Charles Papert

So now Steadicam operators are supposed to pull their own focus with S35 sensors? Can anyone imagine that ever happening on a 35mm shoot? Oh boy.

I was ruminating on exactly these thoughts tonight driving home. We have long judged great Steadicam as being a combination of the mechanical mastery of the device (how level is the horizon, how invisible are the footsteps, how much does it look like a dolly) plus the artistry of where one places the lens at any given moment. In many ways, the two aspects are mutually exclusive: learning how to control the inertia of the rig has nothing really to do with shot design. We are rapidly closing on a time where one way or another (be it post stabilization, rigs evolved from the Movi or real-time internal stabilization at the chip level) the achievement of precise axial stabilization will be an automatic function, not based on operator skill. Look at Mike Heathcote's recent music video; so many expressed insistence that post-stabilization was in effect even after it was indicated that other than a little in a specific spot early on, it was all Mike. The part that will not be affected by technology (at least not in a way that can I imagine) is the second half, the placement of the lens in space. It's truly grating, Joshua, to suggest that anybody can run around with a device like the Movi and it doesn't matter. A great operator will calculate exactly where the camera should be at any time and know exactly when and how to get it there. When to boom, when to slide this way and that, when and how to accelerate, how to make an elegant little buttonhook rather than standing like a tree and relying on the pan to tell the story. There's so much nuance to it. Andreas is right that an experienced Steadicam operator will do a far better job of it than most people on set. I'd bet a great dolly grip would also be a good choice. I will be very surprised if the future generations of this system continue to be a two-man operation. Putting this on a Steadicam arm will free up the operator to control the system via onboard controls, be they joystick, paddles or force-sensitive handles and that's really what will make the most sense. Of course there are various technical hurdles to be achieved before all this works well enough to give a solid Steadicam operator a run for his money, but it does seem like GB's long anticipated theory that Steadicam will be replaced by a black box with a blinking light on it is getting closer to reality.

Just as the 5D promoted an entire generation to shoot at absurdly shallow f-stops and hunt for focus, I'm sure Youtube and Vimeo will soon be swarmed with a plethora of badly designed, poorly framed, endlessly long, gimmicky tracking shots. Yay!

I think this technology (or a variation on it) can lend itself to solving a lot more than "how can we get Steadicam-like shots without the learning curve" and "how can we pass a camera through a hoop" (the latter literally and figuratively). Having an inexpensive three axis stabilized head that lives on the truck is a pretty powerful concept. I'm thinking of not having to lay dance floor for a dolly move, or vehicle mounts (anyone who has shot a long lens single from camera car to picture car on process trailer knows how dodgy that can be, vibration wise) to avoiding judder on a Technocrane--basically, a Scorpio/Libra/Stab-C etc. without the budgetary hit. I was talking to one company a few years ago that had shown a concept of an encoded motorized head that was roughly the shape and footprint of a fluid head. I talked to them at length about incorporating a set of wheels so that you could operate it locally to recreate the geared head experience, except with 90 degree tilt in both directions like a 2575, and also remove the gears and operate remotely within seconds. That particular company turned out to be most skilled at hype since that and several other of their products remain vaporware, but moving forward from that concept, now add the notion of three axis stabilization. I'm not suggesting that the Movi is the be-all and end-all but think ahead a generation or two. Even the time-hit of having to rebalance when you change a lens or add an accessory could be solved by a self-leveling system. And how about this: since the handheld look seems to be a long running trend, and who hasn't had to recreate that look on a dolly by "worrying" the frame (and/or putting the camera on a bag or a squishy head or whatever else); having a variety of handheld simulations built into the software, so that you can dial one in to your liking and let the head itself make it look all shaky/indie/immediate/real/organic blah blah blah while you sit comfortably operating the shot on the dolly, or remotely from a nearby plush chair. The irony would be that it is doing exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do, but who cares? It's the future, it's our robot and we are its master (at least until Skynet comes on line, and the head will turn around and destroy everyone on set). Just spitballin'.

No he had a clockwork to counterbalance the film shift in the vistavision mags My recollection from the AC article was that it was a servo cage that allowed for remote operation of the roll axis to bank the camera when it took a turn.

Perhaps instead of a suspender/Easy rig arrangement, something like the three section arm that was demoed with the Exovest would be a good fit for this. As much boom range as ones arms can manage should cover a lot of shots, and then you can just go to the handheld version for ones that don't. I think this would be imperative to allow a self-operated version to be successful, as it would be too challenging to be able to make the minute controlled movements required while holding all that up in front of you. I've believed for a while that the future was automatic axial stabilization right in the camera via processing (something along the lines of OIS, or real-time Smoothcam) but the spatial stabilization would still require help via a Steadicam-style arm. This rig proves that it's not imperative, but in real-life applications, with a longer shot than the ones seen here it would benefit from a little assistance.

closer look at the hardware

Actually, for once I disagree--the pure entertainment value of this thread can't be underestimated. This isn't one of those instances where a humble newbie needs protection; here, the new guy came in to tell everyone else what they do and don't know. He seems perfectly happy to put his head in the lion's mouth and like a bloodthirsty attendee at the Coliseum, I'm just sitting here munching on my wolf nipple chips and otter's noses and enjoying the spectacle. Oh, and pass the rectified wine.

Nice looking setup but the sort of hilarious part is what is displayed on the monitor screen...

Actually, L'Aigle has been around for a while. I tried their systems a few times at NAB 5 years ago or more. The arm performs surprisingly well. Isolation and smoothness were quite decent. It's "easy" to make fun of, but these guys were at the very least thinking outside the box, not just making a knockoff; and while the effort involved in loading and unloading the bands is an obvious buzzkill, the arms were the smoothest running and most linear performing for the small stabilizer market outside of the Tiffen rigs.

Tricky part with this sort of query is, as I have said before, that specific conditions are the wild card. Unless units are tested over the same conditions one after another (not simultaneously as interference can affect the outcome), across multiple environments, it's a tough call. I'm sure this thread will invite plenty of enthusiastic responses like "I bought the X and it's been great" but that's not the answer to this specific question. One thing I can suggest is that the particular design of the Boxx system to introduce noise into the image before it loses it, and to regain signal quickly after it is lost, is a definite improvement over most of the competitors I've seen, where they will more suddenly blank out without warning and take longer to re-link. One of these days we'll get that head-to-head test going...Baldwin, when you back in town?!

The SmallHD guys are very cool, working very hard and open to all suggestions. I've been talking to them for a couple of years and they are interested in the Steadicam market, took notes from me and others when the high brightness monitor was first proposed and I see quite a few incorporated. I know the Cinetronic is considered the gold standard for Steadicam flat screens but there's always room for other options, especially more inexpensive ones as backup, second rig, smaller/cheaper rigs etc. And the recording function built in is something that has been dreamed of for quite a while (10 years? GPI?).

Yup, that's the one Job. The best part being that as you described at the time, the ending with the guy putting his hand up and your zoom-out/push-in/down on one knee final frame was all unplanned. I would think that having the ability to be a bit more spontaneous than typical narrative-type shooting, plus the adrenaline rush of live shooting is a major draw for this kind of work. Dom's running shot is just so ballsy (flying through that door at that speed...not catching his shoulder which is so easy to do with a wide lens in Don Juan...and did anyone notice there's a massive cable crossover just after the entrance to the studio?). I think it's just amazing that shots like this and the Segway jump-off are considered acceptable risk for a big live broadcast these days. OUTSIDE of the operating, and to throw poor Scott a bone--the Boxx clearly worked out well in this situation. Scott, I'm assuming the big broadcast antennae array? Do you know where it was located, at a halfway point or in the studio?

Haha Chris, you must be related to Robin Hood with that giveaway mentality! Well since we are on the subject: I've got the same two brackets but maybe someone wants to pay a token sum for them??!

That was exhilarating! Just when I was thinking "yeah so?" that running section came along to blow my mind. Feels like we are seeing a lot of ballsy work out of the broadcast sector these days, from the Eurovision Segway jump-off to Job's great 360 shot a few months back and now this. I'm guessing there may be some people who have never seen the original that this routine was based on--since it's one of my all-time favorite videos, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1qzIggZnA. Spike Jonze and his fictional "Torrance Community Dance Group" perform an impossibly silly dance routine to an unsuspecting crowd outside a Westwood movie theater, all shot on consumer cameras (a real novelty for an official music video back in '98). Anyway--great job, Dom!

got some Dionic 90's

Ha, I guess not too much or I wouldn't have posted it! I actually got very lucky on the face--medic pelted me with ice and Advils and it barely swelled. I was a little brain-dead for the next 24 hours though. About a year later I did another shoot at this location (Avenue Six stages in LA) and coming face to face with my old enemy, couldn't resist recreating the moment...

On one particular sketch for Key & Peele, director Peter Atencio wanted to do the "Snorricam" aka Doggicam routine of attaching the camera to our man Keegan Michael-Key to point back at his face, and he wanted to use the same camera (F3) that we shot the rest of the sketch on rather than a GoPro etc. No problem, until his next request: "can the camera fly at the actor so we see him head to toe, and then basically attach itself to him?" I spent a while pondering this. Had a chat with the good folks at Doggicam and they suggested an electromagnetic rig they had built for another purpose, where the camera would be walked in handheld and essentially deposited on a platform built out from the actor, then the switch thrown to lock it in place via electromagnet. I was a little dubious at how that would affect the sensor, plus I had visions of all of the metal objects in the set unmooring and hurtling towards Keegan (a la the Bugs Bunny cartoon) but most importantly, the rental would cost $1000 plus the digital post work to remove the harness assembly, and we didn't have the budget. So I started thinking about a super-lightweight rig that could be flown up to Keegan and have him bring his hands up to receive it out of frame, then have him pilot it around. I still had my Nimblecam at that point and stripped it down to the bare essentials and we did a test that proved it could work, if he timed bringing his arms up just right. Nick Franco manned the awkward little rig and Keegan dead-armed that sucker through 12 or so takes (as light as it was, it still wasn't THAT light) and it worked out great! So here you can see how it ended up in the edit. Unfortunately it jump cuts around so the impact of having it all happen in one take is somewhat diminished. Then there's a behind the scenes clip of how we did it, and finally an easter egg that has become something of a legendary moment on Key & Peele; we are no stranger to the "keep the camera rolling" philosophy that permeates nearly every set and so between takes I came zipping in to check on a hot spot in the background, so intent that I didn't notice the glass wall in my way. Slammed into it face first. Editorial gave me the clip with a little audio sweetening at the moment of impact. People three rooms away said the walls shook. Good times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH4MKxey_rQ&feature=youtu.be Here's the complete sketch: https://vimeo.com/54162833

Hey there suckahs: I recently added the Alura 15.5-45 and 30-80 lightweight zooms to my collection, they join the two studio Aluras. These are comparable in weight and range to the Optimos and are beautiful optically. They color match the studio Aluras of course, as well as other Arri lenses like the Master Primes and can be used on film and HD cameras alike, including 4K and above cameras. I do rent (and subrent) all four lenses so please keep in mind if you have need.

Touched base with the director and he said that there was a very minimal amount (less than 1%) of Smoothcam used for the push-in early in the video and then none thereafter, which as far as I'm concerned is so inconsequential as to put this debate to rest. So now let's all give Mike the props that he deserves for a magnificent operating job!

I read Ron's response three times and I can't find any reference to boozing, strippers or offroad vehicles. Thus I have to assume his account has been hacked. Moderators, please note.

So just to clarify--Chris, Eric, you guys looking for complete F/I units (i.e. handunit, receiver, motor, all the cables and bits)--in other words, a complete single channel Preston system? Or just the hand unit? I assume the latter but just want to make sure...

I'm on the hunt to completely overhaul my website, but in the meantime I was able to port my iWeb site over to Godaddy (where I already owned several domains). They walked me through publishing directly to the domain, it wasn't too terrible. While I am very itchy to update the functionality and look of my site, it was helpful to keep things status quo after MobileMe went down.

For those who haven't seen or heard much about it--Peter's system is impressive. The speed his motor turns a lens is quite astonishing.