Jerry Holway

Anthony and all, I agree, if it's not covered by a patent, then anyone is free to make it. Without going into any real legal issues (as I am totally unqualified to comment on that), there should be in this community as sense of what is right and wrong regarding intellectual property. Perhaps we are still few enough in number and closely enough tied together to still be a community. Almost all of the ideas for Steadicam that I've had (including some fairly original ones) are not covered by patents, and anyone is free to copy them, make commercial products, whatever. And if anyone wants to build a tilt head for themself, fine. But I do ask that members of this community, for the sake of future innovations (no matter who makes them), don't buy or sell protected gear. You are just cutting your own throat in the long run by cutting out the inventors and the companies that take the time and effort and dollars to make the prototypes and get it right. Imagine if Panavision had gotten away with copying the Steadicam, way back when. We'd all be doing something else, and the craft would stuck with shock-absorber arms and the like. Yikes. Regardless, here's the link to the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...;.INZZ.)&OS=IN/ and you can see what the patent covers and does not cover. You can also use the seach page to find other Steadicam related patents... Jerry Holway

After years and years of imploring CP to add an on-off switch, it's going to be done soon to the Ultras (I had one on my master series from day one.. okay day 40 or so). Although the transmitter on the Ultra is 100 times better than the one on the Master Series, the tiny transmitter just can't compete with all the other, more powerful and varied transmitters out there. It's possible, if you have a Master Series rig, to get an Ultra transmitter/receiver (it's how the first Ultra's were built). Don't have a clue as to cost, availability, etc. A real good use for the on-off switch is that often grips or assistants carrying the rig back to the stand would inadvertantly hit the transmit buttons.... The only real problem I ever had with the Ultra transmitter was at RF crazy NAB (duh). On set, if it worked, it worked, and if there was a problem it was clearly there, not intermittant. Jerry Holway

Actually it's better than the prototype.. little changes here and there... incredibly free. Performs as well as or better than any arm ever made at any price. 4 to 15 lbs payload, real ability to adjust for your body (same type of adjustements as big boys, and you can mount the Flyer socket block to your current vest) - and, of course, tool free adjustments of weight carrying capacity and of arm angle. Also, the Flyer itself is upgraded from the Mini in several ways: new, very nice 16x9 monitor, .75 diameter post, better gimbal, proper yoke. Better vest. $6500 with stand, docking bracket, your choice of batteries (but no batts or charger at that price). But you have to try it to believe it. Jerry Holway

Here's a tip or two for owners of MS/Ultra vests- If those plastic racheting "tongues" get bent outward, or just stick out too much, you can thermo-form them into a better, non-proturding shape. It's easier to do if you remove them from the vest, but not necessary if you have a willing partner. Just stick a plastic tongue into a jar of hot, nearly boiling, water. It will get soft and lose its springyness... If it can be bent to the approximate shape at this point, it probably helps. After a minute or so, remove the tongue and stick it into a glass of cold water. I used a small juice tumbler, and bent the end into a nice circle. Let cool a minute, remove, and there you are. Nice thing about the process - you can do it again and again until you get it right. Second tip: Before you re-assemble, remove the four release fittings from the Velcro'd straps. You'll notice the screw has a washer on both sides of the fitting, and a fancy jam nut that holds it in place. If you look at the fitting, there is a bend between the tab with the hole for the screw and the section that holds the release mechanism. You want to get rid of this bend. Stick the tab with the hole in a vise and with a piece of wood or similar against the part, hammer the part flat. All it takes is a couple of good blows. Re-assemble, but omit the washer next to the head of the screw. If you are nervous about doing this, you can order the spare parts for cheap from Tiffen (sorry, Frank), bend them, then install on your vest. Jerry Holway

A few thoughts on the MS/Ultra arm: I think it's highly unlikely that relaxing the springs when the arm is not in use will have any effect on spring life. In the unloaded (or up) position, the springs are barely loaded; hardly stretched, especially compared to the maximum stretch, or down position. If an extension spring does not "take a set" from OVER extension, then it will perform near constantly for ever. (Try over-extending a small and cheap extension spring from a pen. When it is over-stretched, it will instantly fail to perform.) In normal use, the arms we use can't overstretch the springs- because the stretch is limited by the geometry of the arms and not by the load - unless, of course, something goes terribly wrong. Other factors that affect spring life are shock loading, rapid recycling, and high temperatures, none of which are encountered in normal Steadicam operating. "De-tuning" a Master Series/Ultra arm will affect how it behaves. Theoretically, it works "best" at the maximum spring tension, just as Model I, II, or III type arms also work best at their maximum spring tensions. Relaxing or detuning any of these arms takes it out of the "ideal" and makes for a more centered and harder ride. With older arms and lighter-than-maximum weight cameras, it takes a lot more effort from the operator to boom all the way up or all the way down, and more damping to keep the camera exactly at one height as one walks along, steps off a curb, etc. What Will suggests with the Master/Ultra arm, however, is a slight de-tuning that has very little effect on that arm's "ideal" performance with only a slight loss in ultimate lift capacity. It can be really useful to "de tune" the section of the arm closest to your body, as this section has widely varying loads depending on the angle of the second section, and it also lifts more or less depending on the angle of your body. Making this section more "centered" by detuning will help to keep it from locking up or down. (Better posture will have a similar effect...). AGAIN the WARNING: if you de-tune, be sure the wires to the springs don't get crossed, otherwise it's an expensive mess. Last note: in adjusting the MS/Ultra arms, adjust the forearm (closest to gimbal) section first so that it carries the load both above and below horizontal. Then adjust the other section so that it follows or tracks the forearm section as you boom all the way up and down. As a test: once you get it right, lean back or worse, forward, and see what happens as you boom up and down. Jerry

I urge everyone who is interested in this topic to read the 2002 video battery handbook put out by Anton Bauer; available on their website. It has extremely detailed information about all aspects of batteries, from chemistries and construction, to charging methods, memory myths, recycling, etc. It probably needs some updating about higher discharge rates, but there is other, more current information on the website as well (for instance about "dionic" chemistries and discharge rates). It's a a great, in-depth resource and answers most of the questions raised here. www.antonbauer.com Also try researching battery cell manufacturers, such as Sanyo for information on specific cell types. Jerry Holway

I have also been using the PC-5 since it first became available; dismantled a battery to attempt to make a DC supply (sometimes it works! but I do not recommend this AT ALL). I have three batteries to keep it going all day. Here's a possible alternative: Panasonic AG-DV1DC It is a mini-DV recorder with a 3.5" LCD screen, 1.2lbs, that seems a good alternative to the PC 5 plus Seitz power option. Visit http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Produ...f_ag-dv1dc.html Anybody bought one of these?? Love to be able to power off the sled without any hassle.... Jerry

As the guy who designed the Ultra tilt head, perhaps I can shed some insight here. Because the c.g. of various cameras are at different heights from their bases, and different cameras will weigh different amounts, there is no way to design a tilt head to tilt perfectly on the c.g. of all cameras. So I chose a pivot point that was close to the c.g. of many cameras and a variety of camera weights WHEN the rig would be in dynamic balance. I also made it with as low a profile that allowed + or - 20 degree tilting. Critical for using heavy cameras. Re-balancing statically after tilting (two seconds) restores dynamic balance - again with most cameras that usually fly on the bigger rigs. (I've demo'd this 100's of times at workshops) One alternative (using a simple tilt head) would require completely remounting the camera to maintain dynamic balance. The single most useful thing about the tilt head is maintaining dynamic balance regardless of the angle the camera takes. Try this: spin balance your rig into great dynamic balance. Then trim the rig to tilt down a few degrees (as we so often do) and spin it again. What happens? Trim it down a few more degrees. Spin again. (incidentally, it's best not to spin at a really fast rate, but that's another topic). My first shot with the tilt head was on Music of the Heart, with a normal length sled. Used the tilt head for the nominal trim. Post remains vertical. Lots of accelerations, little whip pans. Very, very controlled, very very precise. Pleasantly surprised and humbled. Also very annoyed that it wasn't instantly clear in 1988 (when we figured out dynamic balance) that the rig should have an integral tilt head. Some stuff just takes awhile to sink in. Jerry

Erwin- When you weighed the Ultra, which monitor was attached? Jerry

I like it. Thanks, Tim. Jerry

I am talking with Tiffen now to get the 1" masters and make a high quality DVD of the "Steadicam® EFP? Video Training Manual." By the way, they own the copyright on the video and on the manual that went with it, so I respectfully request that people respect the copyright. Jerry Holway

As CP went out of business three some years ago, it seems odd to me that the Non-CP category still exists. Since we have so many manufacturers of stabilizers out there, perhaps we should eliminate the category all together and keep things organized by the other topics, regardless of manufacturer. I emailed Tim Tyler about this, he suggested rightly that the users of the forum should decide what to do. Thoughts? Jerry

Interesting stuff. Some thoughts and a question: I'm very happy with the new Ultra vest which has a 100 percent rigid and very efficient front spar/over shoulder attachment and really good "cross-back" straps. I also prefer (and have) the front spar inside the waist band, like the old IIIA, II, and I vests. I only used to experience aches in my right shoulder from using a IIIA type arm when I had to lift up the sled up or push it down with much more force than the iso-elastic arm. New iso arm, no aches. Still didn't like to run with the MS vest. With both the DSD vest and the traditional vest, your body has to lean back in the vest to counter act the force of gravity on the sled. It's the same force, and the same leaning back regardless of the type of vest. Everyone who has taken a workshop with GB can remember his drawings and the "free" force required for this by leaning back. With a front mounted vest, a less than rigid design in the over-shoulder to the "Y" piece (like the Master Series vests), made for a lot more work. In a back mounted vest, the rigidity has to be in the arm attachment to the back, and from the lower back to the upper/center back). In either vest, the key is how efficient and postive your leaning is. I can only saw now that the new Ultra vest is much much better than the old MS vest, and I only get fatigued in the legs... never in the lower back, shoulders, etc. I also have much more control, less fatigue overall, can run flat out... I'd like to know how other ops with the new Ultra vest feel about it. By the way, I have been in about six different DSD vests, and some fit me well and worked well. Jerry

Phil et al- The "complete package" for the MS or Ultra does pretty well with the four batteries and a one bank charger, but in a heavy film situation things can get tricky, and what if a charger or a battery quits? I have two "quad" PAG chargers (which charge only one battery at a time, but instantly start fastcharging the next battery, giving some help to the burdened and or distracted assistants). With this charging system and only four batteries, I recently shot 9,600 ft with my Ultra, 84." LCD monitor, a Moviecam Compact, transmitting video, recording for myself, etc., in under three hours. No problem with the batteries, but I did have to keep an eye on the assistants to be sure the dead batteries were getting back to the charger, or I would have been in trouble. Mike O'Shea, who works on Third Watch, feels more comfortable with two chargers and five or six batteries. It's his comfort level. Jerry

Rob Happy new year. You got some of the physics right and some of it wrong, so I'd like to help clarify a few things... Here's a clue: the firetruck has the ladder mounted on the "front!" And I really like your pictures, because the weight (the rig) and you (the real resistance) are the same in both sets of pictures. Another big clue to what's going on. What's wrong are your force diagrams. In both cases the rig wants to do nothing more than drop straight down. The arm transfers this force to your body via the vest, and you keep the rig up, and by leaning back, you keep from falling over. All vests do two basic things. The first is to keep one end of the arm from dropping to the floor (holding up the weight). The second is enable our bodies to act like a lever above and below the attachment point so we can resist the downward force of the rig which is outside of our skeletal structure (like the firetruck example) The DSD vest enables this leverage with a rigid back, the traditional vests do it with a rigid front and straps going around to the same point in the back. The DSD vest is slightly more efficient at this task than a very well designed traditional vest such as the newer Ultra vest or the PRO vest or others, and the rigid back of the DSD vest enables this leverage much much better than a poorly designed vest - and there are many of those out there. The point of attachment does not matter. At all. Here's a clue: Think about all the work and expense to make the DSD socket block/arm attachment point rigid from the side of the vest all the way to the back. All the strength of that carbon fiber part keeps the attachment point fixed relative to the shell. The arm is actually attached to the SIDE of the shell. Another consequence of the DSD vest - and one that many operators like - is that the vest places almost all the weight carrying capacity on your hips. Traditional vests spread this out more, with the upper torso sharing some of the load. A downside of this part of the DSD vest design is that there is very little side to side torque resistance compared to a traditional design, which is why the DSD vest must be fit so carefully and so tight on the operator's hips. See the posts last year on "a strange event" (sorry no link) for another consequence of this. Hope this helps a little more... Jerry