Jess Haas SOC

I completely agree that things are already very ugly and that the DGA handled negotiations much better than the WGA. That being said I think that the AMPTP has been looking to keep as much of new media for themselves as possible and that if the DGA had gone into negotiations before the WGA strike the AMPTP would have held out a lot longer possibly even offering ridiculous terms such as those that they offered the WGA. As is I think the AMPTP realized that speedy negotiations with the DGA would look good on their part while also realizing that they had to come to reasonable terms with the DGA in order to avoid the DGA forming a united front with the WGA. Hopefully the WGA will take these events as a sign that they are ready to talk reasonably and hopefully that will be the case for both sides so that we can end this ugly mess once and for all. As time passes and people are out of work longer I hear more and more people being critical of the WGA. While they may not have handled things perfectly I don't feel that the AMPTP did any better. ~Jess full disclosure- I am not a member of the WGA, the DGA or the AMPTP. I just want this strike over as quickly as possible so that I can get enough work to pay my bills.

I am sure the AMPTP had no added motivation to conclude the negotions as quickly and smoothly as possible. I would say that the WGA strike softened them up quite a bit and put a lot of pressure on them for the DGA negotions. If they didn't come to an agreement with the DGA things could have gotten very ugly I do sincerely hope that this will lead to the WGA and the AMPTP coming to an agreement as soon as possible. I could really use some more work right about now. ~Jess

So I am taking the 3 day workshop in Boulder, Colorado in early February. Just wondering if anyone else from the list is going to be there, where they are staying, etc... ~Jess

Or you could send it to me to use as a steadicam practice camera. My Hi8 seems to have bit the dust :-) ~Jess

Parallel is only okay if you add diodes otherwise the batteries charge each other, correct? The point of mixing batteries seems to be to get longer run times from lithium or nimh while being able to handle larger amperage spikes thanks to the nicd. How does running them in series accomplish this? It seems that the nicd battery would run down faster than the other one and even if the nicd were able to provide more amps of power it would all be running through the cells of the other battery. What am I missing? ~Jess

I don't know if I would even go as far as calling it clever. It was a bit funny, but only because I wasn't the one being abused. As far as video recorders go I am very happy with the little archos 404 I just got. They can be had refurbished for $150, plus you need the travel adapter which is another $50. Small, light and records 640x480 with mpeg4 compression that looks damn good for what it is. Plus you can use it to watch recorded TV shows and movies, or throw your reel on there and force everyone you meet to watch it :-) ~Jess

So for high draw cameras most of you seem to be putting a nicad and a lithium-ion(or nimh) battery in series? Is this correct? I would have thought putting different battery chemistries in series would be a bad idea..... ~Jess

http://www.pro8mm.com ~Jess

Well good. While I like operating barefoot I wouldn't want to start a nudist steadicam operator movement or anything ;-) ~Jess

This will be much less of a problem for feet that are used to walking barefoot, but you do make a good point. I don't have any intention of operating barefoot all the time. There are many situations where it is clearly not the best choice. A lot of operators have different shoes for different conditions which I think makes sense and as long as you are used to operating in the shoes you are going to use I don't think there is a problem with that. Personally I sometimes prefer barefoot. Other times I prefer my boots which are actually surprisingly light and have a surprisingly flexible sole. I would also like to find a pair of shoes that are as close to barefoot as possible while providing a small amount of added protection as well as keeping everyone else happy. To me in SOME conditions I see the elimination of footwear as one way of avoiding potential problems. In others conditions shoes may be a better way to avoid problems. The shoot I did recently where I was barefoot was in a carpeted office building. Perfect conditions to go barefoot and I feel that I did benefit from doing it and that there was very little risk involved. If I was operating outside in the cold I would have been wearing shoes, no question about it. ~Jess

I totally understand the argument that we are subjecting ourselves to unnatural circumstances and that additional support might be necessary. I don't necessarily disagree but think that it might not be the only option. If part of your body is not used to the strain of steadicam then one solution is to add additional support. It does work, I am not arguing with that. The problem I see with this is the same one that running seems to have. While the additional support makes things seem comfortable, it keeps your muscles from doing their natural job and causes you to put more impact on your joints. The alternative solution would be to train your muscles so that they can function properly with the additional stress that we are putting on them. If you work up to it I don't see any reason that your body can't handle the extra load. I am also not a doctor or a scientist, but my experience seem to support this theory for MY body. This seems to be a very personal thing and I am sure would not work for everyone. I think the key is that your body needs to already be used to walking barefoot before you subject it to the additional stresses of steadicam. I live in a warm environment and have spent a lot of time around the water so barefoot is a natural thing for me. As far as traction goes I find that I get amazing traction on most surfaces while barefoot. It also virtually eliminates the chance of doing something like rolling your ankle and allows you to feel the surface you are walking on so you can react instead of falling on surfaces where traction or tripping becomes a problem. As far as the social stigma of being barefoot goes I live in a very laid back place so I would guess that that would mostly be a problem when working out of town and with out of town crews. I do find it kind of funny that people often consider feet to be so dirty. If I am walking barefoot my feet are MUCH cleaner than your shoes. That is unless you clean your shoes everyday and scrape off a layer of the rubber. As far as stinky feet goes if you go barefoot or wear sandals often it is not a problem because it is the dark, moist environment of shoes that allows the nasty stinky things to grow. How much protection do you really think a pair of running shoes or crosstrainers provides and what do you expect to fall on your foot that they will save you from? They do provide a level of protection barefoot doesn't but they aren't steel toed boots.... ~Jess

I am flying a modified actioncam rig with mostly Super16 and HD cameras on it. I know that operating barefoot is not practical in most situations, but I do see some benefits to it and plan on finding a pair of shoes that more closely resembles it. This may sound like a stupid question but what benefits do you feel you get from wearing shoes while operating? There have been a number of studies concerning running shoes that have shown that padding and motion control actually result in larger impact forces and increased injury rates. There is even a growing group of barefoot runners doing things like marathons without shoes that report lower injury rates. While we are not running most of the time it does seem applicable. Since I don't feel that I am gaining anything from the padding the only benefit I can see to wearing shoes is protection. While this is very important, most of the time while operating I do not put my feet in situations where the protection is really necessary. While juicing or gripping I wear my work boots as doing otherwise would be idiotic. One could of course argue that being on set at all was dangerous enough to warrant protection, but that is really going to depend on the particular set and the terrain. Being barefoot does of course increase ones chances of certain types of injuries, but studies seem to show that it decreases impact on joints as well as the incidence of ankle, foot and knee injuries. This seems like a reasonable trade off to consider. I know that other influences do not make it practical most of the time, but I felt like discussing the subject so here we are. ~Jess

I know I wouldn't, and despite preferring it I have kept my shoes on for most of my gigs so far. When I actually did it on set it was with a crew that I know well on a very low budget production. I know OSHA would not approve but under some conditions I would say that it is actually safer than wearing shoes since you are more stable, less likely trip and creating less impact on your body. Just my thoughts, I know many will likely disagree and assume I am just a dirty hippie :-) ~Jess

Am I the only one crazy enough to prefer it? I have done it often while practicing at home, and recently did it on set for the first time and I have to say that I much prefer the feedback and added stability of being shoeless. Shoes also tend to inhibit the bodies natural shock absorbing abilities leading to more stress on your body than going shoeless. Of course like anything else you need to practice and get your body used to it and not just jump into doing a 12 hour day shoeless. ~Jess

Personally I prefer to operate barefoot. Of course your feet have to be in the right kind of shape for it, but it allows your bodies natural shock absorption to function better and gives you a lot more feedback which can help you to keep from tripping,etc.... Of course going around most film sets barefoot isn't exactly kosher, and on some surfaces and situations it could be just plain dangerous. So far I have only done it on set a few times with crews that I was very familiar with. ~Jess

Seeing as how it is after 1 I really hope you found a solution. I know its too late for today but if you could find a low mode cage that comes apart or a weight plate you could stick it between the camera and your dovetail to get a little bit of extra clearance. If you know anyone who is handy with metal a thick aluminum plate with a few drilled and tapped holes should do the trick. If you were in Texas I could help you out with that.... The grip department might have a small cheese plate that could work in a pinch if you use longer machine screws to attach the camera. If it is a balance problem then would adding a little bit of extra weight to the rear of the camera help? ~Jess

Sounds like someone knew what you were worth and the other guy was just an idiot looking to cut corners. I have done multiple shoots with P2 and have never had any problems. I was initially a bit skeptical but now I really like the workflow. You do need a competent person data wrangling but it is not rocket science. I find it best to treat it like film; you have a loader who knows how to work with that particular camera. You wouldn't let a pa load the camera, and you wouldn't hire a loader who didn't know how to load the film camera you are planning on using. The other setup I like is when there is an on set editor that handles offloading cards and even puts together an assembly of "dailies." Editors tend to know how to copy files without losing them, and will let you know if anything is wrong. If production insists on taking responsibility for offloading cards I just make sure they know it has become their responsibility and if something goes wrong they shouldn't come crying to me expecting me to do them a favor or take responsibility for their mess. I have done a number of shoots where a PA or producer was offloading the cards, and while I don't think it was ideal I only saw some minor problems. I do know that I have been one of the lucky ones in this respect. ~Jess

That is true, but with prime lenses an HVX and a somewhat sane 35 adapter I doubt that would be too much of a problem. If you do decide to get crazy with a big zoom lens you may need to use a longer dovetail or some sort of plate to offset the whole contraption. This is reminding me of a shoot I did recently with a giant Cooke 25-250mm zoom lens. Luckily it was not a steadicam shoot as the lens was on a BL4 with a 1000ft mag. Talk about heavy, that rig weighed atleast half of what I do. If you were to put that lens on a 35mm adapter you would need to offset the whole contraption by about 2 feet in order to balance it.... ~Jess

You can also find a metal supply place, get a piece of steel plate and then drill a few holes in it. If you get longer screws you won't even need to thread any holes in the plate. I have a 9 pound weight plate that I made this way for about $20. ~Jess

The weight being in front just means that the camera and adapter have to sit further back on the top stage. This is not a problem and shouldn't have any effect on the rigs weight limit. ~Jess

You rock Stephen. I think you have a definite future as on camera steadicam talent. ~Jess

If you can't afford one of the weeklong workshops then take one of the 2-day Flyer workshops. The workshop is much cheaper and since it is with a smaller rig it will be a bit more in line with the type of stuff you seem to be doing. ~Jess

Those stands look too small. The base is too small so it will not be very stable, and they don't look to be tall enough. As long as you have a sturdy stand I would think that a 25 pound bag would be sufficient. If you want to be extra careful or plan on leaving the rig with camera on the stand while you are away from it you may want two 25 pound bags. If I were buying a bag I would personally look for a shot bag instead of a sand bag, but that is just personal preference. Also try to get it in colors that won't easily be confused with the grip departments sand bags. ~Jess

I agree about the connectors on the top. My suggestion was to flip it and put the connectors on the bottom. As long as there is enough clearance around the mounting hole this should work fine for my intended mounting setup. Connectors on the back is a more standard setup, but if he does wish to seriously weather proof it I think connectors on the bottom would be ideal. If the connectors are on the bottom it might be prudent to add some sort of protection along the lines of what sony uses to protect the buttons on the front of their monitors. This picture might help: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/410246.jpg That would keep the BNC connectors form getting damaged if the monitor is rested on the bottom as well as giving you a place to attach cables for a strain relief. Of course this is again for off steadicam purposes as it wouldn't really matter when used on a steadicam. While his current version isn't all that bright what we are talking about is the steadicam version which he said will be available with 1000+nits. Luis, have you looked into transflective technology? It seems to be the future of sunlight viewable LCDs, but I am not sure if the technology is there yet for screens this size. Would be nice if it was. ~Jess

I do steadicam work, and I do underwater work, but I don't do them at the same time. :-) The request was merely another non steadicam related use for the monitor. Sorry for the confusion. Of course it would be nice to be able to do what this guy did: http://www.fluidmotionfilm.com/page/steadicam_seadoo.html or atleast stand out in the rain. ~Jess