Sarah Thompson

Yes, but will it use a Mornington Crescent Effect sensor?

So current plan is, pick up a Provid for ~$4k-ish, Batteries & charger for ~1k, Marshall 6.5" daylight viewable HDSDI monitor for ~2k, spend another ~1k on parts (electronics, metal stock, fasteners, tooling etc), and commit to spending some machine shop time fabricating a monitor/battery rail system for the bottom of the sled, replacing the existing housing and making it possible to dynamically balance the sled. I also intend to make my own wireless follow focus, but I already have most of the parts for that. The wireless FF design goes basically as follows. The motor will be a Dynamixel servomotor, basically a digital servo with a serial interface and the ability to tweak the parameters of its internal PID controller loop. This will drive a largeish drive gear, mostly because the servo is limited to a 300 degree range. These servos are powerful, fast, extremely accurate and don't use much power. This will be rail mounted and adjustable in 2 axes for fit to particular lenses. For my prototype I am intending to use a single square section rail, mounted from the top of the camera, for light weight and torsional rigidity and also to help maintain a less skewed lateral balance by having most of the mass directly above the centre line of the sled. This will also allow the camera to be mounted directly to the sled, keeping the CG lower. Control for the servo will come from a small box containing an Arduino Uno microcontroller and an Xbee radio module. The remote will basically consist of a second Arduino Uno/Xbee and a follow focus knob attached to a high linearity analog potentiometer. My intention is to have the box at the camera end implement some setup logic where the servo goes into low speed low torque mode and hunts for the hard stops at both ends of the lens's focus range, then maps this to the full range of the potentiometer on the remote. Distance wise, this should manage about 300 feet with line of sight, 100 feet without it. This basic design should be good enough, I think. My only concern is that the AX25 servo I have currently might not drive a really stiff lens, but Dynamixel make some extremely badass bigger servos that wouldn't have any difficulty at the cost of a bit more weight. Making something with a smaller drive gear that looks more like a commercial system would be doable, but sufficiently fiddly that I would be happy to live with the big drive gear. I can make it out of Delrin, so it won't weigh much anyway.

Full disclosure: I am new to Steadicam, yes. Pretty serious about it too, but no one here should fear for their jobs! I have a rather nontrivial day job that I'm not looking to leave any time soon. I've been a staff scientist (federal contractor) at NASA Ames for the last 6 years, but I have quite a varied background. Before that, I did a PhD at Cambridge in deep space electronics, before that I was a contractor doing a mixture of software and electronic design, going back to the mid 1980s. Somewhere in there, late 80s, I built and ran a commercial music recording studio and also co-ran a PA hire business. For several years I was a sound engineer/music producer/session musician for a living. My first involvement with video was before that, 1984 onwards, when I worked for Acorn Computers in the UK on some of the first ever interactive video projects, years before the term multimedia was coined, and then as a freelancer I ran the main software team on the UK government funded Interactive Video in Schools project. This involved all sorts of things, including doing some really early computer generated 2D lip sync animated characters for the BBC. Throughout my career I've always been torn between art and what pays, flipping back and forth a few times. I've been close to doing stills photography for a living more than once -- I was certainly good enough, but financially it never made sense. My whole life I've always done *something* artistic alongside what paid -- photography, graphic design, music, sculpture. My interest in film and video is pretty much an inevitable extension of that, though strictly speaking Super-8, particularly stop motion animation, actually came before any of that, when as a child I managed to pry my father's Super-8 camera from him. For the last few years I've been getting increasingly interested in video, digital cinema really, learning as much as I can, basically putting myself through some kind of unofficial film school, making a variety of shorts and learning to do pretty much everything I could myself through the whole chain from writing through final mastering. It's not that I actually intend doing everything myself, far from it, but I've always found that the best way to understand something is to work it myself, because that way, if someone comes along better than me, I know them when I see them, and I know how to communicate what I want. As for why I am interested in Steadicam... That's a slightly more complicated story. I've done stills photography most of my life, and put the work and study into it that was necessary to get good at it. But, once I hit that point, I was disappointed. The art world around fine art photography isn't a nice place to be. I got a couple of things in galleries, but soon realized that while it was a perfectly legitimate artistic outlet, it wasn't going to work for me. I'd likely never make any money at it, but that wasn't really the issue -- more specifically, I just found the art world horribly backstabby and unpleasant to be around, so I didn't get much in the way of nonmonetary return on my investment of time and soul either. Then, I discovered cinematography. Here was something that gave me an outlet for the artistic need to make images, but more importantly, it gave me a reason to make them, in a format that's far more widely accepted and acceptable than fine art black & white prints. But, cinematography was so much more. The 4th dimension -- time, movement. The first real artistic challenge I'd had in years -- the kind of challenge that I'd think about waking up in the middle of the night and not be able to sleep for. Some skills transferred more or less immediately -- there was a lot I didn't need to relearn, but moving the camera was a real discovery process for me. From my background, I find it easy to compose a locked off shot, but going beyond that has been quite a journey. I made a point of watching a lot of movies critically, taking apart what was going on and trying to pry the grammar from the sentence structure of the shots that were flying past the screen. I'd always loved Kubrick's movies -- it was rewatching The Shining and poring over its making-of material that gave me the revelation that the missing piece for me was Steadicam. Dollys, jibs, cranes just weren't what was going on inside my head, but there, looking at Garrett Brown's incredible Steadicam work, right there, was exactly what I was looking for. I think Garrett Brown referred to it as penetrating space, but that doesn't do it justice, for me anyway. If I relate it to my influences from the masters of the stills world (forgive me, that's still my visual language), I was seeing the precision of composition, exposure, lighting, depth of field that reminded me of Ansel Adams. But, critically, I was seeing more -- real heart, depth, something that I found in the likes of Cartier Bresson, Helmut Newton, Edward Weston. To start with, I was pretty much floored -- I had no idea how Kubrick and Brown had pulled it off. It just seemed like magic. But, watching the movie over and over again, piecing it together, it started to make sense. So why learn Steadicam? Same reason I learned electronic design, music, programming, stills photography, mechanical engineering, etc.: I'm one of those tortured artist types who basically *have* to create stuff or they start going not so quietly crazy. Because I don't know if I can. Because it's hard. Because the results could be amazing if I could pull it off. Maybe I see a bit of a kindred spirit in Garrett Brown. Because sometimes you have to leap off a cliff to see what happens next. Because no one can tell me I can't. I don't know, maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time. ;-) As for my intentions around making Steadicam-related gadgets, I suppose it's an extension of the same kind of drive to create things, and partly because I'd want them myself. I'd not really given any thought to selling this kind of gear, though I'd consider it if there is interest. My original intention was (still is) to build my own wireless follow focus because I know I can do it relatively straightforwardly without having to drop a large amount of money (that I don't have!) on a commercial system -- I have most of the parts necessary sitting in a cardboard box on my kitchen table, so I'll weigh in to that once it all arrives. I have some more ideas about wireless FF devices that I've never seen anyone build, but I think I'd rather build something and see if it works before getting people too excited. Anyway, enough of the rambling. Have a great weekend all, and please know that I am extremely grateful for being allowed to interact here.

It should be pretty small -- I'll have to do the prototyping first (the first one may be a little bigger for practical reasons). If the case is being milled from billet, I should be able to use some weight saving techniques that are normally used on satellite chassis designs to keep the mass down without compromising strength.

Hmm, doable. So sensor/main CPU/control box at the top, machined T6 case with a few 1/4-20 holes and maybe some unthreaded 1/4" holes for bolting through to give you some mounting options, display connector via 75 ohm BNC. I'd probably recess the controls into one edge of the box slightly so they are somewhat protected (and would look cool too, I suppose). I could do a phantom power-like trick to send power and data for the display down there so you only need to hook up power to the box at the top of the sled. Tricky, but doable. What are people's preferences for power connectivity? Would you want a loop-through?

I could machine the housing from a solid block of T6 aluminum, which should be about as strong as anyone would ever want. As for power, I could use military-style connectors with a locking ring. Hard to break, very reliable. As for controls, what I was thinking was just having a single button and a knob. The button would be push on/off, with holding the button down for 4 seconds (say) putting the box into calibrate mode, where it would then wait until everything settles down, then take an average reading over a few seconds and then go back into normal run mode. The knob would set sensitivity. So basically, in use you'd just tweak the knob to set the sensitivity you prefer. To calibrate, trim out the rig using conventional means (spirit levels, visual reference, digital angle gauges, whatever you prefer), then hit the button for 4 seconds, back off and let it do its thing. I'd have it write the settings to EEPROM, so next time you power up it'll all be there like you left it. Next question is: put the sensor in the box, or have a separate sensor module. The best place to mount it would be as close as possible to the gimbal from a dynamics point of view, but it could potentially go anywhere. Last question: how many axis? Roll only, or roll & tilt? Would you want separate controls for each axis? One idea: I could make it figure out if it's in low mode automatically so it doesn't need recalibrating.

That was what I was thinking. I could do HDSDI overlay, but it would need an FPGA and is not something I could make from off-the-shelf parts. I'd need to design a PCB, have it fabricated, etc. There are reference designs for HDSDI input and output, so it isn't crazily hard starting from that point, but it's still quite a bit of work. A line of LEDs is drastically simpler.

Hmmm... looks like I should probably be knocking up some kind of prototype. One question, for the experienced operators -- how would you like to receive the information? Heads-up display overlayed on the video? If so, composite, HDMI, HDSDI, SDSDI, something else? Separate display? Something else? Oddly enough it's the display part of this that would be the trickiest rather than the IMU and the filtering of the telemetry it generates.

Steadicam newbie/non-newbie roboticist here... You can get very small 9 axis IMUs that give you 3 axis accelerometer, 3 axis gyro and 3 axis magnetometer readings in real time. These are used in UAVs (flying robots basically) as a matter of course these days, where the need to tell the difference between what direction really *is* down and the apparent direction due to local acceleration is pretty much an unavoidable requirement, or you end up with the UAV going into an uncontrolled spiral and a crash. It would be pretty straightforward to build something based on one of those. I might try it myself, actually.

Looks like I'm going to order a Scout, most likely some time next week. Gulp! Sarah

Thank you so much for your advice -- it is very much appreciated. It seems I can scrape up a little more, $8k approx, so I'm now in the market for a new Scout with a couple of batteries and a charger. This seems like a much safer option than picking up a used rig with an unknown amount of wear on its bearings. I have a small machine shop, so I'm not afraid of mechanical work or of fabricating things, but I'd rather put the time into practicing rather than machining, if that makes sense. Of the various battery options, what is best recommended? I've noticed a few people saying that some battery options are better than others on the Pilot purely from a mass point of view. I can't wait to get started. I don't mind putting the work in -- I play a few musical instruments and have done a bit of martial arts, so I'm not a stranger to having to knuckle down and put in the hours. I'm intending to take advice I've seen elsewhere (incl. in the operator's handbook) to build a practice cage. I have a couple of thick pieces of aluminum (12"x4"x1") and some rod stock in my workshop that would do very nicely, I think. Thank you all again, very much appreciated. It is a privilege to have a resource such as this forum, and I really do understand and appreciate how valuable the time of the experts on here can be to newbies like myself.

It looks like I can scrape up a bit more, and go to around $8k. Any update on this advice? Any sense in looking at a new Scout?

Are you looking for a sled, arm and suit? or just a sled? Sled, arm and vest. Sorry if that wasnt clear. Thanks, Sarah

Steadinewb looking for a first rig... I'm looking to buy a Flyer (or larger) rig complete. My preference would be for an HDSDI or HDMI monitor, but I can live with composite. I'm based near San Francisco -- my preference would be to take a look at it first, so I'm willing to drive a fair distance for that (incl. LA area). Thank you in advance, Sarah Thompson

Hi folks, I have been pondering getting into Steadicam operating for a couple of years now, and I'm ready to make the push, but I just wanted to respectfully ask a bit of advice before parting with cash... Firstly, I'm not at this point looking to be an owner-operator-for-hire. That's only something I'd consider after a few years of practice, if then, so at this point I am not looking to acquire a rig that could fly absolutely anything, rather, I'm looking to be able to fly my own camera rig. Specifically, I'd like to fly a Panny AF-100 with an Atomos Ninja HD recorder, wireless FF and video transmitter. This will just about scrape the 10lb mark if I'm careful. The wireless FF is something I'm currently designing and building and will be pretty lightweight (in another life I've designed robotic systems for Mars landers, so I should be able to make something work pretty well I think). My application is low to ultralow budget indie film, where I hope to use Steadicam as a step up from a fig rig and also to handle cases where a jib and/or dolly aren't feasibly usable in the space. So... a new Pilot, or a used something? Flyer LE? Something else? I'm concerned about being at the top end of the weight range for the Pilot, but being quite honest, if I have the budget to shoot something that needs an Alexa or something in that weight class, I'm going to have the budget to hire someone better than me to fly it. One other question... I'm pretty tall (6 foot-ish), and fat. Yes, in an ideal world I'd not be, but this world isn't ideal, so I have to deal. What are the considerations for particular vests in this case? I notice (from the operators handbook) that there is an angle adjustment on the vest to arm mounting point, at least on the higher end systems -- is that there on the Pilot and/or the Flyer also? I can currently scrape up about $6k. I'm based near San Francisco, if that helps. Thank you in advance, Sarah Thompson

Hi folks, I'm looking to get in to Steadicam operation. The camera I'm using is a Panasonic AG-HMC150, which weighs 4.7lbs before any extras. (For reference, the HMC150 is an AVCCAM 1080p 24 with decent audio ins. The video out is HDMI and I think there is also a component/composite out). This seems to be within the weight range of the Merlin, though the HMC150 is pretty light for its size. I'm also concerned that adding the larger battery, a microphone, maybe a radio mic receiver or two, would push it up or over the Merlin's weight range. Has anyone out there used one of these on a Merlin? Am I crazy to even consider it? Looking at the Flyer spec, the Panasonic seems to be at the lower end of the weight range (sans extra hardware). Advice? Suggestions? One thing I should say is that I'm not really interested in the arm/vestless version of the Merlin -- I have some issues with my tendons due to arthritis, and running that camera with a few extras on a fig rig is about my limit, so doubling up the weight with counterweights would probably mean I wouldn't be able to shoot for any useful length of time. Also, budget is a bit tight, so any advice for picking up second user equipment would be gratefully appreciated -- what should I expect to pay for a Flyer in reasonable condition? Also, the battery/monitor options are rather bewildering, so any pointers there would be useful too. Thank you in advance, Sarah