Brian Freesh

The "oh shit" cord feature has to be armed on previous vests as well. Makes perfect sense they'd include the feature identically in any new vest they make. I do agree with Afton regarding the danger of having it. Of the two times I know of that one was used, I don't know the full story but both sounded pretty dangerous. There's probably always a way to achieve a shot safely without having an emergency release. Sure, it'd be nice to have just in case, but not having it forces me to avoid a situation I'd wish I had it. All the same, I'm totally down for it's existence. 6 of one, half dozen of the other kinda thing.

I'll never be that good.

Thanks Jerry, I never joke when I can just be stupid instead. I definitely see the suspension benefits, and we both agree on the end stop thing. I guess as far as physical human arm limit I was thinking more of booming down. As the arm is mounted below mine, the end of my reach happens before or at the end of the arm's reach. When booming up, I 'm not as worried about gripping the post as I am gripping the gimbal the handle. As it is, to reach further I'd have to start pushing from below, rather than pull from the top. Regardless, at both ends I'm bound to have difficulties operating at the extremes of my reach. Both because of my arm positions, and because of my ability to see the monitor. Moreover, I don't see a steadicam as a booming device. Booming is a side effect of it's function, and while it can and should be used to boom for particular shots, if I ever have a shot that requires a 45" boom that I cannot recommend a better solution for than using a 3 section arm and limiting my ability to control the rig at the extremes, I think I will have failed the production. The notable exception being the suspension benefits of vehicle shots. I reserve the right to prove myself wrong on the reach issue whenever I try this on. I'm just going based on my current experience with a 2 section arm, with which I do struggle to comfortably and successfully operate the rig at it's extremes. I can also see the versatility in mounting the arm for any hard mount shot. It doesn't necessarily gain you boom range for the shot, but allows you to mount the arm elsewhere for convenience. I like to hear that it is an accessory, not a whole new arm, I think that's as it should be. This question may not be for you: Is it only available with the exovest? I could see people wanting it for the hard mount solutions, but who are happy with their existing vests. (Myself included, though I do not have a compatible arm anyway, if only because my sections will behave differently, not in sync) As an aside, I heard your old vest that I sold a year or so ago made it's way to Arrowhead this year and fun was had by all!

Hmmm... Maybe there are other advantages to a third arm segment that I'm not thinking of, but 50% extra boom range that I can't reach doesn't sound appealing. I suppose it would help smooth out any booms that reach the old limit, so as long as it's bulk isn't annoying there's one minor advantage there. I'd love to hear from people at the show over the week what other advantages they find with the 3rd segment. Otherwise the vest itself sounds cool. I'm not at NAB, but I look forward to trying it out. I know Chris has always paid special attention to how to lessen the negative effects of wearing a steadicam, so I'm very curious to see what he's come up with here. If it's priced with the Ultra 2 and Pro vests it could be a strong contender. If it's any more than the Klassen Universal hopefully it doesn't price itself out of the market.

Well you can have the camera high above the gimbal (im not saying you should or that that would count as 'proper' balance) - my camera needs to ride a little high The maths was hypothetical BTW Generally the arm works best for me in max lift settings - so I must be close.. S Yeah, I was only treating it as a thought experiment, as I correctly assumed you were. Yes, you can lower the gimbal, probably even enough. I'll not venture to guess what Tiffen's guidelines are for proper balance either. One would assume it does not include non-factory equipment like a transvideo monitor. This all just reinforces the idea that none of this is an issue for the average user. George, they do read, though they're all at NAB this week. Asking the manufacturer themselves is a great idea, you should call Derek. I don't know if you'll get a response this week, but next week would probably be fine.

I think Eric is talking about the variables I claimed are not a problem for the average consumer. We agree those variables are present, doesn't change what Tiffen's documentation is addressing, just points out it's limitations. And fair enough. Those variables are what Sam has run into. The problem with your math, Sam, is that with 2 extra lbs on the bottom, you'll need more weight up top to balance it properly. An 8 lb camera would work for the arm, but it'd be an extremely bottom heavy sled. I make no claims as to the accuracy of Tiffen's #s. I imagine in practice adding 2 lbs to the bottom of the sled will not greatly change the amount of weight you can safely put on top.

How does one utilize the extra 50%? My arms aren't that long.

It doesn't count in their payload total, because Tiffen has (theoretically) already accounted for it. Heavier camera means more weight below the gimbal and/or extended post. Which Tiffen takes into account (successfully or not). Therefore, Tiffen's weight limit for the pilot (10 lbs) is for the camera itself, and assumes that all the weight needed to balance that camera is used below. There are certainly too many variables for their estimate to be accurate for every set-up, but it's probably fine for the average consumer. I completely agree that it's confusing because it's done differently. I don't know how well defined it is in the documentation these days, it was completely unclear 4 years ago when I bought my 2nd gen Flyer. But I sorted out years ago what 15lb payload was intended to mean from their perspective, and that it was true of all their lighter weight rigs. ETA: To be clear, my initial point was just that the weight limits published by Tiffen are meant to indicate the most weight you can put above the gimbal in regards to all that come with a lightweight arm. I'd also agree that clarity in the documentation is where the confusion comes from

The G50 and G70 are total payload on the arm. The numbers they list for the smaller arms are total camera payload on that system. Those arms come with specific sleds, and Tiffen tells you how much weight you can get up top and still balance with below. It's confusing and not clear, but Mark is right about those weight limits and what they represent.

<greekmythologygeekiness> Technically Atlas was a Titan himself, and held up the Sky, not the Earth. Still the heaviest thing in like, ever! However, as he was but one Titan, perhaps the names chosen are still apt? Then again, maybe Atlas for the original arm, and Heracles for the new? During one of his labors, Heracles took the sky off Atlas' shoulders briefly, and had to trick the Titan into holding it again. Hercules was the Roman name. :P </greekmythologygeekiness>

Technically there is no formula for Lisigav. Ron once explained to me it involves a dominatrix Faery, a Unicorn, and the tears from the silent cries of 1000 Strippers blessed by a Clown over a Panaglide with copious amounts of beer. There may have been more, but he stopped making sense.

Yes

I agree, Jess wasn't explicitly stating the word composite, but I found it clear from context that is what he was looking for. Confirmed by his recent post that he wants to use a modulus with that signal. I agree that David thought Jess meant SD-SDI, but I was talking about what I thought Jess meant, and was just trying to clarify. Interestingly, David said he was recording HD externally through HD-SDI as well as sending SD-SDI through an SD Flyer sled. The SD Flyer sled is set up for a composite signal. the BNC will take the SDI, but the monitor won't. So either he is doing what I did (HD-SDI and composite, rather than HD-SDI and SD-SDI like he claims) and they do output simultaneously (solving the downconverter problem), or he's got an HD flyer that is accepting SD-SDI, or he's not recording HD to the external recorder like he thinks.

Not sure why you're going back and forth on this. Jess, you were wanting to know how to avoid using a downconverter to get a composite SD signal, correct? Presumable for use with a wireless video transmitter? That is what I am saying does indeed work with the correct setting in the menu while maintaining HD-SDI on the SDI connectors, and allowing HD-SDI playback. If you were looking for an SD-SDI signal simultaneously as an HD-SDI signal, apparently that's doable too, and my mistake and apologies for confusing anyone. Just realized: I don't think I ever used the HD-SDI outputs at the same time as I used the Composite SD outputs. So while you have both as an option at the same time, I cannot guarantee that both output simultaneously as I did not try it. Since you were recording through HD-SDI to an external recorder, you would obviously need both to output simultaneously. This would absolutely be the difference between using a downconverter or not if you are using an external recorder. I can only vouch for having both as an option, maybe they output simultaneously, i don't know. As I said, it's not clear in the menu, it's not labeled composite. Actually I feel like HDMI was in the description, which makes no sense to me, but maybe others can understand how that works. Like I said, I did it with trial and error, if you're going in to test you should be able to find it pretty quickly. If it's a fluke that it worked, it worked on all 3 of the F3 bodies I've ever used. If it's intentional that it works, it's a very strange thing Sony has done. I'm not at all surprised about the confusion everyone has and only knew it worked myself because my AC did it the first time.

At 2:12 in the making of you can see the Op's face pretty well, also his gear. It looks like pics of Michael on his website and the gear matches his gear list. Case closed! Good job Mike!

We definitely did HD playback when I used in in December. The focus puller was green so they wanted to check each take with better resolution than the SD transmission. I've never done slow mo with the camera so cannot speak to that.

I'm with you on expectations. They can suck it. But as mentioned above, you can output both at once. I've done it all 3 times I've flown the camera (3 bodies). The way the setting is labeled is very strange. All I know is that in the end I get an HD-SDI signal through one port, and composite signal to my transmitter. First time my AC knew how to do it, the second time I found it by trial and error. Jess mentioned in his original post he was not talking about SD-SDI

Ah, I assume that motor is for .5 or .6 pitch gears? Yeah, this'll be .8 Looks like I'm covered this time around. Thanks Rob, and thanks everyone for looking :)

Hi Rob, thanks! I might hit you up in the future, but don't those only work with ENG lenses? I'll be using a (fingers crossed) cine lens or photo lens on a 7D, so it'll be an external motor. Is there a way to plug a stanton into an analog BFD for such a use? The same way a G-Zoom works with a BFD.

Hi everyone, Need to pull focus on a non-ENG lens from the gimbal for a stage performance on Saturday. I found a G-Zoom I can have shipped in, but figured I'd check to see if there was something local I could find for convenience sake. Lemme know what size gimbal(s) it will fit on. Thanks! :)

This is fun. With the first video you linked I instantly thought technocrane. But there's no reason some of these can't be steadi and others crane. The other two I'm not so sure if they are a crane. If they are, the are masterfully choreographed and must be ADR for all the stuff that would have to move. Particularly the one with the woman. At the end you see so far to the right it's hard to believe anything was ever over there, but the base must've started over there if a crane move. Also, at the :17 mark there appears to be a slight horizon bobble. It goes higher on the right for a second and then corrects before she sits down. Thos last 2 videos it seems would be much simpler to do on steadicam overall. Great shots regardless. P.S. If I happen to be wrong about the complexity of orchestrating those as technocrane shots, fair enough. I still can only imagine steadicam would be simpler. There's just so many obstacles for a crane!

I should be able to make the Pro Open House, but I'm out of town on the 28th for the Arrowhead Operator's night. Playing NAB by ear, as per usual. I'll check Ron's place for booze, but I really don't expect to find anything other than empty bottles.

End of an era!

Your face is cleverly hidden in the title. James, call Derek at Tiffen, sounds like it might be a gimbal problem. Hopefully he can help you.

Will, It's a GH2 on the Merlin, cleverly hidden in the title. As such, I doubt there are any cables to speak of, and wonder if the sound in the camera is the same as in prosumer Panasonic video cameras and some point and shoot cameras. If so, I've never noticed that have an affect on balance, though I've never tested it with a merlin. Yeah, any steadicam is a pendulum, play around with drop times and practice, practice practice. Get the handbook, take the workshop, blah blah blah, it's been said a million times :) I keep hearing about merlin's losing static balance and I always assume they mean it's doing a pendulum motion, but then they also mention the pendulum as a separate issue. So maybe there is something a little off or that most of us don't understand about merlins. Better to get a marlin.