crew including a DP, but you can do stop motion even alone, and if you are only interested in animation and not lighting/composition/special look's etc. then your film might end up looking dull because all you care is how smooth and realistic the motion will be etc. (not you, i mean "you" as i "one" as in " anyone" ) In that case i think at least two peopel should work on amateour stop-motion, an animator and a cinematographer, or a photographer, he can suit the job just as well in this case. You would be suprized how many animators have this simple aproach, (just a medium that will show their and some light that will show the puppets) There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that working with someone that cares about the image more than the animation would benefit the film.

 

that is why i say that this tool is better for these kind of people. Why? Because it is

based upon a simple SD video-camera. SD video doesn't leave many room for cinematographic expression