False. See my comments in post #50.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
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.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
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.
Last edited by Diapositivo; 08-30-2012 at 06:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.
Originally Posted by daleeman
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".
Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.
Re Manfrotto levelers, see my post #12. I have Manfrotto 138, use it under my still cameras as well as under my cine cameras.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
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.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato