Adam Paul

36 views and no reply? Comon guys, help me out here :)

How about 25p?

I have had a tire dolly for a while now and I want to convert it to a track dolly. I have found some U grooved steel wheels covered in polyurethane inside the groove for silence. I have also found the track that goes with it. It?s not purposed to be dolly tracks but it seems it could work. My only concern is that the wheels and tracks are pretty slim. The wheels are 120mm in diameter and only 30mm wide. The groove itself is only 21mm and the round track is 20mm diameter. The weight is not the problem. They support up to 470lbs. But do you think it will run smooth even being so slim or it doesn't matter? Would flanged wheels on a square track be better than the U grooved wheels on round tracks? Thanks.

Really? When did this happen? Any ideas why? I didn't know that.

Yeah, you may be right. It may be actually cheaper to just make the whole thing from scratch. A simple geared head shouldn't be that hard to machine. Specially that you can find the gears ready to purchase. By the way, is the arc of the tilt gear that important? If instead of the shallow type of geared heads there was a more steep one like a half circle, how would it impact usability?

It seems to me a rocker plate would be slightly different. More like a tilt plate, like this: But the other head seems to tilt and pan. I was thinking if you could put some gear drives underneath to drive the pan and tilt and connect them to driver wheels on the sides, it could work as a geared head. Most likely only one speed and for sure not as good as a real geared had but I think this could be done for much cheaper than the price of an used geared head which is in the 3-4k range. This head seems to have the right shape and the right space for the conversion.

I hope the picture shows this time. It doesn't look like a tilt plate as you can clearly see it also pans. Maybe it's just a friction head? Not sure why they called it a lock off head though.

Ok. I found this picture and the description said just ?lock off head?. http://www.3dg.de/7M9Kg It doesn't look to be a fluid head. Looks more like a geared head, but it has no gears :lol: I couldn't manage to post a picture so I hope the link works.

Is it that stupid of a question? :(

I saw a picture of one of those heads and it looks like a sort of mini geared head. It seems to have gears for operation. What are they used for? I wonder if it's a good head to convert to a geared head.

Is the Kowa in question an anamorphic adapter or an anamorphic lens? I have never heard of Kowa anamorphic lenses, just adapters.

Wish I had something like that around me.

As you can see by me giving links to the widescreen museum etc, I am researching on the net as well. But sometimes things can get pretty confusing when it comes to numbers ;).

Thank God there are still patient people who remembers nobody was born knowing it or knows everything and has the patience and will to share his knowledge. Thanks a lot David.

Yes, my focus ring spins fine and smooth. Not sure. Hard to see. It's built in and all I can see is the convex end. Yes, the front is just flat.

Thanks David. I will check those.

Yeah, I have done some fake anamorphic photography, meaning shooting 16:9 to crop to 2.40. It's no easy task to fill the wide frame. Although I haven't heard of the use of negative space then. A wider frame than 2.40 would be even harder to fill I guess. It's a pity we don't have many examples in the wider aspect ratios. Do you know of any examples of using the negative space with 2.55, 2.66 or even 2.7?

Aha. I get it now. You were talking before unqueezing. So it's kind of like using the 2x lens when shooting 4:3 with a 16:9 sensor. Some 16:9 cameras have the option to crop the sensor on the sides to get 4:3. I understand now. Not really any advantage I guess unless you would use the whole would use the entire 16:9 sensor and the entire unqueezed frame. But that would be way too wide at 3.56. Although the resolution gains would be there. I just wonder why Panavision or even RED didn't go with a 1.33 sensor instead of 1.78. That would make it compatible with existing scope lenses and also be a real digital S35 camera, which RED seems to be promoting itself as one.

Is there an cinematography.com equivalent for colorists? Like a board where colorists post and discuss the different color processes from wide release films etc?

I thought it was used early on in Cinemascope movies. I thought The Robe and How to Marry a Millionaire were Cinemascope films and The Robe was in 2.66:1 http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs2.htm Although IMDB lists it as Cinemascope 2.55:1 I kind like the wider aspect ratios better. I think 2.55:1 and even 2.66:1 are not too wide. But that may be just me.

Thanks for clarifying David. I was sure I was missing something. Although I still don't understand the math behind the 1.20 in order to get the 2.40

I know a lens doesn't double any pixels. I was more thinking in terms of being equivalent or something. But I was sure I was missing something, that's why I resurrected the thread. What confused me even more is that 1296x1080 doesn't have a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. Also, I still don't understand how we get to 1296x1080 from a 2x squeezed 1920x1080.

Forgive me for resurrecting such an old thread, but I was researching the forums and came across this post and it confused me. If you shoot 1920x1080 with a 2x lens you would get 3840x1080 right? That's a 3.55:1 aspect ratio. So to get a 2.40:1 aspect ratio you would need to crop it to 2592x1080, which gets you a 2.8 MP image. That?s much higher than the 1.54 MP from cropping 1920x1080 to 2.40:1. How did you arrive at 1296x1080? That's actually a 1.2:1. aspect ratio instead of 2.40:1 What am I missing?

This place used to be packed with Super-8 experts and now all I get is one single opinion?What happened?

Very nice frames. With so much extra space to play with I wonder if the old 2.66:1 films (which I don't think were many, at least I couldn't find any lists) wouldn't look too empty. Although 2.66:1 doesn't seem that much wider than today's standard 2.40:1 (which for some reason still been referenced as 2.35:1). I think 2.66:1 was referenced as full Cinemascope right?