Jump to content

Kevin Mueller

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

About Kevin Mueller

  • Birthday 07/30/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website
    http://www.x2creative.com
  1. If your rig is getting out of whack when you thrust the camera forward and back or side to side, you may be too bottom-heavy. (For instance if the bottom of the sled is kicking out at the end of a forward thrust.) A too bottom-heavy rig "feels" more stable but causes other issues that are a real pain. Try a drop time closer to 3 seconds. Be aware that this will affect other aspects of your operating but this is actually a good thing when you learn how to handle it. You will have to be more aware of holding your horizons. Good luck in the workshop. Kevin Mueller
  2. Wow, This thread is nearing it's first birthday. The way I solved the problem was to add weight to the rig. The clips in the earlier post were done on a Flyer with the HVX200 and a few accessories. The camera weight was only about 6.5 lbs. and very twitchy. I added an 8 lb. steel weight plate that is 1" thick by 3.5" by 8" with a quick-release adapter. Inspired by one I saw in another post by Erwin I think. (Royalty check is in the mail...) Total camera weight is just under 15 lbs. and is behaving nicely. Kevin
  3. David, If you are planning to fly the HVX200 on a Merlin, it will have to be the camera only and no accessories. No matte box, microphone or anything. I have flown one and it does work fine but you need to have strong arms if you are flying for more than a few minutes at a time. I have noticed that my original plastic Merlin gimbal has become a little loose as a result if flying a heavy camera. I would recommend getting the arm and vest which comes with the metal gimbal upgrade if you can afford it. This will also increase the maximum payload of the merlin so you may be able to add some accessories to the HVX. My personal preference for the HVX is the Steadicam Flyer. It feels and flies like a big rig but is light enough to fly for hours and not get tired. You can also balance it in low-mode which isn't possible with the Merlin arm and vest. With regard to shooting 90 degrees down, you can do it with the Merlin but NOT when it is mounted on the arm because you wouldn't be able to tilt the gimbal handle. The best you can get is about 45 degrees up and down. Again, the weight of the HVX becomes an issue when trying to control a tilt at such an extreme angle and it will stress the plastic gimbal. Good luck, Kevin
  4. Brant, That's really cool! Not much head-room there, but really cool. Kevin
  5. Sorry Charles, I misunderstood your post. I see what you mean. The HVX200 has a ton of features for a 6000.00 camera but the thing that has always bugged me about it is the softness of the image. I used to comfort myself by saying, "well, it is only a $6000.00 camera. You can't have everything." Until I bought the $1000.00 Canon HV20 for home use and side by side produces a sharper image than the HVX200 in 1080 mode. It doesn't have the sort of Varicam-like magic to the image or control capabilities of the HVX, but it is sharper none the less. Oh well, there is always the next generation of gadgets to spend money on. Kevin
  6. Interesting Charles, If the HVX footage was shot in 720 24PN (notice the N for Native) there shouldn't be any need to do any sort of frame rate conversion on the footage. The camera only records 24 descreet, progressive frames per second to the P2 cards. If it was shot in 24p or 24 pA mode, then simple 3-2 pulldown is all that is needed. It still isn't interlaced so deinterlacing is most likely what caused the resolution drop. I do agree, however, the HVX isn't the sharpest of the small form factor cameras, but is 4.2.2 color space and DVCProHD rather than HDV and variable frame rates and all that. Not to change the direction of the thread but the HVX has been a solid perfomer for me, not sure why you had resolution issues. Chris, If you do want to go with a heavier camera on the merlin, check out the new arm and vest you can use to fly the merlin. It also comes with the gimbal upgrade I think. http://www.steadicam.com/merlinarmvest.html It might make you feel strange going from a big rig to this, but you could give your arm a break.
  7. Chris, I have the Canon HV-20 for chasing my kids around, and it works great on the merlin with a Sennheiser wireless reciever attached. I have had a bare-bones Panasonic HVX200 on a merlin and it works well too but it is a good arm workout for anything over 10 minutes or so. The metal gimbal upgrade for the merlin may increase the payload enough to add a mic, but not with the standard gimbal. The HVX is at the 5.5 lb max the way it is. Best, Kevin
  8. If you don't feel like doing a few searches of the forum, maybe go to http://www.steadicam.com - the Tiffen Steadicam site. They have brochures that you can download, specifications and pricing. Best Kevin
  9. Based on this conversation, I put on the rig and did some movements paying specific attention to the level of control with each hand. My results indicate: 1. Gimbal hand - ALWAYS light touch. even when tilting. Only enough pressure to control the shot. 2. Non-operating hand, boom hand, hand that controls the arm, whatever. - Slightly stiffer grip when booming but when walking, especially slow, very light touch. The more I grip with this hand the more my slight momnetum changes get tranlated through to the arm showing my footsteps. Thanks for that. I've gotten into a specific feel of operating and making myself isolate different areas of input to the rig and seeing the result has been a good eye opener. Proper rig adjustment is the key and letting the rig do what it is designed to do is working better than over controlling. I remember seeing a clip of GB rounding a corner and walking with the rig and not touching it at all. I can't imagine really operating like that but the point he was making was that the rig does what it is designed to do, don't mess it up with too much human input. Do only what you need to do for the shot. All this is most likely obvious to experienced ops but for my learning experience it has been a good thing. Best, Kevin
  10. Thanks Lukas. I agree about the additional weight. In this case, I was flying a Panasonic HVX200 without the usual weight block. I did have a mattebox and wireless audio as well as a wide angle adapter for the bar shot, but bringing the weight up always helps. In the case of the odd corporate stuff I shoot, I am pretty much a one man crew with an assistant. I do lighting and direction in addition to operating so a dolly isn't feasable unless more crew is available. I will try a stiffer grip in the gimbal as well, but this seems to be the biggest conflicting debate among Steadicam ops. Some say a very light touch and doing only what is required to maintain the shot is best. In other words flying the rig with your body and less with your hands. I'd be interested to hear how other experienced ops approach this. Thanks again for your input Lukas. Kevin
  11. The walking feeling seems to the thing I struggle with the most as a new operator. I've paid carefill attention to arm adjustment, not overcontrolling, etc. and I think it comes down to speed variations when walking more than anything else. When walking I am pushing off slightly with the toes of one foot as the heel of the other foot touches down and slightly changes my momentum. Taking smaller steps has helped somewhat but it is still somewhat there. Here are a couple of recent clips that show what I mean: http://www.ifoliohd.com/hvx/ForForumWalking.mov Any advise would be great.
  12. This is certainly an industry in transition. The same transition that has already happened in the still photography industry and it may be helpful to look at similar industries that have been down this road already. I've been in the advertising industry as a business owner for 13 years. In that time I've hired the services of many top rate still photographers spanning the transition from film to digital. Sadly, many of the best photographers we used in the film days, (only 5 or 6 years ago) are either struggling or out of business all together. The ones that are still successful were early adopters of digital acquisition technology. It was not a smooth evolution by any means. The earlier high-end digital cameras costing $30,000 were roughly the image quality of today's CONSUMER digital SLR. It also required established film photographers to develop a completely new vocabulary and technical expertise in producing images. The same complaints about image quality, equipment, technical challenges, the fact that it didn't measure up to the quality of film were all daily topics of frustration and professional conversation. At the same time, their clients were demanding digital delivery of images and long-standing, loyal relationships were broken in the interest of new, talented, technically adept photographers who were able to deliver digitally. Digital images made their clients lives easier and opened many other possibilities for how those images were used. The clients - or end--users - not the photographers, drove the transition of the industry through the demand for a completely digital workflow because it made their jobs easier. The ones that adapted survived and even thrived. The ones that didn't were replaced. Today, virtually all still photography is digital and the the photographers that used to be film-based can't imagine going back to those days. The photographers that saw the direction of the industry and were willing to adapt early-on had the advantage of learning this technology as it developed. Not paying catch-up on a business level or technical level after the bugs had been worked out of the equipment. It all sounds so similar to the arguments and frustrations I hear in this industry regarding film / tape-based acquisition vs. digital or P2, but in a few short years, no one will want to go back to dealing with film or even want to lug around a 50 pound video camera that records to tape. The cameras will get better and smaller and less expensive. And with that, they will become more accessible to current competitors as well as a whole new crop of competition that is adept at the digital side of things (unforunately with varying levels of visual skill) ready to eat your lunch for you. The technology isn't quite there yet on all levels in the video industry but it will be - sooner rather than later. Better to learn it now and grow with it rather than climb the mountain later.
  13. Andrew, The current generation Flyer monitors can be flipped to work the way you will need for the 35mm adapter BUT it you have the first generation Flyer with the grey arm and pads you may have problems. This was discussed in this thread: http://www.steadicamforum.com/forums/index...?showtopic=4205 Best - Kevin
  14. OK, I spoke to a friend of mine who is a DP/Steadicam Op and he said that the first generation monitors didn't have the mirror capability. The current generations apparently do. You're right, if you have a first generation Flyer monitor, all you have to do is send the monitor in and Tiffen will upgrade it.
  15. Am I missing something or is something wrong with my monitor. I have a Flyer and an HVX 200 which I am using inverted in low-mode with no bracket or cage, so the camera is upside-down. On the Flyer LCD, I can invert the image using the UP/DOWN menu setting but the the image also needs to be flipped horizontal otherwise left is right and right is left when flying the camera upside-down. Really a brain-bender when moving through a shot. There is a MIRROR option in the menu which would seem to be the obvious choice, but it has no effect. The manual has no specific explanation of what the menus do. So is my monitor acting up or am I the one that's defective.
×
×
  • Create New...