William Demeritt

Everyone seemed pretty impressed with the video, we discussed a few months ago here: http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=11502

Mike McGowan even contributes a few thoughts on working with his costars. They really seemed quite natural. :P

Same could be said for weight lifting. Doing shoulder presses, squats, bench press. These all compress the body, but does not ruin anything in it. Just lift weights at the gym and Steadicam becomes a treat. almost ;)

As with Steadicam, form is everything with squats. I've been doing squats exercises since 2006, and at my max I squatted 315lbs. However, my form was off and I wasn't getting low enough. As a result, I was compensating too much with my lower back, and tweaking things quite a bit.

Moral of the story, get someone to teach you proper form for all the weight training exercises you take on, or you could someday hurt yourself quite easily.

As someone afflicted with chronic foot-in-the-mouth disease, this seems like a good practice opportunity for the diplomacy side of our business. You took the rate, so might as well do your best to get everyone on the same page through some cleverness.

If you get the feeling your AC cannot eyeball approximate distance, maybe ask him early on: "If you're more comfortable pulling tape to the subject, or eyeballing the focus, let's find a way to take a hot second during camera rehearsal to grab your focus marks. I'll ask for a stop and go rehearsal, and we can grab marks real fast."

If your DP lives off the false color, maybe he can get onboard with the stop-and-go rehearsal. Make sure he can see your monitor, and program the user buttons to False Color so you can quickly show him exposure on every beat while your AC grabs marks.

This is probably one of those situations where production delays could very easily look like your fault, because you exhausted yourself doing 15 rehearsals before going for a take and you need a moment. Get your AC and DP on your side, so you all find the most efficient solution where you're not exhausted, your DP knows his exposure, and your AC has marks.

Sounds like a lemons into lemonade kind of situation. Just remember the DP and AC's names, and next time you are offered a gig with them, remember how open they were to your suggestions, or if they just wanted you to be steadi-sticks.

I've flown the RED on an Archer2 many times, and I'd say RED has a nice "Steadicam mode" if you have the right accessories:

- clip-on matte box

- power off your sled

- remove the RED baseplate, use the top brackets for iris rod support

- shoot to CF cards, or get an ET shock mount to clip onto the iris rod and mount the RED drive flat on top of the camera

- screw your dovetail directly to the RED body base

Every time I've used this configuration, I've flown quite safely on the G-40 arm.

If you were OK with having 30lbs as max payload, I'd say check out the Archer2 with the G-50 arm. Or, wait for more information about the new Phantom.

Also, I hear Robert Starling is selling his Clipper 24 in the Steadicam Marketplace, you may want to check that out.

http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=11729

Hi there,

 

I'm an English Lit student but I'm taking a film class and have been asked to write about how technological innovation- through the Steadicam in particular- has influenced film style. I have to analyse around three films and my tutor suggested I use contrasting examples but I'm struggling to come up with any. I can't use the beautiful entering the ring shot from Raging Bull as it was an example in class.

I've written about The Shining before but more in relation to the particular effect of the camera movement within that film.

If anyone could suggest some films with Steadicam work I could analyse- especially in the 70s/early 80s- in which the camera movement is used in contrasting ways, or any writing on its influence on film style, I would be very, very grateful!

 

Thanks,

Bonnie x

I get the feeling that you won't find many film theorists discussing the use of Steadicam, as they tend to analyze the end result of a technical achievement rather than the decision to use that technical device. Everyone has an opinion about personal preference, but those are the technicians in the field, and those opinions usually come from the ease of use as opposed to the screen aesthetic. I doubt you could see the difference between the choice of a Fisher 11 dolly or a Chapman Super Peewee IV.

What I'm getting at: I suggest you use the Steadishots.org as a reference for shots in films where you know they're Steadicam, find the ones that resonate with you, and then detail how that shot itself was otherwise impossible to achieve without Steadicam. You're writing a paper about how Steadicam influenced film style, which is itself an enormous dialogue regarding the aesthetic of the moving camera, and the choices made in production.

Forgot to mention, it's a Tiffen HD UltraBRITE monitor. I thought I went through all of the menus trying to locate a way to flip the image. I'll take another look.

I'm wondering if someone out there has come up with a clever solution, or perhaps I'm doing it wrong:

How do you flip the monitor for when flying in low mode with the camera upright? I haven't tried pulling the monitor rods out of the bracket, since they're held in place by the locking screw for when folding it up or travel. As of lately, I've removed the screws holding the monitor to the monitor bracket, rotated the monitor to be upright when sled is inverted, and screwed it back in.

Requires smaller allen key and too much time, in my opinion. Anyone come up with a simpler solution?

The behind the scenes may look ridiculous, but I bet that footage is pretty sick.

As in nauseating to those prone to motion sickness?

I know it's a low cost version of the body rig we briefly saw in popularity over a decade ago (a few good shots in "Requiem for a Dream", the entire Mick Jagger video "God Gave Me Everything I Want"), and I skipped to the end of the video hoping it would show some of the footage.

How do I list equipment in the Marketplace again?

So I guess it's working via WiFi...

But how does it work with the connection?

Is it a direct connection, so iPhone-Follow Focus? Or do you need a WiFi router on set?

Pretty sure it's a direct connection. They say it's single channel, so most likely 1 transmitter associating to 1 receiver, which sounds like an ad-hoc network (client to client).

I think a lot of the argument over this will be the people who are really strong on rollerblades voicing their confidence that they can do it versus the people who perhaps aren't the best skaters voicing apprehension that anyone is really THAT good.

Perhaps both sides have a point. Why are my own legs and skates any more or less reliable than a Handsfree Transporter in a given situation? Maybe I hit a pebble, or perhaps the transporter can't maneuver around an obstacle as nimbly as I can on skates?

To Mike or other operators who have tried skating while flying, how did you handle finding "the stance" while skating? I've always found the most comfortable position for lockoffs is with feet at an angle, and achieving that while stationary on skates seems easy. However, I would think that after pushing off, if you coast with feet parallel, you're just rolling and the rig is in no position for your legs to hold the weight; just your back.

I'm basically asking how you skate safely while flying the rig? As a soon-to-be owner/operator whose spent more than half of my life on rollerblades, I'm eager to determine how to do this safely, even if I relent using it on set.

I know many people have an iPhone, and that's the first device they'll consider for a transmitter. However, if I were purchasing this system, I'd get an iPod Touch to be the dedicated primary transmitter and the iPhone as a backup. Otherwise, you'll always be paranoid if the phone's radio is in Airplane mode, or if you may get a phone call just at the wrong moment.

The other thread seemed to come to the unanimous conclusion: cool, low cost backup system.

Lars,

WE ACCEPT YOU! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

Cult chatter aside, welcome to the Mac world. I'm a lifelong computer technology enthusiast, and even worked in Information Technology for a while. Built PC's for a while, then moved to using Macs (currently posting from my homebuilt Hackintosh; PC parts running Mac OS X Snow Leopard). I've also converted many family members and friends over the years.

Just going off my experiences, the people you'll read about (as few as they may be) will encourage antivirus software because they fell victim to one of the few Mac viruses in existence. That's not to say there's only 5 viruses or exploits total. Rather, you compare maybe 280,000+ viruses affecting Windows based PC's against... well, I think January, 2009 was the first occurrence of a true Mac virus.

Doesn't mean Macs are COMPLETELY safe, but many features intrinsic to the architecture and design of OS X makes them more secure. File permissions, user permission and hierarchy and more prevents unauthorized software from gaining access to your system. The people who are recommending you get antivirus software for your Mac? They most likely installed something questionable from online, entered the Administrator password allowing it to run, and suffered the consequences.

My suggestion: save your money (and your precious system resources... Macs are memory hungry), and just be aware of what you're installing/running. Macs do a much better job of alerting you to running programs that are attachments or downloads, and the security risk involved. By nature, the system will only allow so much access to most programs.

Computer geek since 1987

Mac geek since 2004

All around nerd since birth.

Glad to hear it's corrected, Stefano!

I'd like to hear more, please. Thanks!

Stefano,

Quickly researching the HD10MD3, it appears the dip switches can set the output format to either 16:9 or 4:3. User manual says that's DIP #5. Can you verify if it's set to 4:3? Does sound like the CRT monitor is expecting a 4:3 image but it's receiving a 16:9 image, so it's trimming off left and right.

Anyone familiar with how this stacks up with a traditional weight training and cardio regiment? I'm open to adding something new to my overall workout, but I make several visits to LA Fitness a week as it is for strength and mental health reasons.

For that matter, what sort of exercise does everyone do to "stay in shape". I try to focus on compound weight training exercises in specific orders, no muscle confusion (yet). Leg training includes squats, leg presses and lunges.

How often do you have to give him a courtesy "bump" before he shuts down?

I'm not sure if you can conclusively say that's the case, but I did have an experience last weekend on a music video where the RED shut down and I blamed the FF.

Basically, had RED on on Archer2 with a Bartech all powered off the batteries on the sled. On the Steadicam powercubes, I had 2 green lights on one battery and 1 green light on the other, and we had to move fast. So, I figured I had one more take before I'd have to swap batteries. During the shot, though, the DP wanted the follow focus to "pop" in and out of focus, which required a lot of very quick focus racks. Towards the end of the performance, the camera hiccuped and shut down.

I think there's an easy solution for you, though. Request that the RED come with a second battery plate with a D-tap, and use a battery to power specifically the Bartech. Keep camera on it's own battery plate, so it's independent of any voltage drops caused by the FF.

I don't believe that's you, Robert. I don't see a single Vegas showgirl.

Wait, is she taking the picture?

I just received an e-mail from DirectTV and they say they are offering 3 3D channels this year. I also heard of someone going to do a 3D Porno!

 

It is another Fad or the Future?

 

Dan

I think the market usually decides what survives and what doesn't. For now, I think new technology can only be refreshing in a time filled with unnecessary sequels, prequels and remakes/reboots. Perhaps a new way to tell a story will only revitalize storytelling, even if it just results in a return to traditional filmmaking?

I believe that if you agreed to show up to a shoot, it doesn't matter rate, show size, talent, director, dp, ac...whatever, you choose to be there, bring your A game.

Cheers to that, brother. When I'm doing other work on set while not wearing the rig, that's what I remind myself every day. Doesn't matter if it's a full rate, deep discount, favor for a friend, or whatever... I agreed to come work for the day, so they're getting my all. If I feel like I'm being taken advantage of, well that's one thing. However, attitude is everything.

As a newer Steadicam operator, maybe others feel as I do in that the workshops teach you a lot about the technique, craft and art of Steadicam. However, the positive attitude, collaborative spirit, humility and respect for the overall business is something everyone learns for themselves (like reinventing the wheel). To my knowledge, we've got books explaining grip and lighting equipment, cinematography and video, even a textbook on Steadicam... but I've yet to see a book that teaches you how to freelance in this business.

I guess some people make mistakes from which they'll just never recover a lost client, or a lost career?

Mark, out of curiosity, are you saying you currently have £8000 cash available to purchase the rig? Or is that the expected take at the end of your jobs?

The best films are never easy, and they shouldn't be, it wouldn't be fun that way.

Now you sound like a Producer. :P

I'd argue that the best films could also show the filmmakers had the most fun doing it. However, maybe we've spent enough time off subject. I look forward to hearing about your tests and findings/experience.

With all the concerns and issues voiced so far in this thread, I'm actually very interested in seeing what your tests yield. Please be sure to post your progress as you get closer.

Equally, please also post if the producer/director realizes that perhaps they've hit the threshold where their idea has collided with technological capability. I would think the creative team will realize they either must 1) select a different camera to achieve a 110 minute feature, or 2) abandon the 110 minute feature "in a oner" idea.

After all, #1 is breaking some new ground technologically, but #2, one could easily defer to the historical lessons of underperforming films attempting similar "stunts" and, as Jerry said, abandoning the long, richly developed language of cinematic narrative.