|
Author
|
Topic: Making a bunch of still cameras take a picture at exactly the same time...
|
Felix
|
posted 02-08-2001 12:56 AM
Yes, as in bullet-time and what not.
How would you trigger them off? Apart from having a person for each camera and saying "Ready.....NOW!!"------------------
I once had 509 posts...but now I don't. |
eggy
|
posted 02-08-2001 01:00 AM
Hmm, well, the only thing I can think of for an inexpensive price would be a big piece of wood or pipe with a little thing that sticks out wherever a shutter release will be. So, when you push the bar down, it pushes all the shutters down at the same time. All the other things I can think of cost some $$!Kind of like this: -----------------------
-l---l---l---l---l---l- A camera would be where the little stick things would be (or more accurately, underneath the shutter).
Hope this helped somewhat [This message has been edited by eggy (edited 02-08-2001).] |
Felix
|
posted 02-08-2001 01:02 AM
Still, what are they?------------------
I once had 509 posts...but now I don't. |
Jeff F
|
posted 02-08-2001 01:45 AM
Many decent 35mm cameras have a jack where you can attach a remote triggering cable. With long enough cables. you could gather the plungers of the triggering cables and make a rig to hold them steady and use a bar/lever/rod to triger them simultaneously.2) Cable triggers and 3 - 4 assitants setting off a handful simultaneously. 3) servo plungers (solenoids) turned on with one multiple gang switch. ------------------
Jeff F - Moderator
Magic and FX
Amazing the Masses |
Felix
|
posted 02-08-2001 02:34 AM
Mmmm. One of my major problems is going to be cameras, because they all need to eb exactly the same type (really). Could you hire 40 35mm cameras? Would they let you do that? I don't know anyone who owns 35 either.------------------
I once had 509 posts...but now I don't. |
morpherguy
|
posted 02-08-2001 02:03 PM
If you wanted to use digital cameras it wouldn't be to hard. I would open the cameras and simply wire all of the shutter buttons to a single switch. The shutter button on a digital camera is more or less just a gate. When the gate is closed, the camera captures an image. I thought about buying 30 640 x480 inexpensive digital cameras to do the "bullet time" thing but then I noticed that the effect is being over used these days. It isn't as cool as it use to be.. It's like when Dick Smith invented bladders to make skin bulge. It was cool until everyone started doing it. What I would like to have someone design is a bullet time rig that uses synced movie cameras instead of still image cameras. You could do so much with the footage that it makes my head spin. You could have a person walking forward while the camera tracks him then have the person start walking backward while the camera continues to move forward. That is just one of a dozen different ways that you do bullet time if you used motion pictures cameras. |
Sloan
|
posted 02-08-2001 07:46 PM
It would be soo much easier if you just used a lot of video cameras then edited the frames of each of the videos. Then you wouldn't have to worry about pressing shutters at the same time. ------------------
Urine is sterile. mmmm-good!Visit
JACKSLOAN.com
|
bobka4
|
posted 02-08-2001 08:16 PM
Have the actor(s) stand REAL still and move the camera around them.They used that technige in the Creed video Higher. Cheap and possible. I like that. |
Felix
|
posted 02-09-2001 04:48 AM
That's what I thought I might so, I think I will, or I might even just change the plan so it doesn't need the bullet-time bit, as Morphguy said it has been done a lot. I still think the two ideas I might possibly use are the big stick one, the really still people one or possibly the camera frame one.Thanks all. ------------------
I once had 509 posts...but now I don't. |
Actor
|
posted 02-10-2001 03:37 AM
For bullet time you have to trip the shutters at the same time with a shutter speed that is fast enough to stop the action, otherwise the figure will be blurred. This in turn dictates a comparable sync requirement. I would guess ±1/100 sec would be a minimum. I don't think any of the ideas here would approach this kind of accuracy. Plus the "bullet camera" has to lie along the "bullet path" ± a certain part of the anatomy of a gnat. PLUS the "bullet camera" must always point in the same direction or at the same point in space.Addressing only the timing problem I don't think many of the methods proposed here will work, and those that could work will need a lot of tweaking. Morpherguy's idea of using digital cameras is probably the best, however, I would never "open" such a camera. Doing so is tantamount to writing it off. Better to look for a model that already has provisions for a remote shutter switch. |
Danny
|
posted 02-13-2001 02:39 PM
Do what bobka4 said. I do that and it works fine. The only time it would not work is if you needed bullet time on something where gravity gets in the way, such as a ball falling and you want to freeze and rotate around it. But if you are doing something where nothing needs to freeze midair, this works great. Just tell everyone to freeze, walk around them slowly with the camera (try not to pump when you walk), and then adjust the speed up in editing and it looks pretty cool. Works even better if you have a dolly, thus eliminating the bumpiness when you walk and then speed up. You can do it without speeding up, but it looks better walking slow and then sped up, I think.
Anyway, thats what I do. I don't think it would be worth it to spend all that money and time (time in editing, and in setting up, and in filming) for that one shot, especially when what I just described is almost as good as that and is really simple - and free, too! |
