Charles Papert

As a heretical counterpoint: while there are definite aspects of the filmmaking process that have been lost along the way in the transition to digital, I think it can be a little easy to get misty-eyed about the whole thing and forget the drawbacks that were simply accepted due to lack of alternative when most of us got into this game. It's certainly true that HD has "democratized" the responsibility process on set; we've moved from the conventional operator being the only person who saw the "real" image through the eyepiece to everyone BUT the operator experiencing it via large, crisp monitors (and the poor operator getting a half-assed version of it in a questionable video finder). But in the case of Steadicam, it can't be argued that there is far more information available to the operator visually than any film camera ever provided (outside of that fiber optic video tap that CP developed--forgot what it was called...?). And the cameras are only getting lighter, outside of 3D setups. Film displacement with certain cameras, heavy power draws in the cold, torque issues with long throat mags, size and bulk (ever have to slide sideways through a door frame and wish you could remove the mag to make it easier?)...film wasn't perfect. And it was only in the past 15 years or so that the cameras got really dialed in for ideal Steadicam work. Easy to get nostalgic for a LWII or XL or Arricam LT--not quite as likely with a BL or Gold conversion or 535B. On the shooting side, the quantifiable handicaps of HD have been on a steady decline as the resolution, latitude and sensitivity continues to improve. We are at the point where HD is matching or beating film in many regards. As we wax nostalgic for the look and texture of film grain, let's remember that that grain was not always desirable for every situation. Consider that it was a standard convention that night exteriors would require high speed primes, which encouraged focus issues and forced a shallow depth of field. Hard for any newcomer to the field wielding a 5D and f1.2 lens to comprehend that that might not be ideal, but having one eye in and one out of focus used to not necessarily be a good look. With ISO's stretching into the four and even five digits, it's possible to work at much more genteel stops if desired under light levels that are beyond the capability of even today's film stocks. I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain degree. There are indeed things I miss greatly about film as well. Certainly there has been a devolution with the working practices on set as Ron indicated (I think we both have a particular TV director in mind who abuses the long roll to an epic level, no pun intended) but I can't help but wonder how much of this is actually dictated by the ever-diminishing budgets and increased pressure that seems to pervade every set these days. The dirtiest trick is when the rehearsal turns into "let's just roll on it" and then the roll continues for multiple takes, meaning no-one has any opportunity to make adjustments based on what first team is actually doing and it all becomes an exercise in compromise and mediocrity. I realized how far this has all come recently when working recently with a director who has never shot digitally; he called cut after every take, including partials where there was an issue. It actually felt jarring as I've become so used to just plowing right through it. Strange how quickly that has taken effect. I don't miss sitting through projected dailies after a long day or sleuthing whether the scratches came from the camera or the lab or having to burn through short ends and hoping they don't roll out early etc. etc. For each of those issues, there's a corresponding potential issue with HD (I've had two projects in the past six months that have had lost data/corrupted files occur--very discouraging). Who doesn't miss the simplicity and speed of the physical camera setup of a film camera? But again, we are in the earlier stages of all this, so it's only fair to compare the status quo with an earlier period of film cameras, where the taps were mammoth and sucky and the viewfinders not so bright and sharp and high speed stock always represented a tradeoff (grain was often as much a dirty word as not). Ultimately, it's all about what ends up on the TV or theater screen (or these days, iPad or laptop) and while there will always be those that champion the look of film, it's tough to argue that we are getting awfully close to recreating that with the new technology. Certainly the "unwashed masses" can't tell the difference any more, and I think even quite a few industry people would be hard pressed to identify one over the other in a blind testing.

Spencer: Here is the link to the manual for the Decimator which includes the dipswitch schematic. Yes, generally all are in the OFF position for most Steadicam users. http://decimator.com/specs/DECIMATOR2_SETTINGS.pdf It does recognize SD signals, but only SD-SDI, not composite video. Unless you happen to own an HD-SDI source, you won't be likely to be able to test at home.

Also known as: Ron Baldwin's hotel room the morning after New Year's Eve.

Am I the only one who finds this thread more than a little surreal?

[cough splutter] I didn't make that--I was just the poor unwitting subject! I knew the guys were screwing around with the GoPro but the first time I saw the footage it was on Vincent Laforet's blog. Anyway, that sort of thing has been around since the lipstick cams. There's a great piece from the German (or was it Swiss?) Steadicam doc from the mid-90's, where the operator is backing up stairs with the camera mounted on the monitor looking back. Much more interesting to watch than me taking five stupid steps straight forward. The fun part is seeing how the operator sneaks looks at the monitor in and around the gimbal as he maneuvers. Wish that was online somewhere. Anyway--Pedro, I watched the video you linked to but I do have to say, for me the much more interesting perspective on a Segway stepoff is from alongside, where you see the operator's whole body and the Segway as one, and can really get the transition. The shot with the POV cam mounted to the Segway pointing straight ahead--it just looks like a crappy version of the Steadicam shot you were doing. Doesn't give a sense of transition. I would think it would be much more interesting if it was cantilevered way back behind the Segway, almost looking like it was following it, and at a certain point the operator steps forward and away and we stay with the Segway, of course. Along those lines, it would be fun to have it mounted way out in front and see the perspective looking back at the camera and lens with the operator behind, as you do side switches and whatnot. The move going through tight doorways and turning corners where the rig gets extended way out in front and the operator has to peel around the corner behind it, that would be great to see from that perspective. Nothing to do with Segway, mind you.

I love you Aussies. I will say this: I am concerned for all of you guys who are doing the Segway thing. The combination of that much speed with the operator's attention being more dialed in to the monitor than on driving--just seems like the possibility for the unknown to throw a spanner into the works is always going to be there. It's great that Joe was able to walk away with a smile on his face, but sooner or later someone's not going to be as lucky.

I will throw in my two pfennigs on the p-tap splitter solution as I own four of them and have seen several of the ports go bad on them. They can be tempermental. I would perhaps recommend a sled to female p-tap cable that you can then plug in a standard four-way p-tap splitter rather than modify the four-way; down the road it will likely save you some money as you only have to replace the stock component rather than buy a new one and then have it modified as well. Adds a bit of bulk to the setup though.

Well, if you were to make the transition it wouldn't be unprecedented... http://imdb.com/name/nm0399804/

Too bad about the original video going down, over the holidays I might have been inspired to dub some new audio in there--would have been a hard act to follow though. Maybe a "response" to the slurs against India from our friend the Glidecam op?! Nearly lost my voice doing that guy the first time...

If anyone might just be interested in the motor, I'm interested in the Microforce.

A few years back I divested from my Modulus and got a Dynawave (dynawave.ca) which had plug and play compatibility. It's the same size, has digital vs rotary tuning, doesn't get hot and has had no issues yet. Worth looking into.

I have new Decimator 2's in stock. Give me a call: 323-350-8822

Certain things are worth "finding a way" (taking a loan, etc). When it comes down to it, the two most important components of a rig are the gimbal and arm, because they directly affect the operating results. The sled has to be rigid and the vest has to be comfortable, but the arm and gimbal are the real key. It's best to consider them long-term investments. How many years does one intend to remain a Steadicam operator? Once you find the right gimbal and arm, you will NEVER need to upgrade again. The earlier in your career you do so, the better you will be as an operator, and that difference just might win (or keep you on) the job that will pay for the difference in cost in short time. The PRO arm was the one single component of my rig that I had a bit of sentimental attachment to when I sold. It was from the first run of 50 and while it came with a lifetime update policy, there was only one update that I can recall. Before the sale Jack cleaned it and went through it and said that it performed identically to the new ones they were assembling, and that after fourteen years of hard use. I was expecting to have to spend some money bringing it up to spec but it just cost a couple hunny for the cleaning. Insane. I don't recall reading a single negative comment about the functionality of the PRO arm on this forum, which probably can't be said about any other model of arm out there. I've also never heard of an operator switching from a PRO arm to any other brand (it may have happened but I've never heard of it, and I've certainly heard of many examples the other way around). There are lighter arms and there are arms with more features such as tool-free, but when it comes to supporting the camera as invisibly to the operator as possible and being reliable to a fault, the PRO arm is the one.

Pretty cool and the guy is clearly an athelete--but I'm sensing post stabilization in use. in the lockoff at :43 you can see some warping in the image.

Good for you Alan. Look forward to seeing the work you are doing with the Zephyr!

What is the issue causing the quick release to have to be mounted to the right side? Is it access to the tiedown lever on the Manfrotto? If so, a simple riser plate between the Pilot dovetail and the Manfrotto base would fix that--you just need enough height to be able to rotate the lock a quarter turn or so, which might be as little as a 1/4" plate. Passthrough holes for the mounting screws--would be an easy homebuilt project.

Old thread, but it popped up in Google after I was searching for something else. The original link is gone but it's viewable , around the 1:29 mark. As noted earlier, my form seen here is embarrassingly closer to a guy trying on the rig for the first time at a trade show than seasoned operator, but I think it's worth taking the bullet again to remind any and all of the dangers of high-speed work with the rig, especially when the terrain hasn't been spotted first. I'm thinking of that clip of the guy running and shooting sideways and fully pancaking over the curb, and the football field one that was just posted. With more and more newbies getting into the rig especially without the benefit of a workshop, there will be more injuries of this type and eventually someone is going to really jack themselves up. No need to mention names but there have been some major operators who have been forced to retire early because of injuries relating to falls (I opted to get out before that happened to me).

Thanks for the update, Steve! The first time I met Bob was when I was living in Western Mass and had a model 1--he was in town visiting family and we compared mods. Sometimes I think wistfully of what it would be like to make a life back there again like he has...lovely part of the world. Will have to remember to look him up next time I'm there.

Anyone got any old Hedens sitting around that they want to sell? Just bought some zooms and need to equip them. With or without idler gear, in good working condition. Need two.

...and you reeked havoc with it. see what I did?

Ron: that setup you illustrated wasn't mine--that's Trevor Meek's rig which was the B-camera on the job, with some extra bits and pieces. James: thanks to the Preston HU3, working with the Zeiss ZE's is identical in functionality to the CP2's--as far as the AC is concerned, the throw of the lens and accuracy is the same (as is the optical quality) and the lenses can be programmed into the hand unit just like any cine lens. The only difference is in the ability to pull iris on the CP2's vs the in-camera iris adjustment with the ZE's. I considered the ZF's which have an iris ring that can be de-clicked but I didn't care for the thought of having to use a lens mount adaptor.

Huh, it's interesting to see that old picture James--two years ago and things have changed so much since then. That was my first go-round on the DSLR's. My philosophy was and is (not much longer--heading fast towards an F3) to build out the system so that it is optimized for all modes; studio, handheld and Steadicam with a minimal amount of changeover time. This means flying the focus system onboard, which gives the AC a much better chance with the expanded rotation of the knob vs the short throw of still lenses, plus the opportunity to use an outboard monitor to assist with focus. I hate HDMI so I use a Blackmagic to convert the signal to HD-SDI, which makes all of the various monitor connections more secure. With the expanded capability of discrete rods fore and aft via a custom baseplate, lengthening the fore rods to accommodate longer lenses doesn't affect the rear components. Switching from studio mode to handheld just means adding handgrips to the front and a velcro pad to the baseplate. Remove the monitor, and you are in Steadicam mode (I keep the dovetail on the base and use a homemade catgriller on the head to avoid plate switches). The setup as seen below looks sort of massive but really, it's most like a Super16 setup in size and weight, so it flies nice and inertly but still lightweight enough to "make sense". I always flew it like this but other ops I've been using like to add 10 or 15 lbs or so via weight plate to make it beef up. What I like about this setup is that it creates a standard mass out of the DSLR while giving it the capabilities of a "real" camera, without extra fluff. Everything onboard is there to make it work better and more efficiently. All components including camera are powered off the rear battery.

As do I, although I sell Terry West's version which uses a much more "Steadicam-esque" cable--more slender and flexible than the zipcord used in with the stock cable that Abel and others sell. However, it costs twice as much.

The Decimator is not truly unique, but it is a solid little downconverter at a reasonable price. When it first emerged a few years ago, the industry standard downconverters were at or over $1000 and few individual operators owned them. The original Decimator debuted at $435 (has since been raised to $495) which made it attractive to own. The 2nd generation version added HDMI output which is not generally a big Steadicam requirement, but it does allow for the use of low cost monitoring solutions on or off the rig (I have supplied my guest room 42" LCD as a client monitor with a Decimator2 converting the HD-SDI feed to HDMI; paid off the purchase price of the TV in two weeks!). Also the latest firmware includes scaling, audio metering and framelines/center marker options. Again, not all features may be Steadicam-related and some are just on the HDMI output, but still handy. For your purposes, any HD camera that doesn't include a built-in downconverter will require a Decimator or something like it to deliver an image to your monitor and any outboard SD monitor. My advice is to get it with a p-tap cable so you can power from the camera battery when in use, plus you may want to get a cable made from your top stage to either female p-tap or the 4-way p-tap splitter box (or wire one in directly to the sled).

that weave is indeed ridiculous--you can see it on the sides of the frame, pulsing in and out. They weren't doing you any favors with that.