Leveling a field camera

Diapositivo said:

Video cameras typically use 2-way heads because they must never loose "horizontality" once properly set. You can move the camera while "filming" on two axes without undergoing the risk of a movement on the third axis.

Click to expand...

False. See my comments in post #50.

There are three axis pan/tilt heads for cine cameras. Very very expensive, as are real tripods that go under real cine cameras. Still photographers have no concept of tripod or head prices.

Video? Where do you live? Real movies are still shot on film. In addition, videographers and cinematographers face the same problems.

I like my new ball head with my MF cameras!

It has a separate pan lock/control, so pans can be effected without releasing the ball lock.

I'm enjoying the ability to make fine adjustments in every direction.

So, YMMV.

Dan Fromm said:

False. See my comments in post #50.

There are three axis pan/tilt heads for cine cameras. Very very expensive, as are real tripods that go under real cine cameras. Still photographers have no concept of tripod or head prices.

Video? Where do you live? Real movies are still shot on film. In addition, videographers and cinematographers face the same problems.

Click to expand...

Man, relax.
Millions of people use videocameras over tripods, and they use two-movement-heads because it is rational. Not everybody can afford ignoring the concept of price. Your comment makes no sense at all.

It is as if I said that manual gear change (what's the name of the contraption) is more suited for a sporty driving and you made the comment that real sport drivers use electronic-hydro-supersonic-thought-activated drive change because in Formula1 nobody uses manual gear change at all. I never mentioned Hollywood. I only referred to video cameras. They can be found in every shop. Where do you live?

When using a videocamera (any videocamera) you normally want it to move only along 2 axis. In my country just like in yours.

Besides, ball levellers are used also in still photography and can be easily installed on any tripod with a separate head. Manfrotto makes at least 2 models. They are inserted between legs and head. They are certainly comfortable but add weight. For lots of people weight, ahem, weights. Not everybody have production trucks with them.

If this forum were devoted to Hollywood film production I wouldn't judge yours a smartass comment, naturally.

Wow what a thread. BTW the Renaissance Festival opens here in Ohio this weekend. They have Jousting contests if anyone here would like to take it up a notch.

I wonder how the photo came out? Did it look good? Or is that not important?

Ball heads have the advantage of being compact and having more strength for weight than most 3-way pan-tilt heads. They require a different working method, but it's possible to get used to a ball head with practice. A bullseye level on the camera makes it easier to level the camera with a ball head.

Just for the sake of pedantism I would like to say that ball heads and 3-way heads are the middle of the field, there are two extremes:

"Pistol heads". Faster than ball heads. With one gesture the head is repositioned and locked with one hand.
On the other extreme:
Teste a cremagliera (rack and pinion heads?). The movements are "geared". Very slow to operate but very precise, and no need for locking and unlocking, which also makes them safer for the equipment. Never tried one but I'm curious. They are never small. Their normal use is probably with MF or LF in the studio.

For slow operation, even on the field, they might be a good solution.

I mention them because the first is relatively recent and the second is relatively rare so maybe someone can relate on ease of use, safety, practicality etc.

daleeman said:

I wonder how the photo came out? Did it look good? Or is that not important?

Click to expand...

It is interesting - first off, the resolution of a 5x7 fine grain negative negative (FP4+) absolutely blew me out of the water - the pictures were of an oil refinery where I was in the parking lot about 500-600 feet away; my really cheap scanner set on medium resolution allows me to read the warning sticker attached to the cabinet at the top of the structure.

However, the negative is slightly cockeyed, which the basis of my question as I remember struggling with getting it level while taking the shot and being unsure which level to use. Also, I was trying to capture the 2-3 minutes before the sun went down and the whole structure glows for a couple of seconds. My only available location (the parking lot) didn't allow me to capture that glow, which would have been better seen from inside the structure, where I don't have permission to enter.

So yes, it is important (in the end, it is all that matters) but was not a photo for my portfolio of "keepers".

Diapositivo said:

Besides, ball levellers are used also in still photography and can be easily installed on any tripod with a separate head. Manfrotto makes at least 2 models. They are inserted between legs and head. They are certainly comfortable but add weight. For lots of people weight, ahem, weights. Not everybody have production trucks with them.

If this forum were devoted to Hollywood film production I wouldn't judge yours a smartass comment, naturally.

Click to expand...

Re Manfrotto levelers, see my post #12. I have Manfrotto 138, use it under my still cameras as well as under my cine cameras.

That manufacturers of "video" tripods for amateurs make and sell bad products is unfortunate. That amateur videographers don't know the basics is lamentable. They're no better than amateur cinematographers, but that doesn't justify either's ignorance.

Your comments betray a major shortage of working memory. That, or a major lack of intellectual integrity.

One question about three level control head on my MF camera. I never can get the horizontal exactly level especially in the field with all that unevenness. So when I pan, I have to readjust the the other levers to get the horizon level again. What are you methods?

You need to set the center column of the tripod vertical. It's the axis of rotation for the head.

This is normally done by adjusting the length of the tripod legs.

- Leigh

Alan Klein said:

One question about three level control head on my MF camera. I never can get the horizontal exactly level especially in the field with all that unevenness. So when I pan, I have to readjust the the other levers to get the horizon level again. What are you methods?

Click to expand...

I simply relevel.

Alan Klein said:

I shoot MF but was wondering if ball heads are easier to use then three way head for leveling and keeping the tripod level?

Click to expand...

I find a ball head only practical when using a waist-level finder.

To set the panning axis to plumb, most people just adjust the tripod legs so the platform is level, but for more precision there are leveling heads that go between the tripod and the head for making fine adjustments. Dan Fromm mentions the Bogen/Manfrotto leveling head, and I have a smaller Acratech leveling head. There's also one called the Levelhead, and some recent ballhead designs from Arca-Swiss and RRS put the panning platform between the ball and the camera instead of putting it under the ball, so if you level the camera, you can pan level.

The recent popularity of pano stitching has created demand for new solutions to the problem of level panning.

Sounds great. Look forward to viewing the image some time. I imagine there is a great deal of light wrapping on the pipes in the refinery. Even if you missed it this time, it might be worth a reshoot.

Were you elevated or on ground level? I've seen a few large format users on top of vans and such to clear fences. Beds of pickup trucks help too.

Thanks for sharing about the image.

Kevin Kehler said:

It is interesting - first off, the resolution of a 5x7 fine grain negative negative (FP4+) absolutely blew me out of the water - the pictures were of an oil refinery where I was in the parking lot about 500-600 feet away; my really cheap scanner set on medium resolution allows me to read the warning sticker attached to the cabinet at the top of the structure.

However, the negative is slightly cockeyed, which the basis of my question as I remember struggling with getting it level while taking the shot and being unsure which level to use. Also, I was trying to capture the 2-3 minutes before the sun went down and the whole structure glows for a couple of seconds. My only available location (the parking lot) didn't allow me to capture that glow, which would have been better seen from inside the structure, where I don't have permission to enter.

So yes, it is important (in the end, it is all that matters) but was not a photo for my portfolio of "keepers".

Click to expand...

daleeman said:

Sounds great. Look forward to viewing the image some time. I imagine there is a great deal of light wrapping on the pipes in the refinery. Even if you missed it this time, it might be worth a reshoot.

Were you elevated or on ground level? I've seen a few large format users on top of vans and such to clear fences. Beds of pickup trucks help too.

Thanks for sharing about the image.

Click to expand...

I was on ground level with the camera head high and front rise applied - part of the problem is that all of the good areas which would provide the best angles are either behind security fencing or have storage tanks (the 3-story building size) blocking the view. I have inquired several times with their public relations department about taking pictures from closer up or on a tour only to be rebuffed (they don't believe I am an amateur photographer without an agenda). I keep coming back to these locations for about 3 years now - my ex-wife worked on the expansion to the refinery but couldn't get me a pass with a camera - she could take me for a tour but not with a camera. However, consulting the Photographer's Ephemeris, the glow may be more visible from this location in mid-October. I only noticed it because I live in a high-rise about 5 miles away and you can see the glow from my house at certain times of the year but too far away to photograph effectively.

Please forgive the crappy stitching - my $150 scanner can only do medium format (and not well) which means multiple scans to try to show the image and the exposures never line up between the two scans. I did a little dust removal and removed the more obvious parts of the joint but nothing else (if I was going to spend some effort on the image, I would lighten the trucks considerable and darken the sky but this is just a quick preview because you asked). I have several others but this is fairly typical of this outing's shots - I think the right side tilt might be from the scan but I was trying to have the center tower vertical when I shot the image.

Dan Fromm said:

Re Manfrotto levelers, see my post #12. I have Manfrotto 138, use it under my still cameras as well as under my cine cameras.

That manufacturers of "video" tripods for amateurs make and sell bad products is unfortunate. That amateur videographers don't know the basics is lamentable. They're no better than amateur cinematographers, but that doesn't justify either's ignorance.

Your comments betray a major shortage of working memory. That, or a major lack of intellectual integrity.

Click to expand...

Dan, I would like to end it here. Amateur videographers buy what they can afford. Not everybody owns a Hollywood studio. They buy a 2-way head because it makes sense for video. What is so difficult to understand?

My memory works very well. Your comment on my "intellectual integrity" is a personal attack and shows your scarce level of politeness in a public discussion.

Re-read the thread and understand by yourself how off-mark were your considerations about highly professional Hollywood gear in response to a simple remark saying that 2-way head are typically used for video.

I hope not to have to rebuke further personal provocations.