Mitch Gross

I still like the Sony TU-1041 tuner. Excellent professional piece of gear. AC power, or 12vdc via 4-pin XLR or NP1 battery pack.If your field monitors are the portable 9" or 8" industrial size (I think the JVC model is the TM-9 or something similar), then you should consider sticking it into the PortaBrace case made for these size screens. They have another case for the TU-1041 tuner that straps to the side of this monitor case. I use this setup and it's very compact and convenient. Leave it prewired in a case. I removed the old F-connector antenna mount and replaced it with a BNC ($2.50 part from Markertek and about 5 minutes work). Now I use a whip antenna from Wolf Seeberg that I again just leave mounted. For battery power I had Fred Davis make me a Y-cable just long enough to reach the large pouch on the side of the case. I could use a Anton/Bauer bricks but to both save money and so that I don't have to think about replacing batteries on the monitor I use large gels cells instead. 200w (18amp) lead acid gel cell fits perfectly in the pouch and only costs about $100 plus another $45 for the charger. 2 of them last me all day and each charges overnight. Nice portable system in two cases, one for monitor w/tuner and all prerigged and one with batts and chargers. Mitch

Just a note here that Jayson is a DP and not a Steadicam Op. He was looking for information on the cinematography forum and I suggested he post here. He's not entirely uneducated, but he's not particularly familiar with the tools we make take for granted.

Has anyone used/know about this insurance provider? I have not called to check rates yet. http://www.gearinsurance.com/index.html

Yes, it's a little rough when you log on and discover that there's a particularly large batch of posts that day, and now you've got to read them all so as not to miss anything. Otherwise you have to hunt them down, and who has time for that?

Alec, I think you're entirely correct that the key to the backmount design is the way it fits rigidly and distributes the weight to the body, not the fact that the arm mounts from the back. Frankly the arm mount could be on the sides, swing up over top or rise up between you legs for all it matters, because the static weight still comes from the center of gravity point and not the contact point of the arm mount to the vest. I think the backmount at it simplest has the arm mount come from the back because that's where there's already the most material for solid mounting. It's economy of design. Larry, I have a little trouble imagining what the advantages would be of your hybrid concept. Would you be giving up a little lack-of-fatigue in the stomach muscles for increased control?

I doubt anyone here is interested in switching their sleds over to NP-1 type batteries, but if you're interested in low-cost Lithium-Ion batteries and chargers check out Switronics.com. 60amp 14.4v batts for only $182 eacha nd they even have 2-pin PowerTaps built in. 4-slot SIMULTANEOUS charger (recharges bricks in about 100 minutes) for only $620. Just insanely cheap compared to anyone else.

Alec, I thin you are essentially correct except that it would result in a much more massive front section of the vest. So much more massive that it could become constricting. Think of it this way--the backmount design is essentially a ring that rests on your hips with shoulder straps that keep it firmly in place along your spine. The front part of the ring (which are where the straps are in the DSD design) would have to become rigid and far more massive in order to support the socket block. I suppose you could get into the vest by simply slipping it over your head, but that would be cumbersome and the vest would weigh considerably more even when constructed of carbon fiber. Of the beauties of the backmount design is that it presses against the spine in such a way as to help support and mesh with the spine. It becomes an extension of the spine, molding to it and offering additional support. Frontmount vests COMPRESS the spine, putting so much strain into the lower and central back. We all know the feeling of those muscles exerting themselves down there. Frontmount vests in general use more muscles along with bones for support compared to backmount vests. This brings on strain and fatigue. And compressing the spine is never a good thing. There's a lot of room for that spine to move, ya know. Astonauts and cosmonauts who've spent considerable time in space stations routinely grow an inch or two as the lack of gravity uncompresses the discs in their spines. When they return to Earth after long trips some cannot walk for considerable periods.

Jerry spells the differences out very clearly. I'd like to add that the big difference in a backmounted design putting the weight on the hips means that the single largest and strongest bone assembly in your body is taking the load. On a frontmounted vest the spine is compressed and the ribcage partially restricted. The backmount uses a large bone assembly while the frontmount uses a collection of many bones and muscles. That's part of the reason why frontmount users tend to fatigue more at the end of the day compared to backmount. That pressure on and exertion by various chest and back muscles essentially does not exist (at least to the same degree) in the backmount design. And yes, that's why it must be fitted very well, otherwise your back will be doing vastly more exertion.

I think "The Stunt Man" has grown over the years to become one of the more studied works for the late 70s/early 80s. I did a college paper on it (along with "Cutter's Way," another great forgotten film of the time) that was all about the Vietnam vet as portrayed in cinema (don't get me started on that epic topic). Later I taught a college course and used The Stunt Man as a study of perspective and perceptions both in narrative structure and use of the camera. Certainly O'Toole swinging around on the Moxie Mount played a part in that discussion. Such a great movie, even if they did get the height of King Kong wrong.

How about the lovely work on this week's "Third Watch" episode #100? Commerical break to commercial break all one shot, so I guess 4 or five shots total for the show. Nice.

Video cameras may use more power (sometimes), but they draw at a fairly steady rate. Film cameras draw at extremely unstead rates, with a fairly deep troll spike when first turning over. That's what can kill a battery.

Well there was that serial killer movie where the guy liked to have sex with the dead girls' bodies... Mitch

It's easy enough to mount a BFD or Benz receiver to lightweight frontrods on a video camera, 16mm camera or 35mm Aaton, but it would be nice to see a simple plate for other 35mm cameras that included standard 15mm 60mm center-to-center rods for matteboxes, follow focus, etc. Stick this on the bottom of the camera, perhaps adjust height & centering such as the Chrosziel video plates do and then you're done. Cavision actually makes something like this but it's such cheap junk I hesitate to even mention it. There's no reason a unversal plate couldn't be made other than no one has bothered. The standard tabs for rods on Steadicam plates are too close together, as I understand it precisely so that no one would start sticking a bunch of other accessories on them as they were not meant to withstand the extra weight. But why not make a slightly beefier design that would mount motors, lens support, mattebox and sling the receiver underneath if so desired? For those who use one camera for everything (especially in video) and would like to be able to swap back and forth between sled and sticks with greater ease, wouldn't this make a lot of sense?

Baer-bel has a nice plate for swapping between the rig and handheld/tripod. Looks jelpful in keeping single-camera shoots moving along.