Roughly how far from the flange is the lens center of mass? That decides what loads will come on the rod base. You're reacting a torque. How far from the flange is the likely place you will site the support on the lens? I'll hold back on the eng oriented answer till I hear. Meanwhile, if you say what lens that is, someone may have a gut feeling, from experience, what has worked before, and how safe it was.
What camera do you have and in what mount? Does your lens already come with a lens support foot installed or do you need add that as well as the lens support? What's the largest diameter of the lens in question?
If it's anything like a Canon Lightweight Cine Zoom (4.85lbs, 10" long, 114mm front diameter, with Lightweight 15mm lens support foot), a baseplate with about 8" of travel and LW15 support should be fine. Lots of options there from Wooden Camera, Element Technica, Arri, etc.
If it's significantly heavier or longer, then I think your best bet is a 12" Arri Dovetail with Studio 15mm or 19mm support. That would ensure that you have enough front to back travel to balance the camera.
I missread your original post. 30cm. My guess is you will need 19mm tube steel rods. If you are tinkering on a low budget and have a workshop or friends you could make your own base plate and support. There is some of the new cheap Chinese stuff that may help, as elements within that. Cheap enough that you could just buy it, test it and move on.
CP-16r - Currently only line powered, not battery at the moment. It'll spend most of its life mounted.
It has the standard Cinema Products mount. I DO have a CP>Arri standard mount.
I'm constructing an anamorphic system for my CP.
Using the Angenieux 10-150 as the physically longest lens I have, adding in front of that another lens of 163mm length, 130mm front diameter, 5.85lbs.
It does not have anything built in, lens support would need to be added. However the balance point of this housing is more towards the rear, which
has a diameter of 114mm.
Ed DiGiulio of Cinema Products did offer a 'Studio Rig" for the CP16R which he developed back in 1974. It included a base plate for rods and a matte box. I believe there was a follow focus and eyepiece extender in the package. Try finding that package now .
DiGiulio developed this for a Wolper production of "CARL SANDBURG'S LINCOLN", a 6 hour series shot on 16mm film and aired in 1974. This was a big boost, or promotion, for the CP-16 & CP16R cameras for studio work. Howard Schwartz, A.S.C. was the Cinematographer using the 'famed newsreel camera'.
I've seen pictures of the base plate and rods, and I know it was listed in the CP sales catalog for years.
In the September 1974 issue of American Cinematographer, there are several articles with pictures about the production, one article writen by Schwartz. I've attached links to excerpts from 3 articles. You'll have to find the issues, or go to A.C. for a copy.
I bumped into a guy on eBay maybe three years ago who was selling all the CP studio kit, really cheap actually. So it does happen. If I remember right it's a 100mm studio rod setup. My gut feeling is that the overall system won't be stiff enough. 19mm would be better.
I hope you're kidding about buying a $1000 base plate. You need to be sure about what's actually usefull. What fits and how...etc...
If you go the tinkering route...Do you have any drawing skills? Make a scale drawing of the camera and lenses, and you will see what you need, and perhaps see how to make it.
I recall the Angenieux zoom on the CP mount is quite sturdy. You could get away with 15mm rails for a lens support. It's also stiff enough for mattebox and two 4x5.65 glass filters if you're keeping everything mounted on a tripod. I've got large, heavy 180mm and 300mm telephoto lens cradled on 15mm rods. But if you need 19mm rods, you can look into smallrig (I don't work for smallrig).
wooden camera is the other brand if you do want to spend the money. i do not work for wooden camera or for smallrig. i have done a gig for wooden camera in the past. i have yet to bend a rod and had no success.
CP-16r .........Angenieux 10-150 ........(anamorphic) lens of 163mm length, 130mm front diameter, 5.85lbs......
Thinking of the components you want to assemble. Wondering what is important in the result and wondering what sort of deficiencies and difficulties you may be prepared to accept. You could end up with a system that just doesn't have much stiffness, so your lenses are not precisely aligned or stable. But maybe that doesn't matter.
There is a pic showing the three common rod systems, in section relative to the lens axis. Free download from O'Connor, Arri... This may help with the initial thinking. I you keep to these standards, I think that 15mm rods won't pass under the camera body, so one is forced to make a rod base with a riser to the rod clamp. Or a heavy base plate that might shift the start point for the 15mm rods forward.
It may help to visualize where the center of mass will be in your configuration. Some simple experimentation will work. I doodled the numbers and got a result, but I didn't have the camera center of mass.
More visualization. Take a look at Larry's pic with the models above. Mentally remove everything from the rods except the matte box. Now add your 7.7kg kg CP (with film, on board bat and Ang 10-150) at the rear and your 2.65kg anamorphic at the front.
that (Element Technica) support I could trust to hold up Zeiss cz.2 lens or Optimo zooms. The ARRI LS-9 is very similar, but for 19mm rods. It is only $200 more. The lens support on 15mm is more to take up any lash, essentially locking up the barrel of the Angeniuex zoom to the CP-16 mount.
On the other hand, the 19mm rod system is rigid enough to carry the full weight of very heavy glass like CZ.2 or Optimo mounted on Amira. May be overkill for a CP-16, but if you have the money to burn, by all means do so.
my problem with Angenieux zooms on CP-16 was critical back focus on the wide. always needed re-seating. probably less so once properly supported. any support is better than no support.
smallrig.com is a start.
Edited by Larry DeGala, 16 August 2015 - 05:37 PM.
The main problem with the stiffness of the system with 15mm LW rods is the anamorphic lens. Its weight and position within that system.
It may be that Jay is a rich diletante who owns a CP on a whim. But I assume he is new, experimenting, and will need his money for something else.
Why does the Ang need support? Were the legions of documentarians and news cameramen wrong? If the Ang and the anamorphic are both well connected via the rod system and the rod system is not stiff enough then the Ang mount to the camera is at risk from the anamorhic lens.
At risk, not meaning that it will break, just meaning that one may not have alignment.
But, as I said before, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe, put the handles back on, and the loads from that will give some faint, almost not consciously visible change to the image.
Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 16 August 2015 - 06:46 PM.
that (Element Technica) support I could trust to hold up Zeiss cz.2 lens or Optimo zooms. The ARRI LS-9 is very similar, but for 19mm rods. It is only $200 more.
Yes, the ET support is very good. I own two of them for my Canon Cine Zooms, as well as an LS-10 for Studio 15. I just wondered about the LW15 support you posted for lenses without a threaded support foot, seems ideal for anamorphic attachments, etc.
If you need the forward section to be absolutely rigid, you can position this clamp underneath the lens to create a "cantilevered spine" that will make 15mm rods as solid as the cheeseplate. It is impossible to bend or flex the rods to the point the anamorphic element would be misaligned. The cheeseplate must face down so you can use the lens mount on top of the 15mm rails. I find that rod clamps spaced evenly on the 15mm rod made the rods more rigid and mitigated the potential to flex on any portion of its length. Like suspension bridge engineering. Go figger!
I don't think Jay really knows what he needs yet. It feels like he's on that roll, where everything is exciting, new and possible. So I don't think we should worry too much. We can offer some ideas that might work, talk BS and dissagree a bit, and none of it matters if we are still having fun.
Fun is the key. In..?...1990?... I was running fast over a field with a small anamorphic lens held in front of a 10mm lens on a Bolex. Not wacking in the modern sense, but the rig was a bit sloppy, and I rotated the anamorphic back and forth, in my mind's eye seeing the resulting image. I mean, how much fun can we have...?
I harp on about stiffness because that needs to be understood, or because those principals of physics need to be understood, if the result is controlled.
But in the end, I don't give an (expletive) about controlled, as long as the result is something valuable.
I'm glad I can spur conversation. I'm also glad my wild ideas don't get immediately shot down...
No, I'm not rich. And I deliberated over which camera system to purchase for a long while. I ended up with my CP because it was a good price over the others. Yes, I would have preferred to get an Arri 16BL, or
even an SRII. However at the time those were in the "not quite affordable to ridiculous" price range. I'm very pleased with my CP as far as mechanical workings. I'm waiting on a camera test to come back from the lab. Perhaps I'll share it here. Actually those Ikonoskop cameras look amazing, but I gather they are $10,000+ when you can FIND one.
The only reason I mentioned the Angie zoom is because it is the physically longest lens I own. AND If I want to use my anamorphic setup with that lens then I'll need support for the anamorphic glass in front.
I measure that 25mm is the widest I can go on this particular anamorphic without vignetting. It's not the zoom lens that needs the support.
I don't actually know how long the 25mm lens housing is, but working on that, the final rod length would be less. Much less hopefully.
I emailed smallrig. They seemed to not really know anything and felt that the steel rods would get scratched.... not sure why that mattered - maybe pretty is better than functional? LOL
I'll chalk that up to non celluloid guys.
So far, I figure I need a baseplate that I can attach to the camera and allow me to mount it on a tripod, followed by a rod clamp to actually hold the rods. Ultimately I'll need an equatorial mounting lens support (ring support) of 114mm.
Now, that setup WILL likely bend rods that are not sufficiently stiff.
If there was a way to build a top support also, that might be wise.
It's also not "someone is getting ripped off somewhere" prices.
I'm sorry, but $500 for 4oz of machined aluminum is insane. I'm sure millions of hours of engineering time went into the design of some of these products, but I can't justify paying for product branding when they're all made in the same factory in china.