Chris Poynton

Can anyone post a picture of their rig in co-planar setup? (Or refer to existing pictures?) Curious as to what percentage of ops might use "co-planar" setup (for ease in maintaining DB) v. the need for higher off-set monitor position (for greater visibility of monitor).

Run a test with a real object of focus, preferably an actor. You will then be able to critique your own accuracy of framing. I sensed with the car shot you were more thinking about your feet rather than feeling through the lens as to what geometric shapes were moving through your frame. You need to get to a point where you can rotate around an actor and gently push the audience's attention around inside the "rule of thirds", on a slight telephoto.

Quaid can you provide some detail on the problems?

Thanks Charles. Can you expand at all on the following?

So far I have not heard anyone say that arm performance data "does not exist" (e.g. somewhere in personal or company archives), but rather that data couldn't be particularly relied upon for purchasing decisions, or that people just dislike the idea of data. If official graphs or tables are not available, then it would be good to have a common shorthand for describing the force curve. (e.g. Type X arm with load of 40 lbs and float point set to zero degrees requires 1.2 to 2.5 pounds to boom from +3 inches to +25 inches, with a stiffening from 2.5 to 4 pounds over the final 3 inches) Yes it would certainly need to get more "dimensional" to paint a true overall performance picture for an arm (by consideration of min/max/key loads, spring combinations, "ride" settings if applicable, internal friction, etc.). All very doable in simple tables or graphs and no harder to interpret than depth of field data. Who has the time or interest to assemble or absorb such data? From the track record and contributions so far, obviously very few. But the geeks are out there, and an "Arm Performance Primer" is not that hard to envisage ... and could be a useful resource for the community, even if it is not fully exhaustive for available models.

A PRO arm curve could be sketched against Tiffen Gx/Masters arms (by anyone who has operated them) so as to put all this on paper so we are speaking the same language. (I have not flown either). Those curves would illustrate the practical difference between progressive/digressive and iso/non-iso performance and perhaps partly resolve the original question of this thread. If established operators are happy with their arms, that is fantastic. They may have no need/interest to talk about data. Good luck. But there are plenty of aspiring ops who are not in that position. The starting point for my attempts to draw "lift performance curves" is that no such data is released by manufacturers, so there is no industry standard or conventions for presentation. Even basic definitions of iso-elasticity are squabbled over endlessly on forums, even by the highest end professionals (to wit Eric's link). Even strict patent definitions leave plenty of room for discussion. Entry-level users are not in a position to road-test numerous arms, unless they are very well connected and happen to live in major production centers. "Feel" of arms is a subjective preference. The challenge for new purchasers is to efficiently compare "apples with apples" and make purchasing choices based on cost/benefit analysis of features and performance. To answer a couple of Eric's points ... I have flown large rigs, but only at a workshop many moons ago and my muscle memory recall is not very precise. I have recently done more extensive data testing on a Flyer, as well as various low-end Chinese arms. I have put together my webpage in a serious effort to assist other aspiring prosumers in a similar position to myself who wish to compare performance parameters of low-end brands against industry leading brands. (e.g. when various people on forums buy new Laing or Proline or L'Aigle systems for a few grand, how can we test the arms using a precise methodology, share data and then compare performance against the known "industry standard" mid/high-end arms). As noted on my website, I have asked for corrections and contributions wherever possible ... it is a work in progressive and a learning curve in itself, tackled cautiously. Lift/force is one aspect of the arm's performance/feel, and I appreciate that there are other crucial factors such as internal friction (e.g. as per the "toe test") ... but again there is a dearth of available data or clear conclusions from the field for various models that we can access at present.

On the "draft of iso-elasticity curves" diagram, all the lift values are shown as "positive" merely to compress the space required for the display of data. (i.e. pushing the arm down below the float point requires "negative lift" of x pounds, but is shown as a positive value.) I will make a note on the digram if/when I update it. Sorry for any confusion.

I would love to see Lift Performance Curves from the major manufacturers so that new purchasers in particular can compare "apples with apples" for various arms. Curves would show whether the arm is progressive/buffered at the extremes, iso-elastic characteristics under a wide range of loads, and common expectations for how many pounds/kg of lift should be required with various arm settings. If anyone has any such formal data or graphs, even from ancient dusty archives, I am way keen to absorb this, so please post or PM. I have been giving a lot of thought as to what a user friendly, industry standard format for lift curves might look like. My mock-ups of "iso v non-iso" curves, as well as proposed basic test methodology for lift performance is at: www.cp.org.au/movies/steadicam-test.html#lift_curves ... (That steadicam testing page was put together to help new purchasers wade through some of the lingo and pitfalls of low-end systems, but the lift performance stuff may be relevant to higher-end systems, due to the gaping absence of this data in the marketplace).

How about a custom Steadicam level app? Clinometer seems set apart from the bar level apps I've seen. Acceleration doesn't seem to affect it. Sliding at high speed across a table or shaking back and forward makes barely a hair's difference. How about if Clinometer was re-packaged to generate a bar level at the very top or bottom of the iPhone screen. Then butt the device up against the bottom edge of the monitor image. The sensitivity of the bar level could be tweaked mathematically for preferred responsiveness. The extra real estate on the bottom portion of the iPhone could be used for other info such as a log of tilt errors during the shot, perhaps linking in with timecode, displaying video feed from another camera, countdown to wrap time, etc, etc. Alternatively, a data signal from the iPhone level (discretely mounted elsewhere on the rig) could be fed by bluetooth or dongle to a data input on the monitor for a more conventional bar level embedded in the image. (I have no idea if any Steadicam monitors currently have non-video data inputs at all - maybe USB for software upgrades? - but perhaps firmware of the monitor can be tweaked to incorporate iPhone feed if that option exists). If a "Steadicam Level App" is of any interest, we could put together a wishlist for the Clinometer developers (... or possibly for Per Holmes of Hollywood Camera Work who developed Shot Designer for pocket blocking and is was recently beta testing a new timecode app with working tilte Cam Synch that can synch up to 254 devices and optimise for post-production workflow).

The iPhone level seems impervious to accelleration and may be a useful add-on for someone? The app "Clinometer" gives a bullseye level with 0.1 degree accuracy for flat surfaces and a rolling bar level with degrees when placed on its edge. There may be other level apps providing ultra simple bar levels.

Is anyone taking on the task of writing up a "sticky" or "automatic introduction" for the Newbie section to explain protocols and purpose of this forum? Perhaps there could be a flag that pops up when someone attempts to make their first post, pointing them to an intro page, and maybe a cooling off period of 48 hours or something after registration before they can post. There is recurrent discussion about how to deal with amateur/prosumer enquiries on this forum (often regarding cheap rigs or feedback on footage). Some forum members have an editorial perspective that the original purpose of the "Newbie" section was for those who are already working in the industry and generally up to speed with Steadicam basics, but only just getting started with buying/operating their own Steadicam gear. The Newbie category has by default defined itself as a first point of contact for amateurs/prosumers, and perhaps the "higher end" newbies just tend to make their posts in the relevant technical sections. There is a great set of FAQ's and introductory stuff at homebuiltstabilizers.com which could be referred to in the sticky, and is a great resource for steadicam enthusiasts/prosumers.

The Gorelink page from Walter Klassen: http://www.walterklassen.com/home-page/equipment-2/handheld/gore-link/ Constantly amazed at how diverse and creative you guys have been over the years ... Movi will fit in well with this, no doubt.

Love the detail of the response Chris. Many thanks!! It would be great at some stage to see some official PR materials (e.g. in the Tiffen product PDF?) that might show some diagrams of the Exovest interaction with the body (i.e. the leverage structure / body loading points compared to a conventional vest). It would help sell the benefits of the concept quickly and graphically, especially for those who don't know the medical lingo. Thanks again.

I am wondering whether the configuration of the thigh pads on the Exovest is something that could be retro-fitted to conventional front mounted vests. It seems that the Exovest pads place the "frontal pushing forces" from the vest under load directly onto the illiac crest at the top of the hips rather than broadly across the abdomen. Would this not be a benefit for all vests? I am in the early days of my use of conventional vests and perhaps I have not hit on the correct fitting method, but I find I am susceptible to the tingling down the front of my legs which Chris Fawcett sent me a stark warning about .... "The tingling sensation you describe is meralgia paraesthetica, and comes about when the inguinal ligament traps the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve underneath it. It's a common complaint of Steadicam operators and fashion victims. Yes, tight jeans can bring it on too. The vest must have been too low or too hard at the waist, or just badly made. By the way, that tingling seamlessly transitions into permanent nerve damage, so it's best avoided." Is there a demonstrable reduction in the meralgia tingling with the use of the Exovest? I have begun improvising some extra "Exovest-style padding" for the iliac crest inside the front of a conventional vest but again haven't hit on the right combo of position/hardness to reduce the meralgia tingling, although the pressure on the abdomen is greatly reduced. I am thinking on a cautionary note that perhaps directing the frontal pushing forces onto the illiac crest in a conventional vest with DIY or retro-fitted padding may even increase the potential for meralgia tingling because the majority of the downward force is directed onto the front of the hips, unlike the Exovest which I understand perhaps "halves" the frontal pushing forces due to its rear vertical bracing and direction of load onto the rear of the hips. I hope this post can clarify some advantages of the Exovest and maybe encourage some of the principles to be adopted elsewhere for our ongoing health. Picture below shows the tendon and nerve involved in MERALGIA PARAESTHETICA, taken from an article from the Mayo Clinic at http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM02494

I like the "out of the box" spirit of the enquiry Janice, grappling with some sort of not-quite-known frontier. Just wondering if you can describe the parameters of the light-weight rigs you are thinking of? Are you talking specifically of say a Pilot with a DSLR? What camera weight and total sled weight are you referring to? Would be helpful to clarify the niche. Three angles that come to mind. 1) The CMR Blackbird stabiliser has a variable friction universal joint if you wanted to experiment with the feel of that. It has the "Merlin curse" of basically no real-estate for one's operating fingers to operate on, so it is a bit if a dead-end in terms of rig geometry, but it will allow you to experiment with variable friction without gumming up a higher-value gimbal. It also uses an antler arrangement on the lower spar. 2) The use of multiple pairs of micro-antlers (on a Pilot for instance) is a possibility, sitting maybe 4 inches from the optical axis at both the front and rear of the camera and also at the front and rear of the sled base. This will only slightly increase the required operating distance from the body in some positions, but may have an interesting multiplier effect. 3) Also I have been experimenting with kooky hand positions that are counter to years of practice but emerged naturally when I recently tried a 5kg sled on a cheap chinese system with a sticky pan bearing and a poky annoying gimbal sleeve. My jury is still out but I think there may be something useful in it, especially for windy conditions. Position as follows; With the post hand I tried placing the thumb on the top of the gimbal handle so that the mass of the hand is not having to "chase the post" and will therefore not jiggle the post. Meanwhile I have my fore finger on the post above the gimbal and ring finger below the gimbal, separated by about three inches, (not touching the gimbal) while maintaining the thumb on the gimbal handle.This combination opens up slightly kooky opportunities to add manual dampening to the various axes of the gimbal as required, especially for lock-offs. (which may give more flexibility than an oil change!). I am finding that manually tilting the gimbal yolk with the boom hand makes radical tilts kind of fun and easy, especailly for lock-offs, as long as the gimbal handle is at correct 90 degree orientation to camera axis. Not sure if any of that is relevant to your quest Janice, but thought I would just articulate a bit of the learning curve I am on too :)