My first paid Steadicam shoot

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

Mark,

 

OK, I'll confess that I had not looked at your footage (way behind on posts) until I just read all the hoopla so maybe a little fiery isn't so bad. Charles, as usual, makes great observations. My own; congratulations on a successful first gig. The pan in question? Not a whip pan, but it was the appropriate speed for the shot. On that note, I certainly would have worked the pan into my foot work rather than the gimbal.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

I need to ask you, Eric, exactly what do you mean by this comment?

 

Because without some clarification it comes across as condescending and sarcastic and completely uncalled-for.

 

as for the rest of your description, well yeah, umm....

 

 

What exactly do I mean?

 

That the shot presented doesn't exactly match the description given of how you executed it

 

Not a body pan. All on the gimbal. Walking backwards in missionary, booming up slightly as talent walks into the closeup, spin the gimbal 90 degrees to follow talent around the corner, stop on my left foot, kiss off the pan to precisely frame the two-shot, step forward on my right foot to get start walking in missionary again, start panning left again to follow the action, etc.

 

I'm going to have to disagree on the "precisely framed two shot" and the rest of the description of your move is as Charles pointed out.

 

It's a nice first gig, but it's by no means a "Precise" spot.

 

That's exactly what I mean

[Mark Schlicher]

Thanks, Charles. I've always enjoyed "pan up." I have a client that often asks to rent my "HMI's" when he means my Kino Flos. Not a whip pan. Copy that. :-)

 

As far as the reason I executed the pan that way, there were a few factors. There was limited space behind and to my right as I made the turn (another cube wall). I wanted to land the sled in a particular spot to frame the row of cubes without seeing too much of the partition walls on the right, before pushing forward into the first two-shot, so I was tucked up pretty tight. I found that I could park the sled and pan on the gimbal in a controlled way at roughly the moment I was making the turn/switch from backing up to moving forward. The first 90 degrees or so of the pan was thus on the gimbal. I found I was able to slip my hand at just the right speed to follow the talent, kiss it off at about 90 degrees (straight on down the row) and pretty seamlessly finish the move with a body pan as I began to walk forward.

 

To further describe, my movement was kind of kind of like a "y-turn" backing out of a parking space. As I walked backward, I started curving my steps (not the rig) to my right, pulling the sled slightly past me to my left as I kept her framed. I more-or-less "parked" the sled momentarily in space as I panned on the gimbal to follow her and reveal the wide shot. At roughly that same moment I planted my back foot (my left, I think), and then immediately stepped forward. I trailed her to let her walk into a medium two-shot, as I body-panned to pan the last 30 degrees or so. So yes, I landed rotated to the left (but probably not all the way to the left...) But I had floated the rig past me so it was already in good position when I completed my switch. Was that technically a switch? I'm pretty sure it was, but I hesitate to label it so...

 

I'm sure that there are other ways to do it that I have yet to learn, and I look forward to adding to my skillset and confidence. But it felt balanced, fluid, comfortable and controllable to me at the time, and I was able to keep good posture. Just like dancing. And (except for the bad horizon) it gave me just exactly the framing I wanted.

 

Thanks for your helpful critiques. Much appreciated!

 

 

Trying to unravel your description of the physicality you used, it sounds like you landed with your body rotated to the left, then panned on the gimbal and pulled the rig around the side of your body before pushing off again, which seems comparatively awkward. Even worse would be panning on the gimbal while still facing in the original direction, which requires pushing the rig away from the body then having to race around it before moving in the new direction. I checked your avatar to see if you were goofy-foot (apparently you aren't) as that would make a bit more sense--the rig doesn't have to cross the body with that configuration.

 

Long response here. I'm sitting in a hotel room, bags packed and waiting out the hours until the wrap party, so plenty of time to noodle on the computer...!

[Mark Schlicher]

Again, my request is that if you have something to say, say it plainly. If something is unclear to you, ask. But I request that you do it with civility and courtesy and avoid the sarcasm.

 

"Precisely" was a description of my _intention_, not necessarily what I achieved. My original post clearly states that that I'm well aware that I didn't anywhere-near nail the 2-shot. Sorry that you misunderstood. If you are interested, I describe my move in more detail in my reply to Charles.

 

But thanks for the clarification.

 

 

I need to ask you, Eric, exactly what do you mean by this comment?

 

Because without some clarification it comes across as condescending and sarcastic and completely uncalled-for.

 

as for the rest of your description, well yeah, umm....

 

 

What exactly do I mean?

 

That the shot presented doesn't exactly match the description given of how you executed it

 

Not a body pan. All on the gimbal. Walking backwards in missionary, booming up slightly as talent walks into the closeup, spin the gimbal 90 degrees to follow talent around the corner, stop on my left foot, kiss off the pan to precisely frame the two-shot, step forward on my right foot to get start walking in missionary again, start panning left again to follow the action, etc.

 

I'm going to have to disagree on the "precisely framed two shot" and the rest of the description of your move is as Charles pointed out.

 

It's a nice first gig, but it's by no means a "Precise" spot.

 

That's exactly what I mean

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Again, my request is that if you have something to say, say it plainly. If something is unclear to you, ask. But I request that you do it with civility and courtesy and avoid the sarcasm.

 

"Precisely" was a description of my _intention_, not necessarily what I achieved. My original post clearly states that that I'm well aware that I didn't anywhere-near nail the 2-shot. Sorry that you misunderstood. If you are interested, I describe my move in more detail in my reply to Charles.

 

But thanks for the clarification.

 

 

I did state it plainly, what you said was perfectly clear to me.

 

You didn't describe your intentions you made the same statement several times in this thread, you described what you believed that you did in the shot.

 

This is my best take overall, though there are some moments I liked better in other takes. A bit too much headroom in the beginning, and I lost my horizon a little in the whip pan around the corner. Lots of vertical and horizontal lines in the frame so it was pretty unforgiving! The lockoff at the end has more float than I'd like, too. But...client loves it, so "mission accomplished", and on to the next shoot!

 

Where do you say that you didn't nail your "Precisely framed two shot"

 

I could address your lack of civility and courtesy when you attempted to explain how a pan was a whip pan when said pan has nothing in common with a whip pan. you bring up your 20 years of production experience to back up your argument... I could bring up the fact that I've been involved with the Nobel Instrument since 1980 (29 years) or that steadicam is how I make my living.

 

But hey, you seem to know better

 

Good Luck and congrats on the first gig

[Mark Schlicher]

PM'd.

 

I think I'll let what I've already said in this thread stand.

 

Peace.

[Matteo Quagliano]

Hi Mark,

 

I won't jump in the semantic argument... What I can suggest is to be open to critics and even strong critics, expecially if you post your stuff here... I did it and still do it but I understand that when (and happens very seldom) someone post shots here are almost always incredible stuff, done in beautiful way... So us newcomers need the humility to accept every words, even the hard ones. I said that because it occurs to me to get burned with some comments on my first shots posted and I think it's a good suggestion even for a professional of the industry (I've been operating the camera for 9 years before SC).

 

don't get me wrong,

 

mq

[JobScholtze]

Hi Mark,

 

I won't jump in the semantic argument... What I can suggest is to be open to critics and even strong critics, expecially if you post your stuff here... I did it and still do it but I understand that when (and happens very seldom) someone post shots here are almost always incredible stuff, done in beautiful way... So us newcomers need the humility to accept every words, even the hard ones. I said that because it occurs to me to get burned with some comments on my first shots posted and I think it's a good suggestion even for a professional of the industry (I've been operating the camera for 9 years before SC).

 

don't get me wrong,

 

mq

;) :lol: