Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site onfcanim.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Using a "still" camera for animation
Message-ID: <14790@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 12:44:28 EST
Article-I.D.: onfcanim.14790
Posted: Fri Mar  7 12:44:28 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 05:34:16 EST
References: <1086@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1972@peora.UUCP> <510@tekig4.UUCP> <2207@utcsri.UUCP> <14789@onfcanim.UUCP> <2282@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: ONF, Montreal
Lines: 28

In article <2282@utcsri.UUCP> hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) writes:
> 
>Any camera could be used for single-frame animation *IF* the registration
>problem can be solved. I recall a NIKON F3 was used to do some of the
>special effects in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.  The problem
>of registration might be harder to solve on a 'blad, but in principle
>it could be done.

True in theory, but probably pretty difficult in practice.  Movie
cameras either have moving registration pins that insert into the film
moving along a fixed path (the Mitchell movement), or fixed
registration pins and a movement that lifts the film away from the
pins, moves it, and presses it back onto the pins (the Bell and Howell
movement).  Adding a moving registration pin to a still camera would be
a major piece of engineering, made worse on the Hasselblad because it
wasn't built to use sprocketed film in the first place.  Adding a
B&H-type movement would probably require replacing much of the film
path no matter what you started with.

Do you know anything about how the Nikon was modified?

Anyway, my original comments were about a stock Hasselblad, not what
you might be able to do by modifying it.

(I've deleted net.columbia from the newsgroup list, since this no longer
seems relevant to the shuttle.)

	Dave Martindale