Mitch Perkins wrote:
When visually IDing film cameras on the street, don't be fooled by this tricky dick -
Looks like a film mag on the back....but it's not ~:?)
Funny thing, when miniDV cams became really good and shooting industrials on BetaSP cameras became more troublesome than they were worth, I had this notion of making fiberglass shells that looked like big, 3CCD Ikegami BetaSP cameras that you could slip your 3CCD miniDV camera inside of to please the paranoid clients that wanted to see "the real deal" on location.
Sneaky. ~:?)
This thing on the back of the Viper pictured above would more efficiently hold all the electronics needed if it were square - simple physics. But, then it wouldn't look like a film mag....sneaky.
Mitch Perkins wrote:
This thing on the back of the Viper pictured above would more efficiently hold all the electronics needed if it were square...
Yes but it will survive drops better if it has rounded ends. (That's why castle builders quickly learned to make the turrets and edges of their castles rounded, to better withstand impacts.) Also, the rounding does reduce the vertical profile a bit when used on remote hot heads on cranes. Having built several such cranes, that little bit of corner sticking out on the top back can often make the difference between clearance on the upper yoke or not, when going to maximum downward tilt. I also imagine the camera was designed to try and fit already existing film camera rigging used on such cranes. So while it does appear a bit sneaky, I am sure there are some practical reasons to emulate the size and shape of a film mag.
Mitch Perkins wrote:
This thing on the back of the Viper pictured above would more efficiently hold all the electronics needed if it were square...
Yes but it will survive drops better if it has rounded ends. (That's why castle builders quickly learned to make the turrets and edges of their castles rounded, to better withstand impacts.)
Sure, castles were designed with attacks against them in mind - high-end camera gear?...not so much.
Meanwhile if some poor ac drops a high-end piece of gear, the manufacturer gets to sell a replacement, at full cost. Take a look at the white metal mounting thread on those earlier [and maybe the current] Panasonic 24p MiniDV cams - designed to snap [which it does], thereby allowing the camera to float gracefully to the ground. Heh.
MovieStuff wrote: Also, the rounding does reduce the vertical profile a bit when used on remote hot heads on cranes. Having built several such cranes, that little bit of corner sticking out on the top back can often make the difference between clearance on the upper yoke or not, when going to maximum downward tilt. I also imagine the camera was designed to try and fit already existing film camera rigging used on such cranes. So while it does appear a bit sneaky, I am sure there are some practical reasons to emulate the size and shape of a film mag.
These trends are alarming enough. So what purpose would it serve to make a blatantly false statement about the stability of sales in the motion picture film segment, that is a subset of the above numbers? I'm certain the sales figures for Kodak's motion picture films can be found and verified somewhere.
Switching topics, your idea to make a big pro looking video camera false front to mask the small, amateur looking Mini DV's was very funny. My friends who shoot video professionally were all worried (several years ago) that their clients would demand a drastic reduction in their rates when they started switching from Beta SP cameras to Mini DV.
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Sure, castles were designed with attacks against them in mind - high-end camera gear?...not so much.
Actually, yes. Look at the edges of all camera gear and you will find that it is rounded wherever possible. Granted there are some questionable use of plastic and snap-likely appendages on miniDV cameras but you won't find that on high end camera gear.
Mitch Perkins wrote:
By "more efficiently", I meant in a smaller box.
Roster wrote:
Two Year Compound Annual Decrease of 16%
These trends are alarming enough. So what purpose would it serve to make a blatantly false statement about the stability of sales in the motion picture film segment, that is a subset of the above numbers?
Think "Enron".
Roster wrote:
Switching topics, your idea to make a big pro looking video camera false front to mask the small, amateur looking Mini DV's was very funny. My friends who shoot video professionally were all worried (several years ago) that their clients would demand a drastic reduction in their rates when they started switching from Beta SP cameras to Mini DV.
I've lived it. There is a reason I don't shoot industrials any more.
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Sure, castles were designed with attacks against them in mind - high-end camera gear?...not so much.
Actually, yes. Look at the edges of all camera gear....
That's going to take some time [....] ~:?)
MovieStuff wrote:[....] and you will find that it is rounded wherever possible.
I generally chalked that up to ergonomics, believing as I do that you're just really not supposed to ever drop high-end camera gear.....hennyway that viper attachment could still have been a square box with rounded edges. Instead it looks just like an Arri mag.....not that I want to seem obsessed here ~:?)
MovieStuff wrote: Granted there are some questionable use of plastic and snap-likely appendages on miniDV cameras but you won't find that on high end camera gear.
well, film isn't exactly without workflow problems either. if that's what you're trying to avoid a good old tape camera like the f900 is probably your best bet. the red is cool because it brings you a filmlike workflow in many ways.
Will2 wrote:Obviously Kodak is seeing major decline in film sales, but what about the Motion Picture division only? I'd bet its not that much.
And after all the 35mm Kodachrome I bought I must have spiked that number up a little!
These are the overall numbers, including the consumer film division which is tanking. I thought that Kodak Professional and the Motion Picture Division had record sales as of 2007?
• Steven Christopher Wallace •
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2591403/
http://www.scwfilms.com
