| |
At 07:12 AM 10/7/2003, you wrote:
> It only now occur to me that it's animation we're talking about, not
> filming. In
> that case it does not matter hos long it takes etc. between the shots (sure,
> fast is better it don't need to be 30fps fast). Then you could easily build a
> mechanic solution, motorized if you wish.
Yes, stop-motion has much different requirements than realtime filming.
Actually, if I was looking for a fast realtime cut from top to bottom, the
current mechanism is perfect. It moves quite fast.
> In lack of a rotation sensor you can use the lightsensor, if that's
> availible to
> you, see this by Rob Stehlik:
> http://sparky.i989.net/rstehlik/images/robots/digger/dd22.jpg
For some very odd reason sparky.i989.net always results in a 404 for me,
running IE 6, XP Pro. Any clue why?
> Looks like Bob Kojima is working on a little something:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=58358
Yes, that looks like what I was thinking of. It's a little high off the
ground for filming, but perhaps the camera could be set on an outrigger or
something. With feet that big, you could put a masonry brick on an
outrigger and it wouldn't fall over...the camera doesn't hardly weigh anything.
> If you need to have the camera close to the ground, either elevate the "studio
> ground" (or lower the camera tilt/pan under ground level), or hang the camera
> under the turntable.
I've been thinking about that, and in the shower today I realized that
using a ganged piston system like Kevin suggested would not work without
doing exactly that - elevating the studio floor or putting the camera below
ground level. Neither of these are simple, especially for the current film
project - my "studio" is about 3'x3' and a good 8" high. Not easy to work
with at all.
Also, I realized that with a ganged piston system, the platform would have
to be raised a piston shaft's length above the ground in order to obtain a
skyward point of view. This means that the platform must be anchored in
front several studs off the ground - which is not good for things like
portraits or closeups. The platform ideally ought to be touching the
ground. So without Tobbe's in-ground camera system suggestion, I either
need two more pistons or a different idea. Since I'm not a rich guy, I
started thinking alternatives. (sorry, Kevin!)
I'm evaluating the merits of a mechanical system with some sort of triangle
lever system. I know I'm not explaining this well, so I'll just have to
build it. Maybe I'll be able to get to that later today.
> Take a look at the great roller designs out there too (see under Turntables,
> specificly the ones by Beat Felber):
> http://www.lugnet.com/technic/gears
Wow, Beat has done some fantastic work. The first version of his turntable
interests me greatly - it's low to the ground, pretty compact, feasible for
my parts collection, and solid enough that I could possibly put the camera
on an outrigger if I needed to get it low to the ground. I'm not sure I'll
need to be low to the ground for my project, though - I pretty much just
want to do a sweep of the "valley":
http://www11.brinkster.com/buachaille/vodb_valley.jpg
Later that will be covered with sand. I'm not the only one that likes how
the valley turned out, either: http://www11.brinkster.com/buachaille/cat.jpg.
It would be nice to have an all-around tilt/pan system for future projects,
though.
I'm still thinking about the pneumatic systems idea. I wish there was the
pneumatic equivalent of a transformer.
Till the next brainstorm and thanks for the input,
~Mike
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
