CAPcam - Photokina 2010 - Computerized View Camera

[Sdrubansky]

Hello,

Don't know if somebody has already mentioned this:

http://www.gfae.ch/ViewCameras/CAPcam.html

Designed by KARL GFELLER who designed the Sinar P2.

Leaves me speechless.

M

[Nathan Potter]

Seems as though it is better suited to some application other than photography - but I don't know what that could be.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Struan Gray]

My personal opinion is that this sort of thing is the future of studio cameras. Parallel motion stages have have several advantages over the stacked serial movements found in typical view cameras, not least stability and precision for a given level of engineering finesse. For digital capture and production-oriented catalogue work with movements, a hexapod/Stewart platform camera has a lot going for it.

This particular implementation looks clunky, not least for it's choice of actuators, but unlike my perfect version, it actually exists.

[Mark Woods]

Could be a great tool for motion control capture on films. Oops, cgi is here already. ;-)

[Struan Gray]

Could be a great tool for motion control capture on films.

I never thought there would be a moment when I could tell you something you didn't know about film making.

http://www.empdesigns.co.uk/motion-control-automation/

Extra biscuit with my coffee this morning :-)

The same sort of extendable strut hexapod is used for flight simulators. There are some fantastically precise versions made with piezoelectric actuators that would be great for a (very expensive) tethered studio camera. Physikinstrumente in Germany (www.pi.de) are a leader in the field.

I have several concept sketches for a camera with a front standard based on these ideas. It could do wide angles as-is, and add a conventional bellows and rail for longer focal lengths, with the automated motion used for front movements.

There are two problems for this hobby builder/dreamer. The first is getting compact actuators which don't cost the earth. That may have been solved by the linear servo and r.c. community (Firgelli do some nice stuff). The other problem is that accuracy and stability are dependent on high-quality multi-axis joints. Right now I'm leaning towards cannibalising my kids' Lego for Bionicle shoulder joints :-)

[GPS]

To put it plainly in a perspective... This camera is of course heavier than a studio monorail. It is much more difficult to manufacture. As it is, it is not meant for film holders but for a digital capture (would need a different construction for film capture). It is much more expensive to make and to buy than a studio monorail.
The obvious advantages of using this camera pertain to a small number of photographers in a small number of situations.
It is a highly specialized camera for a highly specialized photographer (the one who needs that kind of advantages for that price). For an amateur LF photographer a studio monorail will still remain his obvious choice for many intelligent reasons...
Sure you can make a machine to knot your laces - and surely enough people will continue to knot them manually...

[jp]

I think it'd be pretty cool for video. The camera people could play up the razor thin DOF fad to new creative extremes. They could practice certain creative camera work, record it, and use it to rehearse scenes. Sorta like new pianos let you record what you do and replay it.

[Mark Woods]

There are a lot of Moco rigs out there. Most are one offs. But that said, often the producers want to go the CGI route since they can change their mind fairly often and only the post house is involved. It still costs money (sometimes boat loads), but the "creators" don't have to commit to a given effect. I could give examples, but choose not to. :-)

[Thom Bennett]

Sweet! As a product photographer I could definitely see using something like this to increase our workflow.

[Daniel_Buck]

There are a lot of Moco rigs out there. Most are one offs. But that said, often the producers want to go the CGI route since they can change their mind fairly often and only the post house is involved. It still costs money (sometimes boat loads), but the "creators" don't have to commit to a given effect. I could give examples, but choose not to. :-)

that's the problem with CGI (that's my world!) people think it's easy to change everything up all the time. Sure, you can change anything, and do just about anything your heart and mind desires, but it still takes time to do something good in CGI. And just like any other type of work, making changes all the time will make the quality of work suffer (and make all of us work insane hours, hah!)

But for some reason folks think just because it's CG, you can make changes on a whim with no consequences. If they were on set, they wouldn't be making those changes! haha