Iain Baird

I own the first version of the TIFFEN Ultrabright, the one that has the Y/Pb/Pr and NOT the HDSDI. I while ago I noticed that there is a slight (1 percent perhaps) image cutoff on each side of the picture. I can scroll the image left or right to reveal the missing part but that only hides more on the other side. The monitor doesn't have a zoom out, only zoom IN function, so there is no way to have the entire picture on the monitor at once. Of course with a film camera image the frame-lines are well within the edges of the picture so it's not a concern but with the HD image (down-converted) every thing the camera sees is making it to tape. I recently finally had some downtime and had the monitor checked by TIFFEN and they couldn't find the problem (curious I must say, seeing as they built it!!) Have any other owners of the UltraBright seen this and if so is there a cure? Cheers, IAIN

Can the Archos 605 WiFi playback video to an external monitor using a smaller setup than the DVR station? The travel adapter for this unit is listed as only having a video input feature.

It sounds very likely that the problem lies with the DA. The video output on the topstage is most likely wired directly to the input without passing through the DA so thats why that signal is still OK. I'm trying to remember my old MS and I seem to recall there is more than one output on the Lower Junction, have you tested these as well? I assume you have but best be sure. I haven't dealt with Tiffen much but based on all account they are great with customer service and I'm sure with a search you could easily find the right people you need to talk to. I know it won't help for tomorrow but at least you'll have some answers. Worst comes to worse you'll have to run a video line outside of the post to the monitor. I'm not sure what sort of cable back ups you have, but if you have an original MS monitor you might need to butcher one of your Hirose cables to quickly jerry rig a power and video cable.

I couldn't agree more. I remember watching "Russian Ark" and being thrilled by the first ten minutes - bored for the next 80 - and then slightly impressed again for the ending. Not to take anything away from the achievement, they were pioneering a lot of what we take for granted now and the sheer magnitude of the choreography must have been overwhelming, but visually it left me wanting.

In all of my experiences with video signal strength it isn't until you actually plug something into the second connector that the voltage drops. Personally I can't see having to use both the LEMO output and the BNC output at the same time. In my case the Video input plug on the Rig goes to a video DA and is distributed from there to the SD devices (recorder, transmitter, monitor)

I did it myself, it's really rather simple as the circuit board easily slides out and you can clearly identify the solder points for Power and Video. Be careful to make sure all of your polarities are correct as the unit doesn't have reverse protection (I saw a fried unit the other day from this very issue) A picture of mine can be found earlier in this thread.

Dual 2722 Charger, s/n 4269, Rev #1.9, Discharger Installed $750.00 US + Shipping Email me @ ibaird@sympatico.ca

No worries about misspelling my name Michael, you aren't the first and won't be the last. I do appreciate the correction and apology though, you are a gentleman and quite obviously a scholar. This will be my last post on the subject as it has strayed far from the threads original intent. As well, I clearly don't have the knowledge of Philosophy that you do Michael. I don't say that to be facetious or sarcastic, I'm in over my head and I know it. What I originally objected to, was WHO was being labelled Morally Corrupt. Personally I would never be a paparazzi but I don't blame that person for making a honest living (It's not illegal last I checked). A photographer is the worker, NOT THE OWNER, providing a LEGAL service and earning a living (mind you some do cross over to illegal methods but there in a whole different category) It is the company that is paying them for the photos that I have issue with (the same company that also will buy photos obtained by illegal methods, no questions asked, I might add) and we as the consumers are the ones to blame for giving that company a reason to exist. There are Sweat shops, right now all over the world, making cheap T-shirts for companies like WALMART or DISNEY. But I don't blame the poor kid making the T-shirt, I blame the Corporation buying them and the consumers turning a blind eye to save a couple of bucks. WE buy the magazines or watch the TV shows, WE want cheap clothing and shoes and until WE stop supporting these companies WE are the ones to blame for creating the monster that we now find objectionable. On another note I do find it ironic that this has all stemmed from Jade Goody's funeral and/or burial seeing as how she made her living off of the exposure provided by reality shows and paparazzi.

My point was that their privacy would have been invaded whether Peter was involved or not. I don't believe it is right, but that's besides the point. Who is at fault, the Photographer, the Magazine buying the pics, or the people buying the Magazines? Only one of these three can change the end result, I'll give you a hint, it's not the photographer. If any photographer had made a stand and walked away from this assignment do you think the magazine would have reconsidered and decided to NOT do the story? NO, they would have hired another photographer. So making a moral stand wasn't going to change anything. Until we as a public all make that stand together and stop buying what they are selling this sort of media will continue. As for your comparison to Child Porn it's insulting, they aren't even in the same ball park as far as morality, honor, pride, dignity and decency are concerned not to mention the criminal aspects involved. I will add that Peter was the one who first mentioned the word "Paparazzi" even though he later clarifies that he was part of a public broadcast.

"I suppose it's not my place to judge but at the end of the day you have to be able to feel good about how you make a living." I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate here.....but. The only people to blame or get angry at are the people buying the magazines and watching the shows or logging on to TMZ. Every other person in the food chain is just trying to make a living. The photographer, the publisher etc, they are only giving the public what they are asking for. If PEOPLE MAG were to decide that they were only going to publish feel good, stay at home mom, or home town hero makes good stories then guess what, they'd be out of business pretty darn fast, and you can bet another magazine would fill the void. If there was no market for this stuff then there would be no Paparazzi. You can question Peter or anyones morals in doing what they are doing but if he didn't do it, it's not like the photos wouldn't have been taken, someone else would have done it. By making a stand Peter would be out of a job, out of the money and the photos would still have been published. I don't like it any more than you may but we only have ourselves to blame and it doesn't look like the publics appetite for this stuff is slowing down any.

Janice, I'm not sure what stage you are in the unveiling of this prototype but I would really like to see it with a RIG on board!! I don't doubt for a moment that it works but it's keeping me up at night wondering what prevents the wheels from sliding away and leaving you carrying the load. I keep picturing what would happen if I rested the rig on a unicycle, it would carry the weight as long as I was able to keep the balance perfectly with constant tweaking but the moment I wasn't fast enough the wheel would fly out from under me, leaving me holding all of the weight, how is this different? Again, I'm not trying to knock the device as I'm sure it has been field tested, I'm only trying to wrap my head around the mechanics. Thanks, IAIN

I realize this thread has veered off on a few tangents since started but here's an update now that I've had a chance to try out the new batts. The camera that I used was an F35 in single piece mode using the SRW deck. A fairly heavy setup but to go cable free I'm willing to fly the extra weight. Of course the promised cable free (SD transmission is fine I was told!!) Turned into cabling some of the time, DP's get hooked on that HD signal. In prep when I had tested out the rig with the IDX batts and the Camera in single piece I didn't like how long the post was so I stacked two E-10s for the front battery mount to add some bottom weight and shorten the rig - more weight but a sacrifice for operating comfort. I started the shoot using two powercubes powering the camera and two E-10s powering the monitor and transmitter. The first shot was a series of shots establishing the hero walking down the street. The director wanted a montage of shots so we were just walking up and down the street covering different parts of the body - never cutting of course - how I hate those 50 min tapes sometimes, why cut when we can just reset back to ones and keep shooting. Thankfully a lens change was in order and a break was given, time to check the power. The powercubes were now reading 1/3 but they were the same ones I had used during prep so they started the day reading 2/3. The E-10s were still reading full. We repeated the montage exercise on the next lens for about another 10 mins of rolling time. The camera was now reading 11.7 volts - close to the bottom of acceptable - I think it cuts at 11. Time for a battery change after about 20 mins of rolling. Because I only have 4 powercubes and 6 E10’s I decided to change the setup a little and used 1 powercube and 1 E-10 paralleled to power the camera. Powercubes can deliver up to 10 amps and the E-10 can deliver up to 6.4 amps so on it’s own the E10 could never do the job but sharing the load it seemed to be fine. This setup was ultimately the one I used for the rest of the show and it worked great. We were getting between 30 and 40 mins of rolling time from the batts. To improve this even more in the future I will keep a Block battery beside the Steadicam Stand so all of the little camera tweaks and log changes that happen between takes can be done on House power so to speak. I must admit that knowing what I know now about the HC AB batteries coming out soon I probably wouldn’t have gone forward with this exercise. However I couldn’t be more pleased with how the IDX batts performed. It will be a while until they can prove their longevity or ruggedness but so far so good. IAIN

Am I reading the dates wrong here? I sure hope Denny has been able to get in touch with someone by now!!

Hey Brad, The Diodes I use are referenced in this thread http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?sh...2&hl=diodes IAIN

I wonder if Jerry or anyone from Tiffen can comment on any testing that was done in putting the ULTRA 2 together? I seem to recall previous posts commenting on the inadequacies of a regular LEMO for HD-SDI.

I'm not trying to start a brand bashing thread here but I would like some clarification on a few things when it comes to an HD-SDI signal through the post. I was under the understanding that an HD-SDI signal will not pass through a regular LEMO plug as the shield is broken at each connection and this causes signal problems. It was because of this understanding that I sourced out a LEMO that had co-ax connections built in so I could upgrade my sled to carry HD-SDI down the post without ever breaking the shield. I can't speak to any interference problems I might encounter with HD transmitters (mentioned in another thread) but I can say that the connection I built works. I've tested it on a scope with an HD tech at Panavision and the Signal through the post was solid. I know of one company that makes what is advertised as an HD-SDI compatible sled that uses the old style LEMO connections. I've never used it so can't speak one way or another of whether it works properly or not. But based on previous threads about the Ultra 2 and other HD compatible sleds the regular LEMO plugs don't work. I would like to hear any experts chime in as to what is required to carry a clean HD-SDI signal from point A-B. Does the shield need to remain intact? Or any other variables that might make a difference. IAIN

lejkrsh a;jklsdh ahsdjk gsga asjgra AKSDJFGHADS;IJ AHSDFJHASD AHSDHDJHFJ AHAJSDHFFP;ADSP PW EYI E UI EJE My condolences to those that have the gear (including myself) hopefully someone steps up to the plate to offer tech support in the near future. In my case it's just a post and gimbal but there are others who have the entire rig.

I can't disagree with you Job, I was trying to be kind and only mention the positives. In fact, reading it again, it feels very sugar coated as I've been rather frustrated with him a few times. Like I said in my post I never liked his answers to my problems (DENIAL - as you mentioned) and I know that there are a lot of people on this forum that have had bad dealings with him in the past. But personally I've never felt he was out to steal from me or sell me inferior gear, he just couldn't accept that perhaps his sleds had problems and needed to be improved. It's too bad because it was a great concept he had, but the execution was laking. Oh well I guess we'll all have to find another company to take care of our MK-V products if the BUST post is true.

It is a shame that MK-V seems to be in denial about the electronics issues in the Sled as the hardware is very well made. I only have the 4 stage Post and the inline j-box, but it's a nice smooth gimbal and a very solid post; I have however replaced all the wiring. MK-V, along with eliminating the AUX power in the j-box, used either 20AWG or 22AWG wiring, not enough for the Hungry HD cameras. I replaced it all using 16 & 18AWG depending on what plug I was wiring. I also rewired to get the isolated AUX power back, which is needed to if you're going to parallel your power sources. I replaced the post cable with a heavier gauge coiled cable but can't speak to the interference issues as I've never seen them, with the old cable or new. The V3 claims to be HD-SDI compatible but is using a regular Lemo Plug, so the shielding is definitely broken when the signal passes through. This may be what causes the interference? The Nexus base is a whole other ball game, It's a circuit board design that has all of the electronics built in and the Lemo's are either all attached directly to the board or by using short jumpers (again either 22 or 20AWG wire). It is however possible to rewire it to get an isolated AUX power feed. Phil Cramer, from Panavision Toronto, and I just finished rewiring a Nexus for a local Op. We eliminated the AR feeds and replaced them with an isolated AUX power feed, the result was that we were able to build a 'Y' cable to parallel 2 Batts to power a Camera. We didn't change the post cable so there will still be some Choking of the Power but the two sources definitely helped as the Power now flows through 4 wires instead of 2. I will say that although I haven't always loved the answers I get, Howard has always addressed all of my inquiries. When I bought my post and j-box the service was great and shipping was prompt. I can't speak to the way he has treated others but he certainly believes in his product and works hard on it. I just wish he would get on board with the AMPERAGE the new HD cameras need.

I'm always hesitant to loan or rent anything to a BOX OF MONKEYS, just makes me nervous for some reason. However your best bet is to contact a Local camera rental house or a Local operator. Howard shoots quite a lot and can be tough to get a hold of sometimes.

I got my PROII in 2005. I have a little L plate for my Marell level that attaches to the rig between the recorder mount and the battery mount (un-anodized because of a rush at the time) This plate raises the recorder mount by a few mm. I didn't have to modify anything in order for the IDX batts to fit properly but perhaps without the L plate the fit may have been much tighter or not possible without another modification. When I was measuring the rig for the plate design I did take into account how far back the Batts would need to sit in order not to hit the recorder mount and I knew there was enough clearance for any height issues. I did think about making all three mounting points multi-compatible with both IDX and Anton Bauer battery mounts but decided that in all likely hood the only one I might want to individually change back would be the front mount point. There are times in the past that I've flown a 140 here for added weight and inertia. However a great feature of the E-10s (not E-10S) is that they are linkable. You can piggy back one onto another and get 186Wh as well as more weight ,about 1.6 Kg, the AB 140 is 2.5kg. Along with changing the front mount easily from AB to IDX, it can all be changed back over to the AB system in about ten minutes with no soldering involved. I don't anticipate the need to ever have to do this too quickly.

At full charge I seem to recall the same sort of voltage out of my Hytron 50's. I suppose if it is a problem inherent only with the IDX batts then I can switch back easily enough. I have to say this is the first I've heard of such an issue.

I looked at this option but wasn't thrilled with the added size in profile (it's pretty tight as is with the recorder mount) As well, the adaptor plates I tried out didn't sit as tight as I would have wanted - too much play. I admit the cost hasn't been minimal - between machining the plates, the IDX mounts and New Batts, it has definitely added up. But I enjoy these sorts of projects so it was as much a labour of love as it was a needed upgrade (from hytron 50's). And as has been discussed at length recently we all tend to spend money on the gear that keeps up happy and comfortable in our jobs, perhaps too much for some but practical for others. Now I figure let Anton Bauer and IDX battle it out for POWER supremacy and either way I'm ready.

I've recently modified my PROII sled to add the ability to fly IDX Batteries. With the help of Walter Klassen and his designer Tacu, in Toronto, I had some plates machined to match the PROII battery plates but sized with the mounting holes for IDX battery mounts. The front plate actually has both IDX and Anton Bauer holes so if need be I can quickly change it out without a complete rebuild. I rewired the entire battery system with 16AWG wire and installed model airplane quick connects at the first junction under the front battery mount (good for up to 15 amps each, as the serious model airplanes apparently draw lots of power) Although I don't anticipate having to change battery systems very often I figured one never knows. Anton Bauer's recent announcement of their HC batts has me wondering what batteries I'll be buying next time round. For the time being I'll be using 2 Powercubes in parallel to power the Camera and 1 E-10 (or 2 E-10s linked for extra weight and juice) to power the Monitor and Accessories (it's a Powercube in the photo because all the E-10's were packed away) It hasn't been field tested yet so I can't update as to run times. Today in prep we had it set up on the F35 and it was having no problems powering the Camera and Tape Deck in one piece, showing 14.7 volts on the Camera. There are a few things about the design that I wish I could change. One is that because of the need to slide on the battery and to maintain room for a CAMWAVE, the front mount is upside down. This means that the battery will fall if not secured properly or if the release button is accidently pressed without a hand on the Batt. I would also prefer that all of the battery meters were on the same side although the Powercubes only have three power indicator lights FULL-HALF-EMPTY anyways, seems a bit silly as the E-10's have a five stage meter in 20% increments. Another problem I have with the IDX mounts is that there is not a discernible CLICK to indicate that the battery is in it's seat, one has to pay attention to the release button to ensure that it pops back out after pushing the battery on. Even then I feel the need to give a tug just to make sure. I'll update more next week after having a few days to try it all out.

Honestly I don't see any similarity at all between this vest and a back mount vest. It has a hard back, so what? The arm is coming out of his upper chest!! It's no secret that you're not a fan of the Back Mount Vest Jerry (see Steadicam Operators Handbook for repeated bashing) but I feel it belittles the hard work that Daniel and Walter put it making a new and innovative product by comparing it to THIS? and taking credit away from where credit is due.