Charles Papert

One of my AC's picked up a Laing recently and we put it together to see what's what. What's what is that it is a lot of rig for the money, but that's like saying a 40 of Olde English 800 is a lot of beer for the money. Neither cost much but later you'll probably wish you spent more. Cheap rigs have come a long way. The basic parts are there, you can adjust the pitch of the arm in the usual axes, build quality is reasonably refined. However there are a lot of design issues as one would expect. The top stage is a pain to adjust. Don't think about trying to work with the arm boomed up or down towards the limits. And the gimbal, while seemingly smooth enough, is of course deliriously non-linear: static balance, pan 90 degrees and watch it tip. I wouldn't want to start advising either how to work with it or how to improve it (so please nobody ask me). The $50 guitar analogy is sound. A lot people who buy these nouveau knockoffs insist that it costs relatively so little, it kind of doesn't matter if it sucks. Haven't quite worked that one out. I think that by the time you would actually get good enough at using it, you would have outgrown it (or started putting plenty of time and energy into modifying it to the hilt). So yeah, it's less clunky and cheaper than the lowest end rigs that have been floating around for the past 10 years or so (anyone remember the Magiqcam??). That's some progress. Fits perfectly into the mindset of so many these days which is to acquired as much cheap gear as possible to sound like a more impressive entity and to impress the "clients".

A lot of people are quite enthused about the lens because of the wide focal range and compact size. Fujinon has been killing it of late, with their Premier series being highly regarded (many feel they deliver equal quality to primes), the Alura series are great and now the Cabrio is fast becoming the go-to lens for run-and-gun large chip shooting. I have heard a few concerns about the lens including breathing issues, but that depends on who you talk to. I've been hoping to test it against my handheld Aluras. The possibility of simplifying/lightening the front end of the camera by eliminating two or more Preston motors is indeed enticing... Street price is around $38K.

Thanks James. I would certainly expect parity with broadcast-lens servos but I'm curious how it competes with film-style motors. Speed/accuracy etc. Also wondering if with the rocker mount onboard, must all three motors be engaged or can you pick and choose, i.e. allow operator to control zoom via servo and also control iris or focus via Preston.

Oh, I gave it all away in the title. I'm interested if anyone has used the Fujinon Cabrio lenses with their internal motors connected to the 3-channel MDR of a Preston or other manufacturer. Wondering how responsive the internal motors are compared to classic outboard motors.

To paraphrase Dennis Farina's line in "Midnight Run": Barry, relax. Have a cream soda. You are aware that the Movi is not yet in production?! This test will get out there soon enough. I know the Movi guys have already been playing with this sort of thing for a while. It really doesn't take much imagination to figure out what the combination of gimbal stabilizer on top a Steadicam will look like; it would likely be quite stable. We've already seen active roll axis correction via the AR rig. The only thing I'd be curious about is whether it will introduce twitchiness or chatter into long lens work that wouldn't be there on the bare Steadicam rig. What won't show up in a typical test video is lag in reaction time with a two-man system. And while it should work to put the gimbal into one-man aka Majestic mode, the corresponding lag that involves in pan/tilt is going to be a major annoyance for one used to panning and tilting a Steadicam with immediate results. So there's a compromise involved in operating with the current modality. I won't address this directly to the trollish chap but perhaps to others who may be quietly applauding him on the sidelines (it's become something of a bloodsport for wannabes to cheer what they view as the breaking down of the walls between them and seasoned professionals--thank you RED): what may not be obvious is that a lot of people on this board have many, many hours logged of operating not just Steadicams but various kinds of remote cameras from Jimmy Jibs to Technocranes to Sparrow heads to Skycam etc. That means that they know intimately well what degree of communication is required when more than one person is responsible for moving a camera through space and operating it vs a one-man band. Every good Steadicam operator understands how to react to elements around them and make adjustments simultaneously in any and all axes (angular and spatial). Once you start splitting out those tasks, there will inevitably be a delay as corrections are made sequentially rather than simultaneously. It's the framing equivalent of finding focus on a DSLR by rotating the barrel back and forth until it looks sharp instead of hitting the mark the first time.

We've been talking about that combination of technologies since the beginning of this thread last April. Nothing new to see here.

OK, so why do you need perfect balance both static and dynamic if the Movi compensates for you? You aren't panning on the rig any more, so why do you care if it spins flat? Is there ANY purpose to having all of weight of the rig onboard except for flipping it over into low mode during a shot? Because guess what, you aren't going to need a Steadicam rig and a classic three axis gimbal for that purpose, that's a single axis pivot at best. And by the way, speaking as a DP, I have no interest in having to operate a remote head when I already have operators on the payroll, especially tying up my time having to have a continuous running dialogue telling them when to pan and tilt and walk and stop. As far as what the future brings, it's safe to say it's going to continue to be about smaller crews with everyone doing more work--the last thing I need is to fill up a valuable crew slot with an operator if I'm having to do half of their work for them. It's not efficient and it's not an improvement. The future of these rigs is, I strongly believe, NOT going to be a two-man operation. You seem to relish in telling the entire professional Steadicam community what's coming but from where I'm sitting, you aren't looking far enough forward yourself. Remember: the internet is forever, so choose your words carefully.

I'm at a loss to figure out what the benefit would be of putting a gimbal on top of a Steadicam sled anyway. From the gimbal perspective, all you need is the ability to transfer the weight of the system out of the operator's hands to reduce fatigue plus provide vertical isolation, which could be achieved by plonking the gimbal onto the end of the armpost, eliminating the sled entirely. So yes to arm and vest, but no to sled. From the Steadicam perspective, the gimbal could provide additional stabilization where helpful (roll axis being the primary benefit), but you give up the control of pan and tilt which is a huge tradeoff.

One of the things that I find very interesting about these gimbals is that at the moment, they offer much more sophisticated operating options in two-person mode even as they are being pitched as needing less rehearsal than legacy gear. We all know that Steadicam is an efficient machine because the same brain is pushing the camera through space and operating pan and tilt, and thus is able to react to actors and make spontaneous changes on the fly without having to communicate to others. It's extremely rare that one can achieve that same level of efficiency on the dolly or Technocrane without a certain amount of rehearsal and discussion and there's no reason to think otherwise about the gimbal rigs since it represents the same two-minds workflow. Once the single-operator mode becomes more responsive, it will be fascinating to see what the experienced Steadicam operators will do with it.

Exactly right. It's got nothing to do with the tool and how it works, but it does have to do with the marketing and enforced public perception. Since the first Movi video, they have been stressing how you can get through complicated shots in very few takes. Even the issues I detailed above could have been managed if the talent had been directed around in the frame to help hide the awkward transitions. As I have often said: if it had been a lesser mind than Larry who did the Goodfellas shot, it could have been a pretty boring three minutes following the back of two people's heads.

Regarding the BTS of the Burton video: Probably the most irritating thing about the hype surrounding the gimbal rigs is the repeated suggestion that making long complicated shots is "easy" and can be done with little to no rehearsal and just a few takes. What every good Steadicam operator learns the hard way is that it takes a certain amount of time and mental energy to work through the details of a long one'r and only a percentage of that has to do with the physical aspect of operating the shot. The Movi may (arguably) simplify some of the operating challenges but nothing about designing a long shot has magically become easier. Case in point is the window fly-through in this video. Critically, there are issues throughout with the operating--the gent in the hardhat has his feet cut off as he enters the room, the framing in the roundy-round is Ok at times but not all the way through, but the real problem comes towards the end where the operator drops down to hand the rig off above his head. At that point, the lens arbitrarily drops with the operator, giving us a fine view of the actor's hindquarters, and then as it pulls back through the window the framing on the group is way off. To make things worse, the two Litepanels mounted up in the ceiling are clearly visible, due to too much headroom in the shot. None of that is unsurprising for a third take of a shot this complex--but what is rankling is that the production apparently moved on, and the V/O explains "after we nailed down the window drive-thru move... (etc)". Seemed hardly "nailed down" to me, with all of the framing issues. Wouldn't be acceptable on a Steadicam shot, why should it be OK on a Movi shot. I posted about this on the comment section of the Vimeo clip and it was removed--apparently constructive criticism is not appreciated there.

Looking for an Oppenheimer handle and O'Connor/Sachtler panhandle mount for the original square-sided Microforce, you know the one. Just in case anyone has one, have upgraded their Microforce to digital and no longer need. Shot in the dark.

Referring back to Jen's original post, I watched a demo film of the new Master Anamorphics recently. They are quite lovely, but given their clean and immaculate nature they do of course eliminate some of the beloved old-school anamorphic artifacts, so it remains to be seen how well they will be embraced (especially at what will surely be an eye-popping rental rate). Should be fun for AC's, working at a T1.9 anamorphic?!

So far it does seem cost-prohibitive but it looks like there is movement towards reducing things, making it less hardware intensive. It may take a couple more years, I suppose.

I find myself in the business more and more of subrenting as well as carrying a large inventory of gear onto jobs that is almost all out of my daily control, and inevitably bits and pieces disappear over time (because doing exhaustive check in and outs is difficult). I'm starting to look into an RFID system of labels and reader, hopefully iPhone based, as it will save time and do a more thorough job. Has anyone implemented this with their own gear?

Here's our man Nick Franco hiding behind the Modern shakey-cam setup. I'll leave it to him and/or Denis to detail the hands-on experience, but the director and I are quite happy with the results (and it has relieved Nick and Denis from having to shoulder through many endless takes, so I would think they are fans too). One of the things that is pretty cool is that unlike true handheld where the longer the lens, the more amplified the wobble, it is possible to get a very similar look from two vastly different focal lengths between the cameras. It does seem like a welcome feature would be an instant lock that would rigidify the platform for leaving it unattended, AC doing work on the camera etc. Our guys fashioned a wooden block that slides in between the springs to achieve this. I would love to see a comparative lineup of all available versions of this tech. Hey look, ANOTHER shootout that we'll never get around to.

We've been using the Modern Studio shakey cam on my show, the ops seem to like it and the footage looks believably handheld: http://www.modernstudio.com/cameramounts.html

I keep forgetting to take pictures but I have a great transmitter and director's monitor package for sale. Dynawave, plug and play functionality of the Modulus and cable compatibility but more modern design, comes in a package with the Camos handheld director's monitor with handles, plus batteries. Check the Cramped Attic site for pictures of both units. If anyone is interested, let me know.

I have the Duclos cinemod gears for my Zeiss ZE's and they are top notch. Also use the Half Inch Rails ziptie gears with great success and they are extremely reasonable.

If of interest to anyone here... http://www.charlespapert.net/gearsale/vests.html

as seen in Ted's "Day in the Life" video...!

Ryan, funny story: when I was 19 back in the mid-80's, I worked on a TV movie in Boston. I was a PA and assigned to help Lori out (she did craft service back then). I haven't seen her since! One day our paths will cross in LA... Coincidentally, one of the other young PA's on that show heard me talking endlessly about Steadicam and ended up becoming a Steadicam operator also--none other than Gerry O'Malley!

Was just thinking about this the other day for the umpteenth time--"why don't we have dummy battery adaptors for the F/I", probably asked Howard about this five years ago. Will contact David about it. Thanks Frederic.

Anything is possible--a lot of shows have two cameras full-time anyway, so it's not necessarily about a shortage of personnel. In some ways I think the carrying-of-camera job is similar to a dolly grip, although there are still differences in the mechanics and nuance. A lot of this comes down to the application. It's a lot like the early days of Steadicam where it was initially perceived as a "stunt" camera. Sprinting around and tossing the camera through windows is a lot different than executing a multi-point move around actors, where the act of placing the lens requires anticipation and experience. Take a simple over the shoulder shot; a solid Steadicam operator can intuitively maintain just the right perspective between actors as they shift and lean. A great dolly grip can do the same thing. Most operators have felt the frustration of having a less-than-great dolly grip who doesn't compensate properly (and will likely opt for a slider, which returns the subtle framing control to the operator). But I think we agree that there are situations that a two-man setup will work better. I think that for this to be a truly useful tool, it needs to have controls at the head with the same degree of delicacy as the remote controls.

ummm....cheers, Flemmie! ;)