Ian Collishaw

I'm surprised nobody mentioned romanian deadlifts. I'd also be interested in seeing how the olympic lifts would transfer to steadicam. obviously the movements are completely different but they're the best full body single exercises I've found as of yet. actually, scratch that. Turkish Get-Ups. but those really don't transfer over. I think I need to start getting my clean and snatch action going again. Somewhat related question: how many of you guys can hold a fully loaded fat rig with one hand, or lift it over your head one handed? It's a personal goal of mine but it might be unnecessary if nobody else is working on that ability. EDIT: ultimately, though, it doesn't really matter what you are doing, as long as you're doing something (and not hurting yourself!) Is there any conceivable task where a slower, weaker and stupider version of yourself would perform more optimally than a stronger, faster, smarter version of yourself?

For whatever reason, my email doesn't play nicely with his email. Thanks a bunch!

I'm also trying to upgrade a Master sled system, and I'm interested in hearing about the progress of this project. Also, if someone could point me in the direction of Terry West's contact information, that would be great. Thanks!

It was the most recent post in the forum, or so my browser told me. Although, that is kind of embarrassing on my part. Sorry everyone. My being shocked at Eric's behavior doesn't warrant me the ability to do that behavior with impunity. In fact, it's even more embarrassing that I did that just now. The irony is not lost upon me.

... maybe I'm not making myself clearly understood, which is my fault. Let me try again: 1) When does this phenomenon occur? 2) What limits are there to this phenomenon? Does it approach as a percentage? Is it an "On/Off" dichotomy? 3) What factors of an environment would contribute to this phenomenon? What factors will take away from this phenomenon? 4) How does framing of the subject effect this phenomenon? 5) How does the angle of view to the subject effect this phenomenon? I'm not asking about operating a steadicam. I'm asking about this phenomenon. When I know facts about this phenomenon (facts hopefully derived from multiple observed tests) I can THEN use those facts to assist in my steadicam operating. I do apologize, though. In my previous posts I kept asking "Will this phenomena work here?" and I think you guys thought I was asking "Would it be a good idea to employ this phenomenon at this time?" which obviously depends on the shot. What I should have asked is "Will this phenomenon occur here?" And for that, I apologize. TL;DR- I came to this thread to talk about this phenomenon, not steadicam. This might be anathema to this forum, sorry. EDIT: To Janice, specifically: This might be where I would want to take my line of questioning. My only worry would be that, for whatever reason, none of the things I learn from animators crosses over to the real world. I was thinking about how I would even begin to devise this test in the real world and it ended up needing one of those programmable robotic arms that builds cars in factories, with a camera with hit-scan detection going at like, 1000 or more times per second, so that it can keep up with the subject. Maybe I could put the subject on another robotic arm? That would eliminate the "human mistakes" element from it entirely. Too bad I don't have half a million dollars necessary to do this, lol.

TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described by the OP? Science don't real only feels. This has literally nothing to do with it, and I feel like, for whatever reason, you're going to try and leverage your experience against mine. I think that's an argument from authority... Which is actually another fallacy. But! This is completely beside the point of this thread, and absolutely has nothing to do with my line of rational questioning. TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described in the OP?

Your first paragraph is a weird version of a No True Scotsman fallacy it seems. I can't even believe we're getting into this. What I'm suggesting is completely uncontroversial. Your second paragraph betrays the fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about. You're right: why would you move the camera and actor if you can't tell they move at all? That's not what I'm suggesting and I never have. What I'm suggesting is we explore the phenomenon humans perceive when the situation in the OP happens, and see in what other situations the same phenomena happens, or explore when the situation in the OP does NOT yield the OP phenomena. If you can detail a better method to explore natural phenomena than science, maybe you should get a Nobel prize for your insights? What do I wasn't too do with this information? Create more appropriate camera movements when the situation calls for it. To do this, I need to know what camera movements have what effect on the audience. Basically: I want too learn about the natural world. Do you have a better method for learning about the natural world than the scientific method? Because you could make a lot of money doing that.

Eric, at this point it's as if you are deliberately misunderstanding what I'm talking about. Psychology, though not as "hard" as the other sciences, is still a science, which means we can still do tests and repeat procedures to learn about our environment; in this instance, how human beings feel about and perceive visual phenomena. Your immediate counter would be something like "You don't understand art", to which I'd say "You don't understand science". So either you accept that psychology is a discipline of science, or you don't. But I don't know why you wouldn't because it's right there in the word. Perhaps you'd go so far as to suggest that psychology cannot learn about how humans perceive films, but then I'd ask you "Why do low angles near-unilaterally give the impression of "power" of the subject to the viewer?" That's psychology. In Film. at this point it's basically known film theory! that's what I want to do with this motionless thing: establish film theory through science. EDIT: For instance, we can establish the fact "When a camera and subject move with each other without accelerating relative to one another, the world seems to move around the subject instead of the subject through the world" as film theory, now. It happens every time we do that! OR DOES IT????!!! That's what I'm trying to learn. At what point, when the camera and subject do not accelerate relative to one another, but are still moving, does the audience NOT FEEL that way? At what point is the illusion dispelled? That's where doing tests comes in. That's science.

It would be more of a psychological study, if anything. Show different scenarios to test audiences and get an established baseline for how people feel about it. So it would be "at what points do most people feel what way" sort of thing, not a "this scenario directly equals this result every time" sort of thing. For instance, do most people feel the sense of a motionless frame and subject when we are able to see their feet moving across the environment? Or does that unilaterally give away the illusion? Stuff like that.

Actually, a few more questions I was thinking about in the shower: - Does this visual phenomenon rely on a certain angle relative to the subject? Does it only work if you are in front of them, behind them, or to the side? Does it work from all angles? - Does the framing of the subject matter? For instance, if we can see the subject's feet moving, but we are motionless relative to their hips, do we experience the same phenomenon? - Does the size of the subject in the frame matter? Is bigger better? Can it work even if the subject is very far away and very small? I think someone should pull out a 10 foot slider and do some controlled tests, see if we can't get some science up in here. what we learn might just end up being incredibly useful!

This thread is very thought provoking. At what point does a shot feel like it's moving?- The moments in which the camera accelerates in respect to a subject is when it feels like it moves. This is because of how human beings feel like we move. What Einstein's theory suggests holds true for all observers, even camera sensors. (Technically, observation is an incredibly simple process but that's more science I don't think this thread needs). Could many Steadicam shots be described in this way, as a series of constant, "fixed" segments connected by moments of acceleration?- Yes. There will be moments in time during the duration of the shot in which the camera and the subject do not accelerate in respect to one another. If one were so inclined, you could attempt to control this to adjust the pace and feel of the shot through it's duration, alternating from perceived motion to perceived motionlessness by manipulating your relative acceleration. This would be a prime example of why a human operator would strive for such perfection. Does acceleration break the observer out of a static frame of reference permanently, or would a return to constant relative motion invite the sensation of standing still to also return?- The second one. To what degree does the pursuit of making the frame "invisible" require the operator and subjects to entertain this idea of acceleration-free movement?- Depends on how badly you want the frame to be invisible, how badly you want the world to move around the subject instead of the subject through the world. The more you want it to feel like that, the more you would have to entertain this notion. My question now is: Can we move closer and closer to acceleration free, invisible framing, like a limit? A percentage? Or is it a binary dichotomy between perceived motion and perceived motionlessness? Thank you for this thread.

https://vimeo.com/85992549 PASSWORD: steadicam Raw footage of the single best shot I've been able to pull off in my career. On top of this, the crew who lit it and the actors who played in it all performed wonderfully. 6 different lighting schemes through 6 different rooms of a house, on a no budget independent student short. took us 5 hours to set up and shoot and it was worth every second. I'll be honest, when production wrapped after the first session of shooting at 4am, the director and I both being a bit manic by this point, ended up watching this shot an embarrassing amount of times in a row. Think of a reasonable amount of times to have watched your own stuff and then like, double or triple that. This is the reason why we do this job, I suppose. That feeling is a good feeling. I love this job.

Sorry to get all tangential in this thread, but please do elaborate! This sounds like an excellent addition to my kit.

Glad to know this is going to be a constant issue my entire professional career. Why is getting footage like pulling teeth? It's literally "push four or five buttons and wait" at this point. come on.

Oh, by the way, all of your guys' stuff is awesome. The 30 Rock Steadicam joke, I mean, come on! That was literally made for us.