Turn camera in to Cine Camera with Ergonomic Accessory

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

http://ergocine.blogspot.ca/_



I liked the idea but hate the primitive look of this attachment. If it was plastic and lighter , it would be a great tool.
But the concept is great and use at the shoulder and hand held is inspiring.
And adventerous sprit can develop a similar tool with 4 layer 10 mm plywood , linseed finish and knobs to turn the gears and rectangular wire viewfinder would be an winner.

Umut

 

[Worker 11811]

It's a neat idea but, as far as I can tell, it's still a still camera.

Yes, I know that many high end (and some medium price range) digital still cameras can shoot in cine mode but, no matter how you dress it up, it still quacks like a duck.

A lot of digicams that I have seen which can shoot movies have certain artifacts like "rolling shutter" effect where the picture breaks up or skews sideways when the operator pans from side to side. It's also a lot more difficult to control exposure, frame rate and other things on a camera that is primarily designed for stills. That all begs the question of how you operate it different modes or record sound when all the controls and inputs were designed for stills, as well.

I think cine mode in a still camera is a neat idea for occasional use but, if you want to shoot movies and do it right, just get a movie camera.

That, having been said, there are all kinds of shoulder brackets and rifle stocks on the market. Many of them have remote viewfinders and controls that are similar to yours. Why not just get one from a commercial manufacturer that you know will fit your purpose without all the mucking around?

It's still cool. I'm sure you could make one, as you say, out of furniture grade plywood which would work just as well. Plus you could customize it any way you like.

I've always wanted a real rifle stock for my camera.

 

[summicron1]

so they're taking a camera that was designed to shoot video without all the hassle and physical labor of a large shoulder-mounted VHS-sized video camera like the TV people use and make it as big and clunky as that same shoulder-mounted video camera it was meant to replace?

Interesting concept.

I'm with Randy -- if good movies are your goal, buy a movie camera and be done with it.

 

[Steven L]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a digital camera with the VCR ports connected to a VHS recorder what in it's turn is connected to a small monitor?
So you need to press "rec" on the VHS recorder to start filming and you need to operate the camera to focus etcetera. It works I guess, but not ideal. You'd be downgrading the digital camera to a VHS recorder.
That said, it is nice to see an alternative to record sight and sound. I like the creativity.
I've made a scanner camera a couple of months ago. The old technique of a large format camera, combined with the new technique of a flatbed scanner. It works, but not ideal. Pictures are megapixel, but with a weird scanner effect.

 

[removed account4]

umut -

just get a sept
its a still camera and movie camera, already ... all in one ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It's a kluge, and a bad one. Get a camcorder for $10 at a yard sale.

 

[Dan Fromm]

You film bigots really should keep up with digital cameras. And you still camera bigots should learn more about cine cameras.

The shoulder stock is an attempt to give a small digital camera capable of shooting video, e.g., the Canon EOS 7D, the ergonomics of the Eclair ACL (or its child the Aaton LTR and derivatives). On the shoulder is much steadier than in the hands held out in front.

 

[Steven L]

The trouble I have with digital compact camera's is the fact that they are to small for my big hands. You have to hold it gently with thumb and indexfinger and gently push the button without moving the camera about. A bigger camera (digital or analog) has more grip, more ergonomic. With cine camera's you want to have a bigger box to hold on to, in order to make a steady shot.
The shoulder stock would work in giving a more steadier shot. For zoom still camera's, a rifle stock would be handy.
@Dan Fromm, are digital still camera's with HD cine ability, equal to digital cine camera's?

 

[Darkroom317]

The camera in the photo and on the website is actually not a still camera but compact cine camera that Canon released back in Nov. 2011. I don't know why they are showing it when the camera itself looks like it already has good ergonomics.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Steven, I have no idea, but the market doesn't seem to be flooded with REDs whose owners have switched to smaller less expensive digital still camera with HD cine ability.

 

[Discoman]

Don't DSLRs heat up considerably when used for video? I would rather use a digital designed for cinema than a DSLR designed for stills but that can also take movies. Horses for courses and all that. The movie camera is going to be designed for the stability and accessories required for movies. In fact, it will probably work with standard cine lenses, standard cone matte boxes, standard cine follow focus, standard cine mounts, standard cine grips, standard cine you get the picture.
For those making home movies, a camcorder is still a batter choice. You can get a newer digital one, or for the larger size, pick up a 3CCD model that records to VHS or has a video out.
Yeah, a camera on the shoulder is easy to control, but that is because most of the weight sits on your shoulder. Even though those are not made for the image stability that a cine camera requires, it will still be a better and much cooler (temperature wise) for home movies.
The thing is, while it is a cool idea, a DSLR isn't a good idea for cine work. While it can run long enough for short scenes, any longer and the camera overheats to the point where it doesn't want to work. On the requirement of special gear, I suggest looking at the konvas/kin or fan website, they have a fairly good discussion about cine and regular lenses.
Needles to say, a DSLR lens is nowhere near a cine lens in what it can do. Two vastly different animals.
Then again, my points are moot, seeing as the companies state these are for short clips and not actual movie work. They don't men a not just not for cine, but not for much else than short videos you want to remember, like a child's first steps. Any movie beyond a couple minutes, and you want a movie camera.
Basically, the companies state that the movie function is to attract customers. You want video, buy a video camera.

Still, this was an interesting, albeit short article: http://konvas.org/faq/comparing-35mm-still-camera-lenses-versus-16mm-and-35mm-cine-lenses.html

 

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting link. What an ignorant fool.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Interesting link. What an ignorant fool.

It's not that he's ingorant, it's just that he knows so many things that aren't true.....