Jump to content


Photo

NIKON R10 follow focus set up


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Tavee

Tom Tavee

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:22 AM

hi guys-
I had my busted (assistant dropped it) follow focus unit from my DVX 100A sent back to
Jerry at JBK Cineproducts (fantastic to work with-old school!) in FL for repair.
Since I sold my DVX after the last project , I had him refit it for my Nikon R10 with
a new focus gear. Jerry just sent me completed pics and I can't wait to shoot with it next week.
Here it is with the 12mm Century rods and mattebox. I was planning
to sell the whole rig & camera after the job to help pay for an HDV setup, but am not so sure
anymore. Just wanted to let you know that it is possible. Cheers-T

FFSPNIKON1.JPG
  • 0

#2 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:00 PM

LOOOOVE IT! how much did the whole set up cost?
  • 0

#3 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 12 February 2006 - 03:51 PM

i love it too. i've been looking for one to buy or parts to build one from for my canon. i have an old hasselblad matte box as well as a 3x3 filter holder, some metal rods, and some odd gears for a follow focus but nothing fits together and i just don't have the time. :-)

/matt
  • 0

#4 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 12 February 2006 - 04:17 PM

a similar setup is available from chrosziel for 2000 euros.

http://www.chrosziel.../ACPL_09_05.pdf

/matt
  • 0

#5 Seth Mondragon

Seth Mondragon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 13 February 2006 - 02:46 PM

that R10 follow focus is frickin' sweet! I LOVE it....
  • 0

#6 Peter Duggan

Peter Duggan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:43 PM

That's awesome man. I'm jealous now.
  • 0

#7 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:17 PM

I nominate this as the most useless waste of money for super 8 shooting 2006. They should give out an award. The winner in 2005 would have been the "supermag 400".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is simply ridiculous. It is ridiculous for two reasons which are inescapable facts. First, a 1970's Japanese home movie camera mega-zoom like that gets all soft at f stops below 4 anyways. So you're looking at keeping the f stop at at least a 4. Now keeping the f stop at 4 means that with super 8 you have an insane depth of field outside of macro shooting. You do know what a depth of field chart is? Here's part of one for a Nikon R10.

Posted Image

Even at 15mm (a slightly long lens for super 8, with 10mm being a super 8 normal), shooting at f4 so your images can be reasonably sharp, you've got, focused at 10 feet away, a depth of field where everything is in focus of between 6 feet and 29 feet. So your actors can walk around with 23 feet of depth without worrying about focus. Almost 7 metres.

In my opinion, you have simply thrown away a bunch of money on something that is virtually useless so you can have a toy. Money that could have been spent improving your super 8 images in practical ways. Namely, buying a real camera and prime lenses, and telecining to professional format video with direct-to-hard drive.
  • 0

#8 Tanner Almon

Tanner Almon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • P.A.

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:21 PM

santo, you crack me up man! i don't how you do it, but some of your posts are funny as hell.

take it easy,
tanner
  • 0

#9 Tom Tavee

Tom Tavee

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 February 2006 - 01:13 PM

Gee Santo- I know that I'm a newbie to this board and all, but I didn't know that I was wasting money
by recycling something that was previously broken.
As for the leftover mattebox, I hope you have nothing against that too, as I do like to use my existing filters when I shoot.
With due respect to your endless knowledge of super 8 cameras, I'm puzzled by the venom in your response.
I've never been the type to judgmentally tell people I don't know, how to spend their time,money and effort .
Climbing on soapboxes is for politicians and religious leaders...and oh yeah, gaffers...
I know that the speed whip and the FF unit definitely makes hitting focus marks easier for me than turning the barrel when I'm wide open and tele'd out.
I've been using FF units whenever possible so I must be a lazy creature of habit as well as stupid.
And as everyone knows, a follow focus unit isn't permanent. I can switch it off the rails to work with other film/video cameras when needed.
So I guess paying $60.00 for a custom gear ring on my "crappy" Nikon lens is a sin that I will have to live with. Shame on me...
  • 0

#10 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:47 PM

yeah, i don't understand what the problem is. why would there be a focus ring on the camera at all if you don't have to focus? and if you already own a follow focus unit for another camera what on earth is wrong with mounting it on your super 8 camera? useless would be to mount a pocelain owl or something similar (and that would actually still be kind of cool). at least a follow focus can be used to focus.

/matt
  • 0

#11 Tanner Almon

Tanner Almon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • P.A.

Posted 15 February 2006 - 02:28 AM

Hey Tom,

I wouldn't worry much about El Santo. No one here really knows what his deal is except that he really likes getting his super 8 footage put onto his hardrive. If they gave out an award for being "most likely to transfer super 8 film to hardrives" I would nominate him.

Anyway, if you ask me the R-10 follow focus you have is one sweet setup. I'm seriously thinking about getting one myself (don't tell you know who). Definitely post some footage if you can, I'd really like to see it in action.

Take it easy,
tanner

Edited by Tanner Almon, 15 February 2006 - 02:30 AM.

  • 0

#12 Robert Skates

Robert Skates
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2006 - 10:50 AM

Dept of field can be defined as: The range of distance within which all objects will be in ACCEPTABLE sharp focus, including an area in front of and behind the principal point of focus. The key word here is acceptable. In most cases,if the distance between the focal plane and subject changes during a shot you should pull focus regardless of dept of field.

DoF is helpfull in some situations. Example: you have two sujects moving about and you need to carry both of them. Before I get taken to task. Yes I know tht the angenieux 5.9mm prime hs no focus ring due to the deep DoF.

The matte box/follow focus unit for the R10 is very nice. I own an R10 and would love to have such an accessory in my kit. Who is to say what's a waste of money. I've seen several ARRI S & CP 16 packages sell for less than some super 8 cameras. The K3 goes for less than most S8 cameras. (I know the deal with the K3, some are good. some bad. Not so great QC etc.) If you do a cost breakdown between super 8 neg & 16mm short ends, the difference is not all that great. We all have our reasons for shooting super 8. My reasons are mostly aesthetic. I do not understand the negativity and rudeness that seems to the basis of so many posts.

Robert Skates
  • 0

#13 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 16 February 2006 - 07:18 PM

Sorry Santo, but you're building a theory upon a false assumption.

I shot an entire feature (350+ rolls) on a Nikon R-10, and I've shot lots of footage on that camera wide open at f1.8, and it's sharp as a tack.

If you've seen an R-10 that's only sharp at f4+, then there was something wrong with that camera.

Matt Pacini
  • 0

#14 Rick Palidwor

Rick Palidwor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 February 2006 - 12:34 AM

Even at 15mm (a slightly long lens for super 8, with 10mm being a super 8 normal), shooting at f4 so your images can be reasonably sharp, you've got, focused at 10 feet away, a depth of field where everything is in focus of between 6 feet and 29 feet. So your actors can walk around with 23 feet of depth without worrying about focus. Almost 7 metres.


I am not going to comment on the cost of this unit and whether it's worth it, which is probably an individual judgement, but since when is 15mm a "slightly long lens for super 8"? That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. "And 10mm is normal"?? I would say 12-15mm is "normal" (but I'm nitpicking) but the Nikon in question goes to 70mm. Some times you want to shoot on the long side of the lens precisely to minimize depth of field (a great way to mimic professional 35mm work BTW). And as Robert points out above DOF refers to "Acceptable" sharpness, which is relative (ever heard of the "circle of conusion"?) and a good shooter would probably be pulling focus with even the slightest movements, even at the wider side of the lens, to maintain maximum sharpness of the desired subject, something you seem to be obsessed with so I am not sure why you are missing the boat on this.

You are right that S8 has a lot of depth of field (which is why a lot of professionals don't like it) but that doesn't mean you have to use it. It's a choice, another item in the tool kit and to treat it as a cut and dry fact as you seem to doesn't appear to be a very wise position to take IMHO.

Rick
  • 0

#15 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 17 February 2006 - 07:34 PM

i rarely rely on dof to determine what's in focus, unless i have several objects at different distances that all have to be sharp. this is for several reasons. one is that if something is moving towards the camera i feel the background should drift out of focus accordingly. second, focus becomes much more critical when things are moving. if something is sharp and moves towards getting soft the eye is much more sensitive than if the object was slightly soft to begin with and perhaps even more so the other way around. seeing something pop into focus is kind of disturbing for the perception of the scene. and third if you have a focus puller or are good at it yourself it's much easier to just rack focus than to constantly check your tables and/or just "hope for the best".

my two cents.

/matt
  • 0

#16 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2006 - 05:17 PM

santo, you crack me up man! i don't how you do it, but some of your posts are funny as hell.

take it easy,
tanner


Thanks. Probably 75% of the time I'm trying to make myself laugh with them. :)

It's a choice, another item in the tool kit and to treat it as a cut and dry fact as you seem to doesn't appear to be a very wise position to take IMHO.


It's a toy, not a tool. It is dead simple to get past needing a FF on a super 8 camera with only a little planning. :lol:

Hey, good luck and have fun with your toy (not tool), but simply admit what it is. A toy fitted onto a 1970's Japanazoom home movie camera. A valuable tool on a 35mm camera. Very useful on super 16. An example of where what is a tool in some formats, is a toy in others.
  • 0

#17 Rick Palidwor

Rick Palidwor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:02 PM

Santo you seem to be obsessed with "tools" which you clearly don't know how to use, which makes them "toys" in your hands.

Look at your earlier post: since when is a 15mm lens in super 8 a "long" lens. I maintain that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, especially coming from an "expert" out to educate everyone. Tell me that that was a "typo" so I don't automatically disregard everything you have to say. And tell me that you understand circle of confusion so I know on what level to discuss these issues with you.

Rick
  • 0

#18 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:57 PM

Santo you seem to be obsessed with "tools" which you clearly don't know how to use, which makes them "toys" in your hands.

Look at your earlier post: since when is a 15mm lens in super 8 a "long" lens. I maintain that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, especially coming from an "expert" out to educate everyone. Tell me that that was a "typo" so I don't automatically disregard everything you have to say. And tell me that you understand circle of confusion so I know on what level to discuss these issues with you.

Rick


15mm is described as a "slightly long" lens in super 8 terms in my original post. Please work on your reading and comprehension skills. It is quite close to a regular 16mm normal which is 17.5mm. Although typically people use a 16mm for a 16 normal as that is most common in Europe thanks to Zeiss. That or you have a lot of people in the US using a 25mm who don't know any better, and have historically gotten sort of flat-looking 16 film results, as this is not an optimum normal lens for the format -- just one fitted to a lot of cameras for US export for a variety of reasons. 10mm is a "normal" in super 8 terms, though it is not unusual to see somebody prefering an 8 through to a 12mm as a super 8 normal, which is fine.

Now that you've been educated, Rick, since when exactly does a lens which is only 1mm shorter manage to seperate a "normal" in two different formats? ie: 15mm and 16mm for 8 and 16 respectively. NEVER is the answer. As is always the case, I am correct. Well, no, it's not me who is correct, it is the entirety of film industry manufacturers and logic which is correct. That's who you're always arguing against when you argue against me on a webboard.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread past my intial post (which said it all), but I finally took a look at this thread. My mistake. Arguing with super 8 hobbyists posing as filmmakers about the obvious is like trying to argue with creationists that there is such a thing as evolution, or to flat Earth society believers that we did in fact go to the moon. It is a waste of time beyond a simple statement of fact, and then to move on.
  • 0

#19 Rick Palidwor

Rick Palidwor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:48 PM

15mm is described as a "slightly long" lens in super 8 terms in my original post. Please work on your reading and comprehension skills.


"long" vs "slightly long" = semantics. It's the word "long", however qualified, which is out of place. I have a couple super 8 cameras with a fixed prime lens which is 15mm. Funny that they would give me a"slightly long" lens rather than something "normal".

It is quite close to a regular 16mm normal which is 17.5mm. Although typically people use a 16mm for a 16 normal as that is most common in Europe thanks to Zeiss. That or you have a lot of people in the US using a 25mm who don't know any better, and have historically gotten sort of flat-looking 16 film results, as this is not an optimum normal lens for the format -- just one fitted to a lot of cameras for US export for a variety of reasons. 10mm is a "normal" in super 8 terms, though it is not unusual to see somebody prefering an 8 through to a 12mm as a super 8 normal, which is fine.

Now that you've been educated, Rick, since when exactly does a lens which is only 1mm shorter manage to seperate a "normal" in two different formats? ie: 15mm and 16mm for 8 and 16 respectively. NEVER is the answer. As is always the case, I am correct. Well, no, it's not me who is correct, it is the entirety of film industry manufacturers and logic which is correct. That's who you're always arguing against when you argue against me on a webboard.


Do a search and you'll see that the vast majority of the people in the industry consider 25mm to be "normal" in the 16mm format. Maybe everybody out there is wrong, in which case you haven't done a very good job of educating the industry.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread past my intial post (which said it all), but I finally took a look at this thread. My mistake. Arguing with super 8 hobbyists posing as filmmakers about the obvious is like trying to argue with creationists that there is such a thing as evolution, or to flat Earth society believers that we did in fact go to the moon. It is a waste of time beyond a simple statement of fact, and then to move on.


Thank you M'Lord. I am humbled that you have taken the time to work with the plebs.

Rick
  • 0

#20 Tim Halloran

Tim Halloran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 February 2006 - 02:19 AM

Arguing with super 8 hobbyists posing as filmmakers about the obvious...blah, blah, blah.


Rick Palidwor--numerous short-film credits and co-writer/director/editor of the ground-breaking and award-winning feature Sleep Always.

M'Lord Santo--NOTHING I've ever seen.

Who's the "filmmaker," and who's the "hobbyist?" Hmmm?

Tim

Edited by etimh1, 20 February 2006 - 02:22 AM.

  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Opal

The Slider

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post