Mini35 + Glidecam

D

dasonras

Well-known member
Hello. I would like to use the mini35 for part of a short film. However, i would also like to use the glidecam for the entire film.

Are the two compatible?

Could someone clear up for me what's the difference between the glidecam models?

Also, what lenses do any of you have success with? The thing i hate about camcorders is how you can never get it wide enough. I was thinking about an 18mm lens for a wide lens.
 
IMO, this isn't worth it unless you're simply flooded with cash. The main purpose of the Mini-35 is to add 35mm like DOF. Wide angle lenses (18mm) give you a VERY wide DOF. Basically, all the mini-35 would be giving you would be a blurrier image and a HUGE body, which would be useable with a top of the line glidecam, but those things are unweildly.

So you could spend hundreds per day on the mini-35 and a wide angle lens, plus hundreds more for a fancy vest and glidecam, or get similar results with a century optics 0.7X lens, or just shooting with the DVX's lens at its widest setting.

The answer is yes, this is probably possible.

The real question is, why bother going about doing it? You'll lose resolution, but you won't get a noticeably shallower DOF since you'll be using an 18mm lens.
 
depends on the model glidecam.

i am steadicam operator and i use a modified steadytracker extreme that i use with my dvx (extra counterweights and monitor). i used a mini35 with a (i think) 50 mm prime lens on that rig with a dvxA for a quick walk and talk complete with focus pull at the end of the move. other than extending the post to get a better CG at the "gimbal" it worked out fine.

so, if i can do it on a steadytracker extreme, you can certainly do this with a glidecam.. depending on the model and how much weight it can handle. also, having experience in operating any stabilizer system is the key to getting the smooth shots these toys are made for...

id post some pics of the setup here but the fourm doesnt allow it... i coulad send you a pic or two via email if youd like...
 
No, it's okay. I didn't think my answer through well enough. Let me rephrase some of what I said, because I'll stick by it.

I still believe that a mini-35 with an 18mm lens would not offer considerable benefits over a wide angle adapter. The depth of field would be so deep either way that the benefits would be virtually worthless. Maybe you could see them, but would your audience notice them? I doubt it VERY much. Obviously, a glidecam 200 wouldn't compare with an expensive steadicam rig and handheld would be even worse (though for short shots, even the cheapest stabilizers can offer very good results), but the depth of field benefits would be next to nothing if you're shooting ultra wide angle. I'm not recommending not using a stabilizer (I shot half of my last project with one and with a vest, etc. they can provide amazing results), but I think the mini-35 would be pointless here.

So I think it's a pointless endeavor, but it's certainly possible. If you're using a 50mm lens, then I could see the point in it. I'm not claiming the glidecam won't help, I'm just saying that equally good results could be achieved with a cheaper model (the big ones are unweildly, though you could hire a professional operator) and no mini-35 for a lot less money. But if you have a lot of money to waste, or if you're shooting your entire movie like this, go for it. But if it's just a minute or two of shots and an ultra wide angle lens, it's not worth the trouble.
 
Ultra Wide

Ultra Wide

I'm not trying to achieve a shallow dof. I am looking to achieve something similar to the look of kubricks "Eyes Wide Shut" where it was shot pretty much ultra wide.

The thing i hate about the dvx is that you cannot get wide enough. So, is it better to get a 18mm lens for mini-35 or get a wide angle convertor?

Just to let you know, my budget is $600 daily shoot for equipment rentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top