Mark Schlicher

Rusty,

How satisfied are you with the Marshall level indicator? How does it compare with what you've used in the past?

Make sure you check underneath the camera stage to make sure the five set screws are tight, if you haven't already.

In my opinion this is an important update for all Zephyr owners, even if you have not had a clamp failure.

In addition to the clever new washer design, they appear to have loosened the fit where the silver cylindrical nut fits into the blue anodized lever. The original clamps were so tight that they would bind, causing excess sideways load on the stainless steel screw. In my opinion that factor is the main one in clamp failure, and can occur whether or not the operator has over-tightened the screw. The improved lever now rotates easily to open or close, but still locks properly.

Sam, per your example, if you added 2 pounds to the bottom of the rig, you MIGHT, but wouldn't NECESSARILY, have to subtract 2 lbs from the weight above the gimbal...you'd only need to do that IF you observed that this setup tipped you over the rig's total arm lift capacity.

Brian's description and explanation are right on target. I suppose that it's Tiffen attempt to answer the question "how heavy a camera can I fly?". They have started to refer to this figure as "net camera capacity". In the case of the Pilot, their answer is "about ten pounds of camera and other gack above the gimbal."

OR to put it another way, Tiffen is saying: "you can fly up to roughly ten pounds total mass above the gimbal. You may have to extend your centerpost a little, but not to some unreasonable degree. If you try to fly a camera heavier than ten pounds, the amount of weight you'd have to put down below to compensate would probably cause your overall weight to be more than the limit of the arm lift. At best, you'd have to extend the post so long that it would be difficult to operate. So, yeah...ten pounds is about right."

Whether they "should" state the spec differently for the Pilot/Flyer/Scout/Zephyr is a separate question. Perhaps they "should" bring it in line with the way things are stated for big rigs. I wasn't commenting on that, I've only addressed the question about how they "do" specify the camera-carrying capacity of the Pilot.

George, to clarify my previous comment: if your camera is close to ten pounds, don't add any Merlin weights or anything unnecessary ABOVE the gimbal. Only add enough additional weight on the bottom spar to achieve a decent drop time (2-2 1/2 seconds on a Pilot is good). If your arm can lift the loaded sled, then you're good, don't worry.

Now, go practice, like Janice said. :-)

What Janice said...

The way that Tiffen spec's their camera weight, it's mass above the gimbal only. So if the weights you mentioned are down below rather than on the camera stage, you don't count it. Likewise you don't count the monitor and battery on the bottom of the sled.

In general with the Pilot, if the arm can hold the weight, the gimbal is engineered to handle it too.

Reduced prices on Some Bartech cables looking for a new home...

Two Panavision power/run cables (24-12V voltage regulated) @ $150 ea or $250 both ($390 new)

Two Aaton run cables $50 ea or $75 both ($140 new)

Two Arri 12V (Fischer 11 pin) power/run cables $100 ea or $175 both ($280 new)

...OR $450 for all.

In great condition, all built with Mogami 2893. Ground shipping to USA included.

PM me or email @mark at sunporchmedia dot com.

Thank you all for your replies.

 

Hopefully I should hear back from the guys at Tiffen today. I'll update this post to let you guys

Know how I get on.

 

Surinder.

Yes let Tiffen handle it.

My gimbal screws were backing out with use and throwing it out of 180 degree static balance, so Tiffen added threadlocker to prevent this from happening. So far that has solved the problem for me.

Hey, I just wanted the other Zephyr owners out there to know that Tiffen has updated the gimbal clamp to fix a problem where the clamp was coming loose and, if overtightened, the screw would bend. If you have an older Zephyer, check to see if they can update the clamp for you.

Yes, highly recommended. Thanks for posting this.

Kip,

You know the issues with weight and also, I assume, with power. If I were flying an Epic on my old Flyer rig I would probably try to get the camera configured with a handgrip and a boatload of those "20 minute" handgrip batteries. Or maybe the camera will be configured with an AB plate so you can fly a dionic on the back, which adds a couple of pounds but I think would be do-able. What you want to do is power the camera separately from the rig, so you are only running the follow focus and monitor off of the rig.

You can buy a bracket from Tiffen to mount 15mm rods to the front of your Flyer plate (the holes are there), or if you have a drill press and a Redrock Micro (or similar) 15mm rod clamp,

http://store.redrockmicro.com/Catalog/microClamps/microClamp

you can drill and tap new holes through the clamp to mount it to your plate (the existing mounting holes in the Redrock bracket don't line up).

Or there are some Epic baseplates that accommodate 15mm rods. Don't get talked into a 19mm Arri-style dovetail. Too heavy for Flyer.

Now you have a mount point for your motor. BFD should come with a rods bracket. Of course, you'll need a BFD power cable for the 2-pin Flyer power lemo. You'll have to get one made; no one is likely to have one. Make sure you get an extra-long one, since the Flyer's power connector is in the rear of the camera stage.

Another possibility might be to simply velcro the receiver to the side of the camera.

My overall advices is that you MUST INSIST on a prep, at least a couple of days ahead of time, with the exact camera configuration (all the bits and pieces) that will be available on shoot day. Otherwise there are at least 75 different ways to be hosed, especially in the Red world, where there is so little standardization of accessories and everybody has a different kit.

Hope that helps.

Agreed, Robert. Every rig has limits.... The Zephyr included.

I've been clear and vocal about the Zephyr's limits, from my very first posts about the rig. Anyone who claims that my position is something different is, erm... mistaken.

I appreciate your reasonable and respectful approach. Wish there was more of it on the forum.

"I don't think the Zephyr was made for the Alexa level camera platforms on a daily basis."

I completely agree, and I've said so on other threads. The Zephyr can handle some Alexa configurations but not others, and requires careful consideration of both power and weight...making it a much better fit for someone who owns their own Alexa or is in a position to have a large degree of control over how it is rigged up.

I turned down an Alexa gig just last week because of that reality. Does that make Zephyr the wrong rig for me? No. I made my choice with my eyes open and my desired market in mind. If I was in your market and your position it would absolutely be the wrong rig for me. No question.

That said, at 24V (nominal), and assuming a derated (enclosed) ampacity of 5A for 22AWG wire, that would allow the Zephyr to power up to roughly 120 watts of Alexa and accessories from the sled. At a more conservative 4A, 96 watts. Easy enough to rig a third battery for the monitor if necessary for more "headroom". Ideal? No. Perfectly fly-able? It would seem so. http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Wire-Gauge_Ampacity

"you've made it apparent that as far as you're concerned the Zephyr is the greatest sled on the planet"

You have a funny way of putting words in my mouth.

Yes, I did use the calculator back in August.

 

I'm not asking to be "spoon-fed" anything. I wasn't asking about the calculator. I was asking about the mathematical and logical assumptions underlying your conclusion.

 

I was attempting to reconcile differing opinions about the design limits of a piece of gear I use. One from you, one from the manufacturer, one from Jerry.

 

To that end, I was asking for clarification about your basis for an opinion you expressed. I was not arguing with your opinion.

 

Mark,

 

this has been discussed before, several times, links have been provided, those links included the math (which I have done many times) You have been arguing with me, you keep coming back to "I just flew an epic" That's great, you've made it apparent that as far as you're concerned the Zephyr is the greatest sled on the planet even though you do say that you've had some power issues and those issues are why 22ga has no reason being primary power in any rig. As for Jerrys answers he has never said that 22ga is appropriate for a high current camera, his answer speaks to 18ga and that is VERY different than 22ga (18ga has twice the ampacity of 22ga)

Eric,

I explained where I did my research. I stand by everything I said. None of it is conjecture. I pointed out that the cert is informational only and does not have any legal force in the event of a claim. The policy is the only thing that matters ultimately. The cert is "valid" only to the extent that it accurately summarizes the coverage that underlies it.

Thanks for pointing out that it is important that the insurance agent or carrier actually fills out the cert, not production. That give reasonable assuance that coverage is not being negligently or fraudulently represented.

It's also valuable to highlight that an operator should insure their gear, so thanks for pointing that out, along with the reasons it's important. To that I'd add that, for the same reasons, having your own general liability policy is also "mandatory."

Jess,

whether an itemization is necessary would depend on the underlying policy that is summarized on the COI. Different policies differ. The insurance agent probably correct, as they are not going to willingly mislead you, but without seeing the policy you are ultimately relying on their word.

Robert,

The value of dissecting, demystifying, and clarifying the COI is, I think, precisely because the legal/judicial system rolls the way it does these days. The deck is stacked against us unless we have a clear-eyed understanding of what the documents we rely on do, and do not, actually mean...and not rely blindly on the competence of the production company, or our own assumptions.

Real world situation that recently happened to me: first-time client, a small local prod. company were surprised I required a COI. I gave the "I'm like a rental company" speech, they said "oh, okay, no problem." The next day, ACORD 25 comes back from their insurance agent....only liability coverage listed, no equipment coverage, no "additional insured/additional loss payee language". I politely ask them to fix the problems. "Oh, okay". Next day, COI comes back with equipment coverage listed in the appropriate box, but still no "additional insured/loss payee" language. Finally, it came back correct. People of integrity and goodwill who nonetheless didn't have a grasp on the COI because they seldom rented gear from others.

So, I thought I was covered. Now, if their underlying insurance endorsements actually require itemization of rented equipment in order to cover my gear, that was not disclosed on the COI, nor noted by the prod. co. nor the insurance agent. Which is exactly my point. If it did, and there was a loss, their insurance company would have no obligation to pay the claim. So my "faith" in the COI would be misplaced.

Recently I posed some questions about insurance certificates. Much confusion ensued as people tried to answer, and some incorrect and incomplete information was posted.

So I did my own research. I looked for the most reliable sources of information I could find, including publications by ACORD, the organization that created the forms we commonly use, and writings by attorneys who are specialists in equipment leasing law.

I’m posting what I learned, for the benefit of the community.

With the usual disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, am not offering legal advice, and you should do your own research and consult competent counsel, blah blah blah, here are:

Eight Myths about Insurance Certificates:

1. The ACORD 25 insurance certificate form that we all use is a legally binding contract. False.

2. If the Cert says something different from the policy, they have to honor the cert. False

3. If there is a claim, I won’t have to pay the deductible, because I’m listed as additional insured and/or additional loss payee. False.

4. ACORD forms are basically all alike. False

5. The ACORD25 form covers both liability and equipment. False, unless properly modified. Well actually, it doesn’t “cover” anything. It only provides information.

6. “Additional insured” and “additional loss payee” are interchangeable. Not quite that simple.

7. My attorney and/or the production company’s insurance agent assured me everything is in order. So I’m covered, right? Not necessarily.

8. So the form is worthless, then? No, it’s just LEGALLY worthless.

Details:

1. The commonly-used ACORD 25 Insurance cert. spells it out plainly right at the top, in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS, no less: “THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.” It is a “snapshot” of the coverage that was in force (and/or was added to the underlying policy) at the time that the cert was requested, nothing more, nothing less. The only legally binding contract is the underlying insurance policy. Incidentally, if their coverage is cancelled, the cert states that you “will” be notified, but confers no legal obligation to notify you as a certificate holder.

2. See #1 above. That’s precisely why they have the disclaimer. Actual court cases have upheld this. In other words, people have lost claims in court when the Insurance Certificate they received asserted they had a particular coverage, but it did not match the underlying policy.

3. See #1 above. The Insurance Cert doesn’t change anything about the underlying policy, including the deductible. If you are an additional insured and make a claim, you are paid according to the terms of the policy, the amount of the approved claim-minus the deductible. You may have a side agreement with production to pay the deductible to you, but nothing in the insurance cert compels the insurance company nor production to cover the deductible.

4. There are several ACORD forms in use, including 24 and 25. ACORD 24 is designed for property, ACORD 25 for liability. It is customary for ACORD 25 to be used to indicate both liability and leased property insurance, by adding leased property language to the form. Your insurance company could do the same with an ACORD 24, adding liability language, but this is rarely done. They usually just issue and ACORD 25. The ACORD 25 was updated in 2010, to clarify and further strengthen the “not a contract” language, and to revise/weaken the “cancellation notification” language. Older versions are still commonly used, in my experience.

5. Since the ACORD 25 was designed as a liability form, you should confirm that the agent has noted leased equipment coverage in either the “OTHER” section of “COVERAGES” or in the “DESCRIPTION…SPECIAL PROVISIONS”. As far as being listed as additional insured/additional loss payee, that is important to ask for also…as endorsements on the underlying policy.

6. There is some lack of agreement among attorneys I’ve read, as to the specific application of these two terms. The headline seems to be: they have different shades of meaning, depending on whether we’re talking about liability vs. equipment coverage, but there is not a downside to request endorsement as both Additional Insured and Additional Loss Payee on their policy.

7. There are other insurance considerations that this form doesn’t even try to address, such as: what if you are insured and production is insured, who’s insurance is primary in the event of a loss? Do you consider production liable for the deductible? What if their insurance refused to cover a loss, is production still liable? And always remember #1 above. The Insurance Cert. is only as good as the provisions of the underlying policy. All these are matters that you may want to address in a well-crafted standard deal memo.

8. Well, it’s useless as a legal contract, as noted above. But you should absolutely ask for one. It is quite valuable as a good-faith informational document of what insurance the production company carries, despite it’s lack of legal weight. If someone refuses to give a cert, it possibly means one of these things: 1) the production is not insured, 2) they don’t have a“blanket” endorsement, so adding an additional insured will cost them money, 3) your production contact is inexperienced and doesn’t know how to go about getting one or doesn’t want to go to the trouble, 4) they don’t understand why you need one. As a tool to address these questions, to get you the necessary policy and claim contact information, and to make sure you get added to the underlying policy if required, the Insurance Cert a valuable tool. It is not a legal contract, a waiver of deductible, nor a substitute for a deal memo or contract.

Want to know more?

Start here: http://www.acord.org/about/newscenter/news/pages/20110223_rims.aspx

Not my point, but thanks for jumping in.

Red one can stress batteries even more thank Alexa, being a 12V camera that draws something like 70 watts, if memory serves. So dual batteries are a must in my opinion.

I also run dual (dionic 90) batteries with heavier broadcast cameras simply to enable me to keep the post short and the masses better distributed.

1. Yes, you can upgrade in the future, the sled is wired in such a way that the 12/24V plate simply plugs into your existing wiring. The adapter has a simple toggle switch to go from 12-24V operation.

2. All the power connectors are wired together on the Zephyr, so when in 12V mode, 12V only is available on all connectors. IN 24V mode, all connectors have 12V OR 24V available, depending on the pinout of your cables. With this implementation, when you are in 24V mode, the 12V accessories are still getting 12V, due to the way the 3pin lemos are wired. You do need correctly-wired 12V and 24V cables, obviously. Tiffen cables are wired to the appropriate standard. Peter or Michael from Tiffen can fill you in on the details.

3. The Zephyr 12/24V adapter is designed so that you always use two 12V batteries to create 24V (or switch the adapter to 12V so both batteries work in tandem for extended runtime with 12V cameras.) There are several threads on "power-hungry cameras" but I will give you the bottom line: camera configurations that are in excess of 90-120W, such as Alexa, will be at (or arguably above) the recommended current draw of the Zephyr sled, and definitely above the recommended current of many batteries in common use. The advantage of 24V with Alexa is that higher voltage=lower amps, which stresses both your sled and batteries less. Read the threads and operate at your own risk. That said, you should probably be using no less than two Dionic HCx or IDX Powercubes (something rated in excess of 100-120 watts) for a power-hungry camera. Anything less and you will be cooking your (or the rental houses') battery. If you are using a 24v film camera, your power draw is much less, so you are mostly concerned about mass and distribution of mass. The adapter definitely helps with this.

Still available. Get yourself some quality cables cheap!

Try Betz-tools and Panther.tv. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Search the archives for some lively and informative conversations....

This was bantered about a bit earlier but it must be buried in a thread, and the search function won't unearth it for me. The question revolved around using the SD video line as a second HD-SDI line. Does it work, how marginal is it, etc.?

I had a little time to test with my Marshall monitor, which has an SDI "signal strength" indicator.

Pumping HD-SDI video down the HD-SDI line, jumpered from the sled to monitor with SDI-rated RG-179, the meter registered 90%.

Sending HD-SDI video down the SD line, through the Hirose power/video connector supplied by Tiffen to the monitor, the meter registered 80%.

Being curious, I partially disassebled the topstage and looked at the cables in the loom. Both connectors were wired with what appear to be the same type of RG-179 coax.

So, a good robust HD-SDI signal from both connections.

sold

If you have an unresolved gimbal clamp/extension clamp problem, I recommend contacting Tiffen. The engineers have come up with a modification that, so far, resolves every problem I had. My confidence in the clamp is restored.

Since there is an unspoken code of how the Forum desires/expects newbies to conduct themselves, I recommend creating a pinned thread at the top of the Steadi-Newbies sub-forum to make those expectations clear. I believe it would save a lot of frustration and irritation for those who chafe at having to repeat the same advice, and would establish this sub-forum as a welcoming place for the serious-minded beginning professional.

I went through a similar (not identical) scenario recently that Jim was able to track down and fix. Here are some things to consider:

1. Old firmware. Some very old units have firmware susceptible to the problem you describe. Communication between TX and RX should be "all-or-nothing." Twitching could be a symptom of old firmware that has a less robust "handshaking" that gets confused by random RF interference instead of simply ignoring it as not being valid communication.

2. Transmitter CPU, RF module, or pot. Faults with any of these could create intermittent problems that mimic RF interference issues.

Jim will be able to sort it out, undoubtedly.

Jess,

Thanks for the additional info. To clarify, were you able to record in HD, plus have both an HD-SDI (from a dual-link port?) and a choice to downconvert to SD output from either the video (composite) port or the side SDI port?

This must be a firmware thing. Page 41 of the manual PDF I have says that the output resolution (HD or SD) follows the recording format (set in the menu OTHERS-SYSTEM-HD/SD).

EDIT: wait, I see now...you can send SD out when recording HD. Makes sense. But I still can't find where you would set it so you can output SD (composite) and HD --at the same time--.

Wish I had a camera here to play with right now.

Darned confusing...

OK, just checked my PDF of the manual and notes from a previous prep. I was mistaken about analog downcoversion via the component "Y" signal. According to the manual, it can't be done. (unless a newer firmware has enabled something different):

1. The camera's monitoring outputs function differently depending on whether you are in HD record or SD record mode.

2. In HD record mode, the "video out" port sends an HD "Y" channel component signal.

3. In SD mode, the "video out" port sends a SD composite signal.

4. There is NO downconversion of the analog "video out" port when recording in HD mode.

5. You CAN downconvert digital outputs to SD while recording in HD. You can set SD output on the SDI, HDMI, or i.Link (Firewire) ports.

6. You CANNOT simultaneously output HD signals on both the SDI port and HDMI ports. If one is HD, the other is limited to SD. This is controlled by a very confusing menu that controls the signal routing to the video ports.

7. You CANNOT simultaneously output any signal to both the SDI and i.Link port.