danny bartle

Ben, The first question you have to ask yourself am I going to shoot in the water or from the land? Will I be chasing pro surfers around or is it more just to shoot mates or a few local rippers? The most critical & important thing with surf filming or photography is WHO you know, not WHAT you know. The most successful bodyboard video maker I know uses only the most basic 3CCD camera & hasn't much of a clue about motion film or advanced camera techniques... what makes him great is the people & locations he shoots.... I definetely wouldn't start with 16mm movie film, I would learn with a 35mm still camera or video. Unless your really good mates with Taj or Jake & are following those guys around, 16mm will be totally out of the question. Prob a 3CCD Pana will do the trick, about $3500. A housing is another $1600ish plus a wide or fisheye lens, $400ish plus a wide or fish port for housing $300ish. IMHO, shooting snow or skate is much more profitable & easier. ATM there is way too much supply of average surf footage, being the exception of really good footage of the top guys.

Thanks Mitch... I'll try that out & see how it turns out...

Hello, Can standard 16mm films be cropped for telecine transfer to give a 16:9 image? Are the results still good? Would the cost of transfer be much higher than a normal transfer to video?

Can anyone tell me the current costs in Australia for 16mm film (lets say Kodak 50D), processing & transfer onto video? Does it cost any extra shooting Super 16? Also where can all this be done? The reason I ask this is I'm trying to work out whether its economical for me to shoot Super 16 as opposed to possibly waiting a few months to see what these new Prosumer HD cams are going to be like.... Any input is much appreciated...

I know its recommended to load up the film into a Bolex in a dark area but how dark does it have to be? When they say dark, do they mean in a darkbag or just in the shade?(not bright sunlight) Also how much leader is usually on a 100foot reel of 16mm film?

"120V is a lot safer than 220V or 240V; that's why less concern for safety." Thats your comment, no misquoting. Without doubt a stupid comment. Without dropping too many hints, maybe you should go play with some 120V, hint-hint, being so safe & all..... :D

Hi Oliver, thanks for the comments. Yes the lens is being used for surf shots from the land so it will always be used in bright & sunny conditions so hopefullt f4.5 will be enough. The lens is good being only the front & rear element externally needing a minor clean. The price seems good too, AU$100, about US$70ish I think....

My gosh.... PLEASE NO ONE LISTEN TO ULTRA!!! THE CLAIMS HE MADE THAT 120VOLTS IS MUCH SAFER THAN 240VOLTS IS ABSOLOUTELY REDICULOUS & RECKLESS!! 120 VOLTS IS JUST AS DANGEROUS!! You said your twice as likely to get killed using 240 volts, so countries with 240 volts should in theory have twice the amount of electrocutions than countries with 120 volts, & that definetely is not true. I have had 4 years electrical apprentice training with 7 years post trade, have obtained the A & C class Australian licenses with 3 phase & my electrical contractors license so please dont try to twist my words or correct me as everything I have stated is both factual & from my own personal electrical experience. AGAIN I MUST STRESS, PLEASE NO ONE TAKE NOTICE OF ULTRA'S STUPID & RECKLESS COMMENTS OF 120 VOLTS BEING MUCH SAFER. DO NOT THINK YOU CAN WORK SAFELY ON ANY MAINS SUPPLY BEING IT 120V OR 240V WITHOUT THE CORRECT LICENSE OR EXPERIENCE. GOD FORBID THAT ANYONE LISTENS TO HIS IDIOTIC COMMENTS & ATTEMPTS TO WORK UNEXPERIENCED OR UNQUALIFIED ON A MAINS POWER SUPPLY.

Incorrect Ultra, firstly you will never see kiloamps from a standard or 3 phase mains supply. To say that 240volts is twice as likely to kill you compared to 120volts is like saying being hit with a 2 tonne car at 100kph is twice as likely to kill you compared to a 1 tonne car at 100kph. Either one can kill you....I told my trade studies lecturer about that comment today & he said its the most totally reckless & silly comment he's heard. Lets say your body resistance is 500ohms at a certain time of the day, at 240volts you'll get 480mA, at 120volts you'll get half obviously, 240mA, both currents will likely kill. Regardless whether its 240volts or 120 volts, if your a bit sweaty & moist, not insulated well from the ground, either one will develop enough current to likely kill you. Hence the need for RCD (Residual Current Device) for safety's sake.

I completely agree Chainsaw. I have an Australian Electrical License & for a fact know that 120 volts is no safer than 220-240 volts... Its only takes a small amount of current for the human heart to go into cardiac arrest....

Hello I have the option of buying a Schneider-Kreuznach Tele Xenar 150mm 4.5 C-Mount Lens for a great price. Is this a good lens & has anyone used one before?..

yeh I agree, when looking through the side mounted viewfinder, esp when using faster film or in bright conditions when you have to close the lens more, the side mounted one is good. I'm gonna run some film through my Bolex & see how it turns out tracking a surfer....

Thanks Patrick. The reason I ask this is I have a non-reflex Bolex & I wasn't too sure how accuarate the side mounted octameter is. I'll be using telephoto lenses, mostly around the 75mm-150mm mark, at a distance of about 30-50 metres away. I'll be shooting surfers from the beach, are they accurate enough to track a surfer going along the wave?

Take a look at this link first.. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi...item=3082818617 Is this a lens which makes your non-reflex Bolex a reflex camera? Anyone care to explain how it works?..... Jamie.

yeh I sorta realised the CCD camera wont be as good as my PDX10P but i'm sure it'll be good enough for what we want. The unique POV we will get will make up for the loss in image quality... The camera comes in either NTSC or PAL models. Since the CCD camera has A/V outputs, it must transmit either the PAL or NTSC format. You're probably thinking of the CCD sensor itself which isn'y either PAL or NTSC, its only a pick up device... I hope I explained that well enough..

had a look, not suitable for the use I need it for but a cute little camera regardless.... I'm sure it'll be popular though for the consumer given its small size..

Mr Bill, when they stated it being waterproo to 10 feet, which website stated this for which cam? The www.bulletcam.com cameras are only NTSC unfortunately, I need PAL being in Australia. I'm also planning to use it to a surfers head also to get the surfers POV which I think will be cool too, so waterproofing is necessary. Joe you said these new cameras are only about US$800 which seems really cheap, when are they coming out & in what format? (MPEG?) Dorian, I've just patented the wireless head camera system, you'll have to buy the 2.4Ghz system off me. haha, just j/k mate.... :)

thanks for the link... I think they sell similar cameras at www.rfconcepts.co.uk They have Sony 1/3inch CCD's 480 lines according to specs but I dont know if they're waterproof. The sie you gave me a link to appears to have a waterproof bullet camera package but I dont know if they sell the camera alone...

I've already gone through trying to use a small camcorder but we need something even lighter. Never seen the flash drive cameras but i'm sure they're expensive & they'd be heavier than just using a CCD camera. Basically there has to be as little weight & physical size on the skydivers head, hence the reason for using a CCD camera only with no storage device, be it tape or memory. Plus I'm trying to make this all for about AU$700 roughly. What i'm making is a small CCD camera which will be able to be strapped to a skydivers helmet or just handheld by them. Cable will run to a small 2.4Ghz transmitter & battery will be mounted in a waterproof case with small antenna which is strapped to the skydivers stomach or chest. My Sony PDX10P will be on the ground with the 2.4Ghz receiver & Yagi antenna to receive the signal. You also mentioned the Panasonic having image stabiliser & being able to zoom. We always use wide angle when jumping as we are so close to the other skydivers so the wider the better, no one ever uses zoom. Image stabilisers aren't needed either as your falling at a constant even speed. You'd be surprised how smooth the footage is. Basically the communications & video storage is almost sorted, just want to find out what would be a decent CCD camera to use.

I'm currently making a small CCD wireless camera system which is to be mounted onto a skydivers helmet. I've made the transmitter & receiver sections & that all works great with good range but now I'm deciding on which camera to use. Obviously it must be small & light but also waterproof as the skydivers will be often landing in water. Here is one I've been thinking of using http://shop.viosport.com/store/customer/pr...6154&cat=&page= Anyone used this type of camera or similar cameras?

ok, but will a ND filter help at all considering i'm using it in bright conditions on the beach? As my PDX10 doesn't have built in ND filter like the PD150. Please ultra definition, no more responses from you. I've read all your other posts. I dont like your attitude, the way you write. Your a tosser & thrive on negative attention towards you, no offence....

I've noticed that too.. when I'm shooting my PDX10 in the water (like today) it does have problems with bright areas... Is there anything to avoid this? (filter perhaps) I mostly use 1/60th-1/150th shutter speed.

thanks for all the help everyone.... defeinetely dont wanna re-invent the wheel! well i've spoken to 2 surf film guys recently & both of them use them Bolex's (which very much suit surf filming, no batteries, strong solid unit & waves generally wont last longer than 15 seconds max therefore no need for long takes) & one of them uses a Photosonics High Speed Cam. They've had their work shown on the big screen but the surfing companies they shoot the riders for pay for all their flights, accomodation & all film costs. Now i'm not at their level.. yet... Like I said most of my footage is used on DVD's. The guys I sell the footage to all use 3CCD video cameras for almost 90% of their footage as they generally only know about video & probably dont know a great deal about film. Now what i'm trying to achieve is a bit of an "improvement" over the other shooters out there who sell their footage who use video, hence why I'm thinking of 16mm transferred to mini DV as I've heard its better. What I think I might do it just try the 16mm Bolex i've got, get it processed & transferred & see what I think of it. Who knows I may love it. I spose the only thing I have to lose is a bit of money!! Thanks for your comments to thedirector007 but I already have a water housing for my 3CCD Sony as its a whole lot easier to shoot video in the water rather than film. Its hard enough getting right next to the surfer being able to just pont & shoot rather than worry about all the factors using 16mm film like focussing aperture etc. The amount of times i've been severely knocked about out there in the water (like this morning!) theres other things to consider first ie: trying not to drown.. Also thanks for the Bolex link too...

None of my previous footage has been used in cinema or theatre. All my footage is used mostly on DVD's or VHS video format. The main reason I want to use 16mm, from what i've heard is that it looks a lot better than 3CCD footage (by transferring the 16mm footage to mini DV).....

Well I already have a 16:9 full resolution 3CCD video camera. Its the Sony PDX10. The only way I could upgrade is to buy the panasonic DVX100 which I've heard gives a "film look". I already have numerous telephoto, wide angle & fish eye lenses, filters, an underwater housing & an excellent fluid head tripod for my video camera. I'm not really too worried about the 16mm running costs at this stage. I know tape costs nothing but i'd still be shooting probably 90% in video. Like I said its only used for those special surf days where I know my footage will easily be sold. I have been considering the Panasonic DVX100 but i've had mixed reports regarding this camera. I'd love to hire one first to try it but being in Australia (esp where I am in Perth) I can find anyone who hires them. The way I see I could buy a DVX100 for about US$4500-$5000 (with batteries, lenses, etc) or get a Bolex for a lot less which would give me better results. Like I said, its not as if i'll be shooting it everyday, more like about 100-200feet a month... Another thing which makes me not want to buy another video camera is how quickly they become outdated. I bought this Sony PDX10 camera 8 months ago & I'm already thinking its a bit outdated. Most video camera's need to be updated regularly as there's always new features (like progressive scan & 16:9). I'd like to get a good condition Bolex which would last me a while...