Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Aussie Ash

Shoulder rig for IMAX any ideas?

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Wow, that's crazy, but then, I am only a hobbyist.

I didn't see the movie in IMAX, i think seeing it in IMAX would have been great.

While I liked the movie, I STILL don't understand of all the fascination with blue tinted movies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 3:59 AM, Aussie Ash said:

here is a pic of the IMAX shoulder rig

it only weighs 54 pounds- about 24 kgs.

Definitely, some heavy duty IBIS with that rig.

 

Looks like they forgot the cage with a Rode and shoe mounts!   /s

 

Jeez!  That's as massive than a Mitchell BNC or a Dalsa Origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the small thing on top of the main camera?  Is it a remote viewfinder?  Or a small digital camera being used in parallel for footage review and management?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, kye said:

What's the small thing on top of the main camera?  Is it a remote viewfinder?  Or a small digital camera being used in parallel for footage review and management?

It's an ultrasonic tape measure (for setting focus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronFilm said:


"only"



NO thank you!! 

Under 2 kgs is enough for me !!

Even the camera Kubrick loved because it was so portable weighs around 7.7 kgs -17 pounds with 200 feet of film,an Arriflex 35 IIC.

 

ARRI Kubrick & Jack.jpg

ARRI IIC & Ingrid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weight translates into the way motion is rendered in Dunkirk. The physical effort of the camera operators when handling the cameras and mechanical requirements put on the rigging of such cameras has more of an aesthetic impact than the format size, lenses and film stock combined. Dunkirk and The Hateful Eight both felt significantly lower resolution than contemporary movies shot on Red and Alexa but had a physical movement quality that made them feel like real movies rather than a string of 0's and 1's. Film schools should be teaching people information like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2018 at 11:54 AM, CineAlta said:

The weight translates into the way motion is rendered in Dunkirk. The physical effort of the camera operators when handling the cameras and mechanical requirements put on the rigging of such cameras has more of an aesthetic impact than the format size, lenses and film stock combined. Dunkirk and The Hateful Eight both felt significantly lower resolution than contemporary movies shot on Red and Alexa but had a physical movement quality that made them feel like real movies rather than a string of 0's and 1's. Film schools should be teaching people information like this

I think when you are comparing Film to modern 4k through 8k digital cameras now, film Will have a look of lower resolution. Film Never was, or has been known to be super sharp as heck. There is grain in film at 25 ISO. It is made up of grain particles. Now a jerky movement, sure that is what old film cameras looked like for War Correspondents back in the day. I am sure the DoP of  Dunkirk tried to add some of that esthetic to the film. But I am not a big 4k and above fan anyways. I love the look of 1080p, about as far as I like to output.

I mean Luminous Landscape years ago sort of proved a 6.3mp Canon 10D had as much resolution as 35mm film. Even 4k is past 6mp each frame now. But I get what you are talking about. Film does have a beautiful, unique look to it. No digital camera will ever look that way I doubt, not video wise. Photo wise I have seen some Leica digital stills that were damn close, even some MF B&W . I had a Hasselblad H3D-31, with a 31mp digital back on it that looked more film like than film did years ago in B&W! It was crazy good. But this guy I follow at times shows shots using firm stock that are about as sharp as I have ever seen. But Hassy, Leica has the kind of lenses to help make it happen.

https://mrleica.com/page/2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think when you are comparing Film to modern 4k through 8k digital cameras now, film Will have a look of lower resolution. Film Never was, or has been known to be super sharp as heck. There is grain in film at 25 ISO. It is made up of grain particles. Now a jerky movement, sure that is what old film cameras looked like for War Correspondents back in the day. I am sure the DoP of  Dunkirk tried to add some of that esthetic to the film. But I am not a big 4k and above fan anyways. I love the look of 1080p, about as far as I like to output.

I mean Luminous Landscape years ago sort of proved a 6.3mp Canon 10D had as much resolution as 35mm film. Even 4k is past 6mp each frame now. But I get what you are talking about. Film does have a beautiful, unique look to it. No digital camera will ever look that way I doubt, not video wise. Photo wise I have seen some Leica digital stills that were damn close, even some MF B&W . I had a Hasselblad H3D-31, with a 31mp digital back on it that looked more film like than film did years ago in B&W! It was crazy good. But this guy I follow at times shows shots using firm stock that are about as sharp as I have ever seen. But Hassy, Leica has the kind of lenses to help make it happen.

https://mrleica.com/page/2/

You've totally missed the point I was making.  A truck cannot move around in the same way as a motorcycle.  And you cannot make a motorcycle behave like a truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CineAlta said:

You've totally missed the point I was making.  A truck cannot move around in the same way as a motorcycle.  And you cannot make a motorcycle behave like a truck.

I know what heavy cameras are like. I was a cameraman at a TV station lugging around 20 to 25 pound ENG cameras for several years. Some times we used an extra external recorder like this one below for extra recording time, mostly for criminal trials. Hell that thing weighed 19 pounds alone, plus extra batteries. Oh than you have to have a camera, and extra tapes for it, with extra batteries on a belt on your waist. They weighed 3 pounds a piece. Oh and you get to carry a tripod also, with a fluid head from hell on it. No Carbon Fiber ones back then. I would argue that a ENG camera is easier to hold steady than a GH5 is. I probably spent as much time walking backwards than forward as a news cameraman. Try that with a GH4! It takes weight to make that happen.

I doubt they hired a 145 pound guy to carry around that IMAX camera.  And the trick to heavy cameras is that they are balanced right. Hell soldiers carry 80 pound backpacks on them. What the hell is 50 pounds. I guarantee if you make a living as a handheld cameraman you know how to move it the way the director wants you to or your are fired. If he wants a 100 pound camera to look like a GH5 Somebody can do it in the world and they will hire them to do it. And they have 50 takes, if that is what it takes, to try and pull it off. What we shoot and what Hollywood shoots is in a totally different world. They have endless money and endless talent on both ends of the camera. They use Jibs, cranes, zip lines for cameras, on and on.

But yeah I see your point to an extent that it is might look more fluid with a small camera like say a Canon C200 stripped down. But I know of No Cine camera that has IBIS in it. And I bet most use a Glidecam not a Gimbal if they want hand held stable stuff, or hooked to one of those 5 grand vests.  But heavy ENG cameras can look fluid as hell also. When is the last time you even saw some jerky footage on the evening news. Probably never, unless they are getting shot at or tripped! :grin:  Pro's make hard stuff look easy. But 90% of what I shot ENG style, or Hollywood shoots is on a Tripod. I think we are taking this IBIS, Gimbal, Drone stuff too far.  It all looks alike, and a lot of it looks alike because it looks like crap a lot of times. I doubt many of us are shooting an action movie. And I can see it for them, and sports, well they have special Gimbals that fit on tripods for that, I have one myself I used for Birding. And I don't see them getting better. Olympus claims their 6.5 stops system is so sensitive that the earths rotation is limiting it. So Looks like they might be at the peak?? And to me it still is not good enough.

http://broadcaststore.com/pdf/model/10008/10008.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...