Author Topic: The "F" Word (Read 3067 times)

gerhed · « **on:** April 03, 2007, 02:09:30 PM »

Laguna Seca

<a href="http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/ferzs5.swf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/ferzs5.swf</a>

GroovieGhoulie · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2007, 02:14:12 PM »

Ferrari builds beautiful cars, its true, but I'm a Porsche guy through and through.

Still an awesome shot!

ProTeal55 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2007, 02:32:15 PM »

If I had the cash I would def. be a Lambo guy...

xtalon · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2007, 04:13:14 PM »

Perfect camera placement Gerhed. Large variety of F's in that 360 degree shot.
--xTalon

Stormer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:24:52 AM »

OMG!

Rocker · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:42:33 AM »

To the guy with the maroon shorts with a camera around his neck, "PUT ON A FREAKIN' SHIRT! You are scaring all the people."

I do love the old F's. They are sweet rides with great lines. I am not so fond of the newer F's and others. To me, automotive styling took a sharp dive downwards after the mid 70's.

Uncle Ernie · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:48:56 AM »

Hey- is that the new camera you built?! Heck with the cars- good job Man! Very impressive.

gerhed · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2007, 09:17:18 AM »

Quote from: Uncle Ernie on April 05, 2007, 08:48:56 AM

Hey- is that the new camera you built?! Heck with the cars- good job Man! Very impressive.

Built this pan camera several years ago--butchered a nice Pentax Spotmatic.
Whatever you do don't encourage me.
You can see what happens.!
Pre-War Aston Martin

<a href="http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/hand.swf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/hand.swf</a>

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:15:54 PM »

Ok, Man, How'd you do it? C'mon, I'm a photographer, I'll understand! I used to play with wideluxes, but didn't like the distortion, but you're stuff is really clean! How long have you been playing with these? The F shot looks older. Is it? Some of your stuff looks like VR, but these look like Circuit type shots.
I wish you lived around here, I think we'd have fun playing with this stuff!
Here's what I'm playing with these days...get your 3D glasses out kids!
How do you get those big files to post? I just had a heck of a time posting this little thing!

gerhed · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:25:46 PM »

Chris,

My glasses are always ready--the swamp looks great!--feel like I'm about to fall in !
The ferraris are an older shot taken with true circuit camera--modified Pentax--on film--on Ektachrome---risky, but nice.
Each of my images are from one strip of film and then scanned.
These moving shots are then put into Adobe Flash as a bitmap and the files aren't to big.
The files themselves are actually at Photobucket and are referenced on the forum page.
No stitching------Please !

Phil

Glenn Stauffer · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:48:49 PM »

Do you have photos of the modified Pentax? I'm curious.

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:54:26 PM »

I knew you'ld have glasses at the ready! Great geek minds think alike!
Yeah, those are incredibly smooth for a circuit...I would think at least people would be distorted...must have been a fast exposure...what did you use to propel the camera? Was it too long ago to get the number of the chick in the white shorts?
Glenn, what's the secret for uploading images? It seems as if sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't...does it have something to do with image compression? I notice in the 3D shot, there is a lot of color..this would lead me to believe that it wouldn't compress as much as one without.

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:00:36 PM »

Quote from: Glenn Stauffer on April 05, 2007, 12:48:49 PM

Do you have photos of the modified Pentax? I'm curious.

Me too. I just happen to have my very first 35mm, a pre-Spotmatic, a bare bones manual Pentax. I'd love to see how you did it.

gerhed · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:17:15 PM »

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 05, 2007, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: Glenn Stauffer on April 05, 2007, 12:48:49 PM
Do you have photos of the modified Pentax? I'm curious.

Me too. I just happen to have my very first 35mm, a pre-Spotmatic, a bare bones manual Pentax. I'd love to see how you did it.

I'll put together a couple pics of it.
If you have a 35 with a rewind knob and a wide lens (28 or better) you can probably make one.
My only digital camera is 15 years old--so I'll try to get my iMac to take a shot.

gerhed · « **Reply #14 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:25:52 PM »

Quote from: Chris Schneiter on April 05, 2007, 12:54:26 PM

I knew you'ld have glasses at the ready! Great geek minds think alike!
Yeah, those are incredibly smooth for a circuit...I would think at least people would be distorted...must have been a fast exposure...what did you use to propel the camera? Was it too long ago to get the number of the chick in the white shorts?
Glenn, what's the secret for uploading images? It seems as if sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't...does it have something to do with image compression? I notice in the 3D shot, there is a lot of color..this would lead me to believe that it wouldn't compress as much as one without.

The camera is turned by hand with a complicated pirouette movement.
One 36 exposure roll takes six 360's.
All 6 need to be taken one after the other or the string falls off !
Effective exposures are approx. 125 th at f16 plus the slit.
The girl in the white shorts was with a guy who owned one of those cars.
I talked to them.--She didn't say she thought I was a genius or anything, though.

dusterdude · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:44:20 PM »

i ashamed of you guys,only 1 query about the chick in the shorts.geez

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:47:36 PM »

Quote from: dusterdude on April 05, 2007, 01:44:20 PM

i ashamed of you guys,only 1 query about the chick in the shorts.geez

Oh, her.

Gerhed,

Since this is film based, what was the process by which you took this 35mm X ?mm stip of film, processed, printed and then digitized it?

gerhed · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:11:03 PM »

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 05, 2007, 01:47:36 PM

Quote from: dusterdude on April 05, 2007, 01:44:20 PM
i ashamed of you guys,only 1 query about the chick in the shorts.geez

Oh, her.

Gerhed,

Since this is film based, what was the process by which you took this 35mm X ?mm stip of film, processed, printed and then digitized it?

The Ferrari shot was made with the afor mentioned Pentax pan camera.
I took six consecutive shots at this site.
Each 360 is about 6 inches long.
They take up one roll of Ektachrome film.
Film processed in standard E-6 process.
One 6 inch piece of the roll (one 360 degree portion) was scanned with my Epson V700 film scanner.
That file was sized and imported into the Adobe Flash program.
Not to confuse the issue but I also built an enlarger that worked like
the camera --film and enlarging paper both move at the same time but in opposite directions due to optics.

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:51:14 PM »

Thanks much for the detail. Neat stuff.

gerhed · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:06:28 PM »

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 05, 2007, 05:51:14 PM

Thanks much for the detail. Neat stuff.

Here's a shot of the rig.
Tapered dowel with string around it revolves around the
central cylinder--rewinding the film and making a continuous
exposure as it goes.

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2007, 07:03:37 PM »

OK, now I get it.. I think. The film is actually being advanced through the camera via the rewind mechanism.

GroovieGhoulie · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2007, 09:31:50 PM »

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 05, 2007, 07:03:37 PM

OK, now I get it.. I think. The film is actually being advanced through the camera via the rewind mechanism.

I recall from a previous thread he said the film was advanced all the way to the end manually with the lens cap on, then it was wound back via the mechanism while being exposed as the camera turned.

A bit Rube Goldberg-ish, but it seemed to work beautifully.

Jerry Rxman Griffin aka MuthaF'er · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2007, 11:23:17 PM »

Quote from: gerhed on April 05, 2007, 06:06:28 PM

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 05, 2007, 05:51:14 PM
Thanks much for the detail. Neat stuff.

Here's a shot of the rig.
Tapered dowel with string around it revolves around the
central cylinder--rewinding the film and making a continuous
exposure as it goes.

Get tha F outta here! "Tapered dowel with string". Great rig Rube!

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2007, 02:17:07 AM »

Quote

..the film was advanced all the way to the end manually with the lens cap on, then it was wound back..

Now that you mention that, I think I do recall it.

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2007, 10:12:56 AM »

That's awesome! So you didn't pivot the lens too?

gerhed · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2007, 10:42:52 AM »

The lens is attached to the camera which is attached to the dowel and they all turn together
around the central cylinder with the shutter locked on the "B" setting.
It is possible to stop briefly after a 360 to re-orient the camera,
but then you've got to shoot another fairly soon or the string will fall off the cylinder.
After 6 360's the film should be back in the cassette.
I adapted several electric motors to the
camera--one turned it at one r.p.m. and it worked well for interiors.
Another was a 12 volt d.c. motor that I used to take pictures from the roof of my car.
I went nuts with this thing for quite a number of years. Hundreds of shots !

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2007, 01:16:14 PM »

Phil,

If the film speed is a constant and the slit dimension is a constant, is the EV determined by the rotational speed?

gerhed · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2007, 02:30:46 PM »

Quote from: Bob Wessner on April 06, 2007, 01:16:14 PM

Phil,

If the film speed is a constant and the slit dimension is a constant, is the EV determined by the rotational speed?

When turning by hand there's really only one successfull rotational speed so exposure changes would require a different film speed.
With the one rpm motor--100 speed worked fine for most interiors.
Standard was a bright sunny day -- 100 spd film and f16 plus about 1/16 th of an inch slit--slit could be on a lens hood.

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2007, 03:09:29 PM »

Thanks Phil, somehow I was assuming the lens was wide open, though I guess even that would be a variable depending on the lens.

francisew · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2007, 05:06:53 PM »

That's absolutely fantastic.

How did you figure out the exposure time for it? How long do you expose for, and how long does the rotation take?

I would have thought you'd need to pivot around the center of the lens to get a clean image...

I thought you were doing something like the digital cameras that stitch frames together, but this is much more impressive...

Francis

gerhed · « **Reply #30 on:** April 07, 2007, 05:05:26 AM »

Quote from: francisew on April 06, 2007, 05:06:53 PM

That's absolutely fantastic.

How did you figure out the exposure time for it? How long do you expose for, and how long does the rotation take?

I would have thought you'd need to pivot around the center of the lens to get a clean image...

I thought you were doing something like the digital cameras that stitch frames together, but this is much more impressive...

Francis

Among panoramic purists there is the thinking that a pan camera has to pivot around the "nodal point"
of the lens in order to get proper alignment and/or perspective--this point being somewhere along the length of the lens.
I believe I have successfully disproved that theory.
No stitching here, man--Please !
Exposure time when turned by hand is a couple seconds, but effective exposure because of the
slit is about 1/125 th,
All of this was figured out by endless testing and film wasting.
Another important factor is obsession.
If you're not obsessed, a project like this won't be successfull.
Of course there's a price to be paid for obsession.
Another story !

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #31 on:** April 09, 2007, 01:43:43 PM »

I just have one word: Circuit Pinhole!
As I said before, Man! I wish you lived in Michigan! We would have a great time! You're a little older than me (I'm 52) but you could mentor me! You'ld get along with one of my partners too...he rides a Shadow...we do a lot of the kind of thing that you do, only neither of us has shot film in years...here's an FTP of some of our stuff...http://www.greenfrogphoto.com/070321csvrflashsampless/ ...look at the Flash folder. It's an object VR we did for Motorola a while back...we shot it and it was put together in Flash...We had to retouch our "object stand" (a piece of armature wire) out of over 100 exposures!..we had a really limited time to do it, so we built our own object rig...no time to order one! It too looked a little "Rube Golbergish" too, but you do what you have to do!

gerhed · « **Reply #32 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:55:36 AM »

Quote from: Chris Schneiter on April 09, 2007, 01:43:43 PM

I just have one word: Circuit Pinhole!
As I said before, Man! I wish you lived in Michigan! We would have a great time! You're a little older than me (I'm 52) but you could mentor me! You'ld get along with one of my partners too...he rides a Shadow...we do a lot of the kind of thing that you do, only neither of us has shot film in years...here's an FTP of some of our stuff...http://www.greenfrogphoto.com/070321csvrflashsampless/ ...look at the Flash folder. It's an object VR we did for Motorola a while back...we shot it and it was put together in Flash...We had to retouch our "object stand" (a piece of armature wire) out of over 100 exposures!..we had a really limited time to do it, so we built our own object rig...no time to order one! It too looked a little "Rube Golbergish" too, but you do what you have to do!

Chris,

You guys do excellent and interesting work.
I happen to be sitting at this moment in an Eames lounge chair just like your QTVR--brown leather, though.
I'd say effective circuit shutter speeds are way too high for pinhole (f.178 !) applications.
Maybe with a gearmotor that turned the camera at one rev. per hour--or something.--but you knew that, right.
I do enjoy a good large format pinhole shot now and then.
A little vintage dirt tracking this past summer.

<a href="http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/drtrk.swf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/gearheaded_photos/drtrk.swf</a>

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #33 on:** April 10, 2007, 02:40:08 PM »

Ok, here we go...what if you shot at infinity?

gerhed · « **Reply #34 on:** April 11, 2007, 07:31:27 AM »

Quote from: Chris Schneiter on April 10, 2007, 02:40:08 PM

Ok, here we go...what if you shot at infinity?

Are we entering into a discussion of metaphysics ?

Chris Schneiter · « **Reply #35 on:** April 11, 2007, 07:50:48 AM »

I dunno, I get more of an existential vibe from pinholes...

74cb750 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 11, 2007, 03:36:05 PM »

Nice.

News:

Author Topic: The "F" Word (Read 3067 times)