octoplex

I set myself a challenge: To turn a lowly Sony FX3 video camera into a run-and-gun rig for shooting with vintage 35mm-movie anamorphic lenses from ISCO and Schneider etc. These movie-theater lenses are massive, but are great for video work. The problem is in mounting them. They need a taking lens at the rear, and a variable-diopter at the front.
I'm in the process of designing and machining a new type of cage for the FX3 (and other similar cameras). As you can see in these basic renderings, the FX3 body will be 'caged' in a purple-anodized exoskeleton. This is bolted to the camera body using all available mounting-points (there are several). This allows the addition of four, strong aluminum rods. These extend in both directions perpendicular to the camera body.

On the front-end, these rods allow various lens-support struts to be added. On the back-end, they allow a shoulder-rest to extend out. With suitable counter-weighting, these massive ISCO and Schneider lenses can be used in a run-and-gun style set-up:

It is especially important to me that this rig can be knocked about during shooting. Like you, I am tired of flimsy camera set-ups that look like they're made of Frankenstein-parts. I'd like a camera rig that has some coherence, style, and durability to it. For this reason, I've slightly over-engineered everything for high-durability. The Sony FX3 sits inside a tank-like, milled-aluminum exoskeleton. The on-board fold-out display is protected by a stainless-steel 'hood' section. Personally, I'm not a fan of adding external-monitors to these cameras. The on-board display is more than classic 35mm movie cameras ever had.

Onto this entire rig-framework, outer panels are attached, giving the system a waterproof, protective covering, and cleaning-up the look:



I am now working on a parametric CAD model, and will be machining prototype parts this month. I'm interested in any feedback from the community here. Colors in the models are for clarity, the finished rig will be a neutral palette 🙂
My interest is not in whether you like the rig or not, I'm more curious about whether I have overlooked anything vital in the design. Thank you!

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.
I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.
Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.
Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.
Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Yeah, just a little frustrated about the whole world seemingly taking digital cameras and giving them a bunch of crap that is increasingly fringe and specialist at the expense of simply having nice looking images.
Everyone loves how the Alexa looks, even the original, but then when it comes to what features we demand in a camera, somehow image quality comes last, with all the BS somehow being more important.  Non-cinema cameras have worse image quality now than they did in 2013.
No-one stopped to ask...   if the first 2 million pixels looks like crap, why would I want to have 62 million more?

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3.
The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself.
I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

There's a breakdown of production costs for the hit indie-movie Pi, here.
Cost of shooting this movie was $60,927
Post-production costs matched this because it was shot on film. Today, that could be reduced.
Pi made $3.2 million in US cinemas; despite limited release (68 theaters). That's excluding later DVD sales and foreign distribution etc.
More interesting still: Pi is not a horror movie, it's a psychological-thriller. It demonstrated how good-story transcends everything; and that a $60k budget, good script, and strong team can propel you straight to the upper echelons of the industry. As Darren Aronofsky discovered.
 

I suspect it could have been because it was small and they didn't want to get too much attention.
"so his crew consisted of just his actors (Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able), a sound tech, a line producer, a translator and a driver. Edwards operated the camera, grabbing footage guerrilla style whenever they came upon a compelling location while traveling through Central America."
I'd imagine that security might have been a concern in that region (maybe I'm wrong on that) but combine that with not wanting to draw attention from local officials who might hassle you for permits etc.  Also, if you're bringing equipment into a country and are going to leave with it again you will need to declare it at the border (so you don't have to pay import taxes - I can't remember what this is called) and this process is a huge PITA for documentary crews etc, so getting around that would be a huge time advantage (I've seen docos where it takes the better part of a day for each border crossing because of this).

Maybe @Tito Ferradans might be able to elaborate?

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.
I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.
Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.
Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.
Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Absolutely. Thanks for your kind response. You're right: those who harm others are typically adept at maintaining a public-persona that disguises the monster within. This is very freaky to witness at close-quarters.
On a positive note: I am returning to the movie-industry, determined to challenge it through my film-making. This time I know the behavior-patterns of the 'vampires', and have even become a 'vampire hunter' of sorts. I have studied them carefully.
To return to Nolan's work, I was pleased to read that he refuses to carry a 'smart'-phone, and writes his scripts on a computer that is not connected to the internet. Nolan also does not use social media (more specifically, we could say that social media does not use him.)
I'm not sure how long Nolan has been doing this, but if it's a new policy, perhaps the Nolan of Memento and The Prestige will be slowly returning. It could take several years of concentrated work though. Definitely on the right track.
The future looks bright.

I'm sorry to hear about what you experienced.
I take a pretty pessimistic view (I think of it as realistic, but others might not) that power corrupts, and because those in power are able to avoid consequences, are prone to behaving the way they want to.  Some estimates are that 4% of people are sociopaths and 1% are psychopaths, which puts a lot of people in the situation that if they gain power they will use it to take advantage of others, and to maintain that power they have.  Priority #1 of people who do things that society rejects is to hide that from the world, and priority #1 of powerful people is to keep that power.
We are animals after all, and further to that, we are the descendants of those that "won" at the reproducing game, which doesn't only incentivise being nice and considerate.
In terms of if fame kills creativity, I think that it would if you lose touch with the parts of the human experience we all share.  It's well known that rich / powerful people still suffer from mental illness and commit suicide so those things don't separate you from the human experience, but if you get caught up in ego and trying to act like you're better than everyone else or that your life is somehow better then your work will no longer include the things that we all share..  it takes courage to reach into yourself and connect with the uncomfortable feelings that we would prefer weren't there.
I think it also includes staying connected to why you do something in the first place.  I see lots of good YT people get into YT to be creative and then get caught up in the algorithm or in product reviews and the commercial aspects of it, and because they're not motivated by those things they get burnt out.
I used to think that in life you got energy from sleeping and then doing things during the day would make you tired.  Now I realise that this is true physically, but mental energy comes from doing what you are inspired to do, so if you're mentally tired it's because you're not doing things in accordance with your own values and preferences.
Of course, if you're a creative person running their own business then practical considerations mean that you might have to talk to clients, do the finances, etc, but if you're inspired by the business enough creatively then that motivation should power you through those "required" tasks.  As soon as those things are seriously getting you down, it's because you're not getting mentally inspired elsewhere enough to carry you through those things.

I think that is about the sum of it Kye.
If you can keep your authenticity and not sell out to the mass market or simply for the sake of conforming, I think a few can keep their ball rolling.
I like to think in my own industry, it's how I am still standing and with most of my integrity still intact. Because I didn't follow every fad or chase recognition by my peers, but rather by mostly ever doing what I wanted to do.
I've always said...and stand by it now and will stand by it until the day I choose to quit and that is my client first and foremost is me. I shoot for myself and if others wish to pay me to do that, then we have a deal.
I guess if you are being bankrolled by big studios, very few have the luxury of saying "fcuk you" and take the dollars when offered.
I'm also quite reclusive; part black sheep, part lone wolf 😉

Absolutely agree with this.
The question, then, is: Do these directors become emotionally-disconnected from themselves because commercial-success is inherently disconnecting? Or, is something more specific happening in Hollywood?
I ask this question from personal experience at the highest-levels of Hollywood. As a former-producer, I was assaulted by a person that most would recognize. The objective of this assault was to stop me making a film that threatened establishment interests; and to displace me from the industry as a whole. Without going into details, I have spoken with others who are also aware that a (it's hard to find a more appropriate word for it) vampire-class roam Hollywood and will target some filmmakers. Those they cannot control, they try to destroy. Fortunately, some they cannot reach.
Personally, I was led into the situation where I was attacked  by a 'friend'. I was definitely not the only person they did this to.
This is why I'm very curious about Hollywood directors who quickly went from high-art to barely-competent. Naturally, I cannot know if these directors simply got, suddenly and extraordinarily, very bad at an art-form they were previously excellent at. Perhaps that is it.
My experience suggests that there is another way that this descent occurs: Artists who challenge and confront society through their filmmaking are targeted for harassment / traumatization.
It's only now, years later, that I am returning to film-making. This time as an 'emerging'-cinematographer, and entirely outside the Hollywood system.