Alfeo Dixon

On 7/10/2020 at 4:14 PM, Chris Steel said:

Any reason for that particular plate?

Preference.  Nothing less nor more.

Still..... ?

Low mileage... maybe less than 1200hrs. I will be shooting with it this weekend and can confirm tomorrow.

 

$30K or best offer

 

serious inquiries only please.

bump: still looking

I'm looking for the Preston MDR3 V-Lock Bracket to purchase.

 

Thanks guys for all the replies. I will definitely look into the SmallHD. I thought I had checked their site, but I mist have missed that.

May not be on all models... just like the DP7 Pro OLED also cross converts HDMI to SDI and vice versa

 

How about just having your assistant match the distances. That's how we used to do it in the good old days...

We did that also... and by eye I was nearly 98% on the mark with a perfect match. Two actors open one refrigerator in one area of the store and close same model door but in a different location.

POWER WINDOWS!!!! Thanks James, I was racking my head around that technique they would do in telecine, something to the effect of Gaussian Blur in Photoshop. But not really seeing it on these.

 

Not Beta... ALL of those videos where film... most of them 16mm which is why you get the deeper depth of field look.

 

Mostly all videos then where shot with standard primes and super speeds where the top choice. S4's were reserved for the big boys and 35mm jobs. Still many where on the 10:1 canon cinema zoom.

 

Chocolate and Tobacco filters where ALWAYS in the bag. White & Black ProMist made its rounds as well as Grads all over the place as clearly seen.

 

Not vasaline in Brown Sugar, swing and tilt lenses mad a peek in videos also... this is what you got going on here as well as flash frames... flash frames we would just cut the camera off and restart the camera. Many of the good directors could do it in a good sync area of the playback track for an effect look that would hit during certain rifts of the song.

 

film speeds, we carried 100T, 200T & 500T. 800T was just hitting the market and was a bit pricier. Also, 50D & 250D

 

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I was a camera loader and 2nd AC during the heyday of music videos!

435 is a great camera for steadicam, but you should get the vertical 400' steadicam mags that will give minimal weight shifting during the shot. In terms of handheld, its a bit front heavy but not too bad... again, get the 400' mags for that work also.

SmallHD DP7 Pro OLED does it overly and frame grabs. I know this because I was going ballistic that my brand new monitor had ghosting frame lines from camera prep... then later in the next day another ghosting of a previous shot was there. It turned out that I had put the monitor into overlay mode and had taken a screen grab with black screen showing only frame lines and then a frame grab of a previous set. I was REALLY glad to find out it wasn't a ghosting problem.

 

I used the Alexa feature on that shoot to setup a transition shot, it worked well, but I did not have time to figure out the output to external monitors

I would like to know if anyone has experience using the P+S Technik T-Rex borescope lens system on the Alexa. We are using it to shoot macro shots of fish in a fish tank and shooting through the glass.

My concern is all that glass in front of the sensor and what the effect will be besides a loss of light. I have heard of ghosting when using the Alexa with big zoom lenses or many filters - any chance that something similar may happen with the T-Rex. And are there perhaps better alternatives - eg the Excellence Optex system?

 

Any insight will be greatly appreciated.

Reg,

 

You should be fine, I'm not sure about the ghosting issues stated. But if you have a concern, call Frank at CPT in Atlanta, Wolfgang Rossell invented the T-Rex and was the prior owner of CPT. http://www.c-p-t.net/specialty/specialty.html

 

-Alfeo

Does anyone have the technical information for this video? I very much like the color and contrast (or lack of).

reminds me of an unprocessed RAW or LOG C footage that was not color corrected

That's a hoot. And the CGI on the eyelids was really good for an internet video.

 

Of course there's a no-glasses way that really works. You just have to display the two images side by side, cross your eyes, and focus.

 

Absolutely not CGI... Electrode stimulation has been around for decades. I even tested a friends device way back around 1987 and just trying to find these clips, I'm discovering that the technology has mainstreamed to the Brazilian Ass sculpting!

 

But really, place your finger on the side of your eye, just about where he places his (i'm assuming bluetooth) wireless electrode sync capacitors and blink your eyes. Yep, that is most likely the best place to induce blinking. The cross eyed method is too taking and no one could ever sit through an entire feature, let alone a James Cameron 3D feature without injury. Now would I prefer Francois way... NO! Not unless you like looking like you've been toe to toe with Joe Louis (reference electrode ass video on face) :blink:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmBYwTiGzXY&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBesE0yoaU&feature=related

Please take a look at a set-up with a Litepanels 4x4 running on batteries in one of 2 of NY's most difficult locations to shot and the finished shot. Only one light: the Litepanels 4x4 was used for this campaign. The DP was Adam Beckman. A very talented man.

Litepanels provided by Shadowstone in New Jersey and serving a large part of the East Coast.

Pat, Thanks... that's pretty impressive, I have read many of instances where the 4x4 was a life saver as in time and efficiency in hard to shoot locations such as Grand Central Station. Any change on getting one out to Atlanta for a demo/workshop?

Alfeo,

 

Looking at the picture attached to your post, I see you are wearing anaglyph glasses. Does one actually wear these while operating? Does it cause any confusion of where you stand as you operate? Is this common practice with most stereo rigs?

sorry Jeremy... hadn't been on the boards for a while.... no, this is not a common practice... the photo was during NAB and I had a friend coming bring a bunch of anaglyph glasses from a screening of a project I had shot to the Tiffen/Steadicam booth which I was helping show the rigs. Normal is to look at a single eye or and overlay of both eyes which takes a bit to get use to as far as your bg.

I haven't worked with the Aaton

Now there's a wet dream on your shoulder, Neal! Low profile and just sits up there purrrrring along... but I'd say I was a bit surprised when i say the box'ish design on the Alexa, but I knew Arri wouldn't let us down like the clunky D-21

 

-Alfeo

So no matter how young you feel, age catches up with you... so after years of PERFECT vision... the 40th birthday seems to make you stretch out that arm from acute angle to obtuse.

 

Anyway, with the advances in HD camera rigs, especially the HDSLR's putting monitors within a foot away from the tip of the nose. I had to take the trip to the optometrist and got a great pair of lenses for my eyes. Even though they are "reading" glasses, I got them with transition lenses for the simple fact of we may be outside wearing them handheld, viewing off a monitor. Needless to say, $425 after insurance pays... has anyone written off their spectacles and under what category... I've always done so with my expensive "Protective" sunglasses under miscellaneous/uniforms.

 

 

-Alfeo

Has anyone used the LitePanels 4x4 out there? How did it perform for you and what comparison could you make to the instruments that would have been used (i.e. 12K HMI punching thru a 4x silk or 6K Par straight on)?

I wanted to explore the usage and differences of using a circular or linear pola filter.

 

Are there any benefits of one or the other? Applications that may call for either?

 

I'm well aware that auto focus will not work with linear pola filters, but I am not concerned with auto focus.

Which made me wonder what the preference out there generally is..?

.

Karel,

 

The preference is two identically matched lenses for ever sizing. Since most lenses are assembled by hand, even if they are consecutive in serial numbers, they may still be slight differences across the board. A zoom by nature is a variable lens, why on earth would you want to add more variables into your workflow.

 

-Alfeo

This is the one I took...

 

We basically tried everything.

 

www.theworkshops.com

I'm not sure why you are going on about the goofy thing. I never mentioned that once or questioned the logic behind it.

It made sense to me right from your original post.

I'm a bit confused by your in-depth explanation of this??

simply explaining the rig and WHY the rig will allow the IO to cross over. Its was NOT made for operating in a negative IO.

Next, my question was certainly not a personal attack. It was a fair question, and judging by your evasion I'm guessing the answer is "no".

Yes. That was one of the many things we accomplished in Maine... try it all and SEE why it works and why it doesn't work. Proper projection or manufactures standards, I don't think so. But we did shoot footage based on the projected screen size set up in the 'Production Barn.' We tried it all.

I'm just trying to guage if you really understand what I am talking about.

If you had seen neg stereo projected on a proper system you would agree that having the cameras cross over is very bad idea.

Of course I understood this and DO agree, but you still missed the point of the rig allowing for the top camera to be left eye or right eye by asking me about negative IO. Don't think in terms of neg or positive IO with this rig... it's more of a left or right eye [top camera] configuration that is swappable for a goofy operator.

Anyway, I'm not here for an arguement.

I will apologise for the fact that you took my inquisition the wrong way, but thats it.

no problem

Have you ever viewed stereoscopic images that have crossed-over into negative stereo?

Its all well and good to run around with a rig that flys well and works from a mechanical viewpoint, but bad stereoscopic aquisition is pointless.

3D will not last if people continue to create films with eye-ripping stereo. Regardless of how hard Producers and 3DTV manufacturers push, it needs to be done well or not at all.

Scott,

 

Maybe your not clear on what 'goofy' operating is, so let me take the time seeing this is not the steadicam forum where I actually thought I had posted. Goofy, comes from a surfing term (I don't surf nor really know much about surfing) of someone that puts the opposite foot forward than the 'normal' guys. So, a steadicam operator that flies goofy, will fly the rig on his right side, rather than on the left side of the body.

 

How this relates to the rig? In order for the [steadicam] operator to have a clear view of the steadicam monitor, the top [horizontal] camera should move towards the right (by default making it the right eye) while increasing IO in order to have visual clearance to our steadicam monitor below. If the bottom [vertical] camera is towards the right, this will obstruct the steadicams monitor and cause hardship for the operator to frame properly.

 

So, the goofy guys will want the top camera to move towards the left (by default making it the left eye) so that the bottom camera will not obstruct their view of the steadicam monitor.

 

A very simple and clear design feature thinking about the ones that are different from the rest of us. I too had questioned why Philippe would do such a thing and then he showed me exactly what I described to you.

 

Now, your personal attack seems a bit rude. I've personally followed 3D for a few years before the big uproar and then studied an entire week with Paul Taylor at the first Maine workshop on Stereography along with Doug Hart and many other VERY enthused people on the subject of 3D. We even had a neurophysicist that came from Sweden just because he is excited about 3D as a hobby.

 

I totally agree, that bad stereoscopic acquisition is pointless and that is why I am excited for Philippe's rig and just asked Chris at ZGC for a quote, because it is a good solid rig with a lot of thought into it for acquisition on dolly, hand held or steadicam and not just a flyby night rig made by someone that has never operated a camera, much less a steadicam.... Philippe is an operator!

 

Apology in order and accepted

 

-Alfeo

 

BTW, that is also why there should be a stereographer onset and not this post crap.

Very interesting rig. Not sure how it would go with larger cameras though.

Scott,

 

A dream to fly with SI2K's... we had one in the booth at Tiffen/Steadicam and I was also given a very thorough overview of design and operation by Philippe Bordelais. Not to mention the same over haul on the Cine Deck w/ SI-2K's with Ari Presler from Silicon Imaging... I guess I had my own personal 3D workshop ;-)

 

ok... back to your questions...

Both cameras moving to balance out each other when adjusting I/O is all well and good for the Operator, but how does this view stereoscopically?

changing the I/O in the manor of the Freestyle does not affect your stereo viewing in any way... same as if it where typical or side-side.

In the footage it appears as though the cameras are crossing over and going into neg stereo.

The cameras will crossover to what you are calling negative stereo, this is designed that way by Philippe to accommodate the operators that fly goofy. Mainly for the ability to view the monitor, thats it.

Have you viewed the images on a Real D system?

Have not viewed on Real D system, that of course has no relation to acquisition nor operation.

How difficult is it to align verticals and zoom offsets?

very easy, done by sight, looks as if the mirror is a perfect 45deg from both cameras. Very well done and compact design.

Do you have control of the vertical alignment on the fly? (ie: adjustable mirror)

Yes and No. You are able to adjust the mirror along an xy angle, but not advised to move once set with the cameras your operating with. There is no rise on this rig, only a tilt for far/near alignment.

What happens to the balance when you converge?

I am pretty sure that only the top camera moves on convergence, but I could be mistaken on this point. The nodal point is just about where the gate on the camera would be, centered on the horizontal camera, this is could have a slight affect if you where pulling.

 

-Alfeo

How're ya'll.

We are considering shooting a new indie film in 3D and I am trying to find out why 3D Film Factory Rigs only cost about $4500, when Element Technica Rigs cost from 56 - 67 grand. Would anyone know the difference of these rigs and why there is such a huge price difference?

 

Thanks heaps

-Abraham Williams

Having worked with the P+S Technik rig, it has a lot more control with gauges for zeroing in on your settings. not to mention convergence and IO. You can also use a Preston or similar to mechanize your movements. The 3D Film Factory in looks like its a simple rail machine. The mirrors are also a HUGE factor.

 

-Alfeo

So who here has actually done work in 3D?

 

I'm being asking if I can make the next film in 3D. Oh great more book learning.

 

R,

Two shorts, one with the the P+S Technik Prism Rig using Sony EX1 & EX3, the other was two RED Ones with a home-brew rig. Also took the first workshop at Rockport on Stereoscopic cinematography. There we had a prototype from 3D Camera Company setup with 2 - 435's and also the another prototype 3D recorder for 2 - SI2K's. The third rig we had was the same P+S Technik and Sony EX's.

 

I would be happy to talk offline

 

The question is why should you?

Not every story benefits from 3D. I would say most don't. 3D is more for a theme park ride, which is what Avatar basically was, a park ride with some story. I was kind of hoping the fad would soon past but as Avatar made a behemoth amount of money it seems the fad will stick around a bit longer as money is the thing most people respect the most, specially Hollywood. But knowing Hollywood they will shoot themselves in the foot by over flooding the market with 3D crap till the gimmick wears out and people see 3D or not films still need a good story and most stories do not need 3D or are made better by 3D. Then the fad will go away as it has many times before in the past. The flood is already in the horizon. The next 3-5 years every blockbuster, comic book movie and 3D animation will be in 3D.

Was never a big fan of Cameron's and am even less now.

But you gotta handle it to him. Took himself to break his own record because we just have too many morons ahead of business in Hollywood.

Michael, this is just the apathy that the 3D people are trying to spot. 3D is not a theme park gimmick... it is the way we see life and every 2D film is using all the tools it can to make you perceive a world of depth. By this I mean depth cues, things you take advantage of and do not realize it. Foreground, middle ground and back ground. Small depth of fields and out of focus backgrounds. Foreground obstructions, foreground crosses... all of these to simulate depth in a scene.

 

Avatar's story sucked... really! ALL movies should start with a good story first. 3D is more or less another way to engage the audience into a story. If you go to a 3D movie looking for the so called 'gimmicks' then your literally missing the picture. UP, fantastic story and fabulous film, 3D or 2D... I still would have cried and laughed with my son. If you think of 3D as only a tool to bring a flat screen into a perception closer to your own native view experience, then you will get where 3D is truly heading in our industry... the 'gimmick' was over in the 70's and tried to revisit in the 80's.

 

-Alfeo