https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dgm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I presume heBox lenses are still that big.N
was giving directions to those operating the hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
On Sun Apr 26 01:12:32 2026 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I presume he
was giving directions to those operating the hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
Box lenses are still that big.N
On 05/05/2026 11:32, Jim Spriggs wrote:
On Sun Apr 26 01:12:32 2026 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I
presume he was giving directions to those operating the
hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
Box lenses are still that big.N
I remember seeing a programme about the exhibits in the Bradford
Museum of Film, Photography and Television that were too big (or too
boring for those with limited attention span!) to display. One was a
zoom lens which was about two metres long and weighed as much as an
elephant because of all the lens elements in it. I imagine it needed
a special mount and special counterweights on the camera pedestal.
It was designed for OB work - maybe sports like horse racing or golf
where the cameraman sometimes needed to show a very distant horse or
golf ball.
At least modern TV cameras have much smaller sensors and so don't
need such long focal lengths to achieve a given amount of
magnification. I think early image orthicon cameras used tubes that
were about 5" diameter so the frame size would have been about 4" x
3" (102 x 76 mm). That is a hell of a lot larger than a 35 mm still
frame which is 36 x 24 millimetres, so needs proportionally longer
focal length for the same field of view.
-aISTR that the tubes were 3" or 4 1/2. But that's from 60+ years ago
On 05/05/2026 17:15, Charles Hope wrote:
-aISTR that the tubes were 3" or 4 1/2. But that's from 60+ years ago
No wonder that studio cameras and associated lenses were so large and heavy.
What was the light sensitivity of the various types of tubes (IO,
Plumbicon, Saticon, modern solid-state) in terms of equivalent ISO
speed? I've found a reference to a Saticon being about ISO 64 and also a reference to IOs being able to give good pictures "by candlelight". But
then I've also heard that a typical TV studio in bygone days was lit to
a brightness similar to an overcast day - which is *very* bright by artificial light standards.
I realise that things are different if a studio shot needs to "see"
daylight in the background. The classic case was Pebble Mill at One
where the guests were sitting indoors with daylight (overcast or sunny) outside being seen in the background. I presume the cameras were
balanced for daylight and blue gels were used on the lights, with the lighting level being varied day by day so as to match the brightness of
the sun that day.
Was the correction for colour temperature of a TV camera (tungsten, HMI, overcast day, full sun, shade on a sunny day) done by changing a filter,
or was the adjustment done in electronics by varying the gain of one
tube relative to another? I know that cine film is normally tungsten balanced with an amber filter for daylight, so the filter-loss happens
in the case where the light is brighter.
For Super 8 (in the late 70s, at least), it was indeed as you describe;
about the only film widely available (and for which the cheaper cameras
were preset) was a Kodak, nominally 25 ASA, but actually 40ASA indoor
with the filter being in place in the camera (which came with a special
key on the wriststrap that you pushed through a slot in the handle when filming indoors, which pushed the filter out of the way). For Standard
8, the default _was_ outdoor film - 25ASA for Kodak, though 10 was
available (e. g. Perutz). I don't know what was used for professional
formats (16mm and above) - presumably specifically indoor or outdoor
film for whatever you were doing. (For the amateur formats it was
assumed you wouldn't want to keep changing the film.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I presume he
was giving directions to those operating the hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
(According to one of the comments, the cameraman is called Dieter
Schneider, and is known.
On 26/04/2026 01:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I presume he
was giving directions to those operating the hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
(According to one of the comments, the cameraman is called Dieter
Schneider, and is known.
Some else playing with a camera rig
YouTube: GB Jax Jones, Ella Henderson - This Is Real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpArZkzrU3g
Those robotic cameras are dangerous when they go wrong, they must have
risk assessed that one to hell and back....
On 2026/5/11 1:14:8, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 26/04/2026 01:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Or didn't ask :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1qDrtk4tA at 2:20-4:08 - I presume he
was giving directions to those operating the hydraulics (or whatever).
One forgets just how big lenses were in 1972!
(According to one of the comments, the cameraman is called Dieter
Schneider, and is known.
Some else playing with a camera rig
YouTube: GB Jax Jones, Ella Henderson - This Is Real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpArZkzrU3g
Those robotic cameras are dangerous when they go wrong, they must have
risk assessed that one to hell and back....
What a very athletic young lady; I'm exhausted just watching!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:56:19 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |