| |
At 02:44 PM 10/7/2003, you wrote:
> In lugnet.animation, Mike Thorn wrote:
> > At 07:12 AM 10/7/2003, you wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> Your original system had the pistons underneath the platform, right?
No, if you look at the photos you'll see that each piston is joined above
the platform. It's not the best system because of the lower power you
achieve with retraction versus extension, but it works best when you're
trying to keep everything above ground.
> You must be assuming that the ganged pistons would be underneath. This is
> not a requirement.
No, I'm assuming they're above. The platform must be above ground level no
matter where the pistons are if only one side of the platform is
articulated, unless you have an area below ground underneath the platform
clear. The ideal platform would be able to tilt up, down and would reside
at ground level. As far as I can tell, this is impossibly pneumatically
with only one side articulated. Unfortunately.
> I'm not advocating for ganged pistons.
Perhaps not, but I really liked your control piston system and would like
to use it if possible. I'm just not sure it is even possible and still
maintain the flexibility of the platform.
> I'd think that a geared mechanism (possibly motorized) would be best.
I'm wondering about that, but I'm also wondering if it's possible with only
two motors instead of four. I have two of each main variety (yeah, I don't
have the largest collection on earth) and trying to pair them would be
tricky at best.
I'm thinking about a rack system, basically replacing pistons with a set of
rack gears and a big gearbox. Control would be finer, provided I drive it
with the RCX. I may be able to more easily incorporate it with one of
Beat's turntables as well. Hmm. "Some Thought Required For Assembly."
> To make a skyward camera angle you must either raise the front of the
> camera (as
> well as the stage), or lower the back (again with the stage not flat to the
> ground.
Both of which are fairly easily done (as we've described before), but
perhaps not ideal.
Has anyone experimented with dual-function systems like are on the #8250
Search Sub and the #8868b Airtech Claw Rig? This is a good place to
investigate something along those lines. Perhaps a ganged-piston system
could be built where half the contraction lifts the rear of the platform
and the other half of the contraction lifts the front?
It perhaps wouldn't help this application but would be fun nonetheless.
I'll have to think about that. I'm still thinking about the motorized side
of the project as well. (brain overload...)
Time to do some building!
~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
|
|
|
|
