Mamiya RZ67 Pro II Cut-Away Illustration

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Good Evening All,<br>

Please find below an illustration I've been working on for a while. This is a 3D model of the RZ I've built for a larger animation project, and wanted to put together a nice cutaway-style illustration for my desktop. I thought if anyone else in the world might appreciate such camera geek-dom (and I say that with all due respect), this would be the crowd. Here's a larger, multiple angle version: http://www.johnbcrane.com/illustration/e2de127e4</p>

<p><img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s1/v47/p622134787-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Please enjoy and a good evening to all.<br>

JBCrane</p>

 

[andre_noble5]

<p>John, nice design. You've got major talent.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>John,<br /> Nice job! On a minor note...the film on the take-up spool should go under the spool. <br /> The yellow face of the backing paper would not show from the angle depicted. <br /> Instead, the black underside would show.<br /> I know...what a 'Cad' I am, commenting on your CAD skills! :-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Very interesting... So was you the one who make all that animations on TV! ;)<br>

Hmm, CAD seem even more difficult to me than chinese or quantum mechanics. Thanks.</p>

[polka]

<p>the film seems to be loaded the wrong way : it's the backpaper that is exposed in the chamber ?<br>

Paul</p>

 

[lolver]

<p>Well, I've tried out some modelling in Studio Max and got nowhere much so I appreciate the skill shown here. Good stuff.</p>

 

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Hi Folks, Thanks for the comments and feedback. The film loading thing's being fixed now...thanks for pointing it out. - jbc</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>OK guys - the film has been fixed. Largely a mapping issue, but I actually had the curl on the feed spool coming from the wrong direction. Duh. I also shrank the diameter of the take-up spool. It's a little harder to see what's happening in their now because the dark of the film is less easy to see than the yellow backing. Thank you to those who pointed out this error.<br>

Some finer points... technically speaking this is not CAD. CAD is Computer Aided Design and what an Industrial Designer or engineer would use to build the product in physically accurate solids models to then send to manufacturing equipment. This surface model was built, textured and rendered in a 3D animation/modeling software for animation. Even though the image bares resemblance to something a CAD user may see on screen the process and actual resulting data set are completely different - though both are 3D models; both existing in the 3D space. <br>

Thanks again for your comments.<br>

JBCrane</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Cool. Love this sort of thing.</p>

 

[User_6502147]

<p>I think you can do this on 3D AutoCAD, but it's quite an expensive endevor. Gees, even the 2D is getting out of reach. I think there are several other types of software where that could be accomplished. CAD has many uses out there....from engineering to electrical, to architectural...and structural + being able to obtain a building permit (in 2D), bla bla. <br>

<br />Les</p>

[cian_perez]

<p>That's uber cool! Thanks, John!</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>That's uber cool! Thanks, John!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Cian. I've been adding more "stuff" to it (the mirror-up cable release and waist level finder's magnifier), and will eventually add the FE701 Metered Prism Finder with the magnifier. I have a new (stupid-fast/powerful HP workstation) computer coming next week and hope to render out some animation sequences as well. It's a great way to get to know every nuance of the camera - when not shooting with it. I'm quite fond of it ;-).</p>

[gareth_williams2]

<p>Absolutely superb and many thanks! Would love to be able to get a poster sized copy.</p>

[edwin_palingayan]

<p>Strong Ai skills is strong</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>John, what you've done is brilliant! - so I hope you won't you be annoyed if I made the following points, to make it slightly better?</p>

<p>First of all, the mirror inverts the image...so the way you've overlaid the image on the mirror, should really be upside-down, if it's representing the light incoming from the lens. </p>

<p>But even that would not really be accurate - the light impinging on the mirror is not yet in focus, so it is not correct to show a focused landscape, of any orientation, on the mirror plane. I think it would be better just to show some light ray paths emerging from the back of the lens and bouncing off the mirror.</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Hello Ray,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>John, what you've done is brilliant! - so I hope you won't you be annoyed if I made the following points, to make it slightly better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I'm not annoyed in the least. It's what helps make something better.Thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>First of all, the mirror inverts the image...so the way you've overlaid the image on the mirror, should really be upside-down, if it's representing the light incoming from the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're of course right, and I struggled with this. In the end I decided that an upside-down image in the viewfinder - though accurate - was potentially confusing to the viewer. I may go back and fix this at some point... things have been rendered in layers and it would be a pretty simple fix. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll think about it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But even that would not really be accurate - the light impinging on the mirror is not yet in focus, so it is not correct to show a focused landscape, of any orientation, on the mirror plane. I think it would be better just to show some light ray paths emerging from the back of the lens and bouncing off the mirror.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This 3D model is actually animated. In the animation, the rack and pinion focus extends in and out, showing the image in the viewfinder going in and out of focus - along with the focus knobs turning, etc. So when I froze the moment in time, so to speak, I opted to create a fictitious moment for aesthetic purposes. So, I like the shape of the camera assembly with the bellows extended because it showed the bellows, the distance scale, etc. well, but in reality if you were racked out like that, a landscape image would be blurry... and I didn't want a blurry image in the viewfinder. So I chose to be an artist instead of an engineer and make it "look good" and be "sort of accurate" ;-).<br>

I don't know if you went and viewed the updated version on the web site, but it has the double cable release added, and labeling. If not, here's the link: http://www.johnbcrane.com/120/h3e9c80e5#h3e9c80e5<br>

I think next will be the FE701 with the focus magnifier because that's often how I'll shoot the camera. I'm also working up to modeling the G3 bellows, which is a real rigging challenge, trying to get all the scissor pieces moving and behaving properly. Good thing this is an old camera with lots of cool gadgets - and I'm on no deadline... it's purely a personal project when I'm not out shooting.<br>

You may also notice there's not second (side) frame counter window in the 120 back, though it is a ProII back, not a Pro back. Another omission I may address later. I've put it aside for some other projects at the moment, but will get back to it later.<br>

Sincere thanks for bringing this old thread back to life - for the comments and the intent. I knew I could count on input from this forum to help bring it home.<br>

Kind regards,<br>

John B. Crane</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>