Ultra2 vs Pro GPI vs XCS2

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

I've read everyone's comments several times on this thread, and am still trying to digest all of the information. What I'm finding interesting is this preference of really trying to keep the sled as short as possible, and that the XCS is more suitable for it, given it's placement of 3 batteries on the bottom, lack of integrated superpost, lack of motorized stage, and lack of a tilting stage. This allows the camera to be closer to the gimbal and still maintain dynamic balance and a proper drop time. In defense of the U2, they showed me that it's actually quite easy to mount more weight on the bottom, directly beneath the post. However I can see the advantage of having a dedicated 3rd battery down there as it certainly improves the power situation, especially if the camera/accessories can draw from all 3 batteries at once (this is correct, right?). The U2 seems almost as good in this regard as it's able to draw from 2 batteries at the same time as well with a little easy rewiring.

 

The XCS seems quite appealing in a lot of regards, but there are still 2 issues that I'd like resolved. First is the lack of a tilting stage. Because the stage doesn't tilt, this means that in super low/high mode the camera cannot be dynamically balanced due to the fact that once the camera is trimmed to the upward or downward facing angle, the post is no longer perpendicular to the ground and gravity, and therefore whip or fast pans will be off. In real world situations, is this problematic? Do you find yourself fighting to hold horizon when the camera is so heavily trimmed upwards or downwards?

 

The other issue is that of lens height. As I've stated, I'm 5'7". If I need to shoot someone who is 6'5", will the XCS have enough extendable post length to accomplish this? The U2, with it's 4 stage post, seems to excel here as there's tons of post to provide the proper counter balance when the camera is so far above the gimbal. How is the XCS in this regard with it's 2 stage post?

 

 

Okay first off there is a ton of misinformation on the XCS. I love that the U2 has a weight kit in order to "Shorten" the center post Why carry lead when you can carry power, there is so much above the gimbal weight on the Ultra that it makes the post unbearable long. the ONLY thing you want above the gimbal in a perfect world is the camera.

 

The reason that the XCS Ultimate can have such a short center post is not that it CAN carry three batteries on the bottom. (It doesn't need to. All it needs is ONE battery and you get regulated 12V (13.2 actually) and 24V (24.6) all the way down to 9.2 volts input power which is well below you should be running a 14.4 volt battery down to.) is that the carry structure distance (ie the unusable distance due to post to stage connectors and stage to camera interface) is only .875" the Ultra is 3"+ and the Pro is 2"+

 

Now in the Ultra has another issue preventing the gimbal from getting up under the stage and that's the integral superpost. In 25+ years of operating and using just about every professional rig out there (Yes Jess some of us have flown just about everything) I have had the need for a superpost exactly FIVE times. I have owned two superpost's and one four stage integral superpost. I can safely say that I COULD have done those FIVE shots without said superpost's. Since I have, on average, used a super post once every five years I fail to see the need to carry around the structure needed for said superpost, Hell Greg doesn't even want to sell you one since he knows that you're never going to use it, instead he has a rental if you need one. On the ultra the post clamp for the top post prevents the gimbal from getting up under the top stage making the post longer than it needs to be. If that distance is 6"+ then you need 18"+ UNDER the gimbal to offset it. The XCS ultimate doesn't have that issue needing only 2.625" under the gimbal, or less that the length of the wrap grip to offset the carry structure. That's how you get a shorter center post.

 

As for how the batteries work on the XCS sled, well that's a thing of beauty requiring ZERO thought, You can get 12 and 24 volts with one battery, two batteries give you more run time and three batteries give you even more. That's it. works for 12 or 24 volts no jumpers, no involvement. Plug in the power cable and you're done. Run a Arri 435 off a single anton bauer trimpak, think about that a $150 13.2 volt battery running a 435... all the batteries discharge at the same overall rate, Mix chemistries and capacities the Ultimate sorts it out and draws them down so they all die at the same time. No other rig can do that. Oh and you can hot swap batteries, again the Ultimate doesn't care it just sorts it out. With all due respect the Ultra doesn't even come close on power, no rig comes close to the Ultimate when it comes to power management.

 

If you have any questions hit me up, I could go into far greater detail but it might be way to tech/engineering geek for most to read.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Speaking of which, it's absolutely classic reading everyone's comments. Had these been presented to me anonymously, I'll bet that 8 times out of 10 I would have been able to identify the author by tone, zealousness and manufacturer preference (in some cases, even by preferred punctuation, e.g. Erwin's fondness for the ellipsis, Eric's disdain for periods at the end of his posts and my own overuse of parenthetical phrases--like, uh, this one).

 

 

Periods are to my thoughts like marks are to actors, to constraining. Don't trap my thoughts with periods Charles

[Charles Papert]

never would (never would) never would...

[Alex Kornreich]

I've got a demo set up for the XCS 2 for the end of next week. Had a good, long conversation with Greg regarding the 2 sleds. Of the two, features wise, I think we determined based on my needs that the XCS2 is the right one for me.

 

I called Pro GPI regarding a demo on the arm, but unfortunately they don't do demos. Any ideas how to get my hands on one of these arms?

[Jens Piotrowski SOC]

you can visit GPI any time during regular business hours and take a look at the arm and get a hands on demo. you will find that the arm is beautifully engineered and manufactured. The arm is being used by almost all of todays top operators. I own it and would not change it even if somebody would give me a different arm for free. The current price reduction to 19800,- (8springs) makes it a bargain and their customer support is top notch.

[Alex Kornreich]

I spoke to the guys at Pro GPI today and they said they don't have any arms available to test out, either at their facility or not.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

you can visit GPI any time during regular business hours and take a look at the arm and get a hands on demo. you will find that the arm is beautifully engineered and manufactured. The arm is being used by almost all of todays top operators. I own it and would not change it even if somebody would give me a different arm for free. The current price reduction to 19800,- (8springs) makes it a bargain and their customer support is top notch.

 

 

I second that.

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

"never would (never would) never would..."

 

That is (possibly) brilliant

[Benjamin Treplin]

My thoughts on this:

 

The three sled in Question represent three different philosophies. Where as the PRO and the Ultra2 are the furthest apart. That is my personal opinion.

 

The Ultimate is some where in between the PRO and the Ultra in some aspects but very different in others.

 

 

Lets start with the PRO, Paddock Radical Options. IMHO there is nothing “radical” about this sled. It is a reliable sled. No bels, no whistles.

It is build of modular components that are easily exchanged and serviced. Super post is an extra. No tilt head.

When it comes to adjustability or better inertial control, the PRO has not that much to offer. The relative fixed monitor position results in a defined battery position. The adjustment of the battery module is designed to achieve DB for that given monitor position not to control the inertia of the system.

Don’t get me wrong here, PRO is top notch equipment. The arm and vest are superb, I own both. The sled is of the finest engineering but in how the three main components work together it is a very basic sled. Old school comes to my mind. Again don’t take this as an offense.

 

The Ultra has a reverse concept some folks would say just bells and whistles.

It is not modular in terms of components like the PRO. It is not as easy to remove the electronics or the gimbal.

I think they made improvement to the electronics with the Ultra2. Boards that can be easily replaced.

The options you have to control the inertia of the Ultra are huge. The motorized stage and the integrated tilt head are killer and I know exactly that I miss it. Integrated super post. I second Jerry here, a super post without a tilt head is almost useless.

Shots that are PITA, can be a breeze to operate with that features.

 

The Ultimate is a bit of a combination of both worlds. The modular components like the PRO and the ability to control the pan inertia. Not as easy and seamless as with the Ultra but easy enough to make use of it on a regular basis. No integrated super post or tilt head. Exchanging posts due to it’s integrated connectors and bayonet fittings can be quite fast.

The power management as stated before surpasses the other two. No matter if you need to power 12V or 24V devices the sled gives you both voltages at the same time with 1 to 3 batteries. This opens a tremendous flexibility to adjust the sled for different cameras weights. At least for the Ultimate 1.

The rigidity of this sled is second to none with the regular post or the super post.

You have to get used to the x-y adjustment on the bottom of the sled but ACs even more, at least here where I live.

They just can’t come to you and hand over the camera body and like to use your rig as platform to build the rest. It is a bad habit but happens all the time. You need the camera with everything that has to be on it to find the cameras c.g.

 

 

To make a decision you need to know what kind of operator you are.

Are you more the old school guy who has a fixed setup and uses this for every shot and is perfectly fine with that

or are you the kind of guy who wants to control more parameters of the stabilizer.

 

For me, to be able to control the pan inertia is a very important feature. I use different setup for different lenses and different shot requirements. I went for the Ultimate1 because of the power management, the modular design, the 2” centerpost, I like the post to be short and the ability to control pan inertia.

I spent a fortune and some engineering on a tilt head and I love it. I’d love to have a motorized X-Y. But hey you can’t have butter on both sides. :)

I don’t miss an integrated superpost.

 

All stated is my personal opinion. If I got the facts wrong please feel free to correct me.

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

What a great discussion – one of the best to come on the forum in some time. My thoughts…. First, let me say that there are more choices on the market for camera stabilization systems than ever before. They range from pure junk to incredible systems. The three choices listed here, in my opinion, are indeed the cream of the crop and by far the best three systems on the market. When asked what I would replace my gear with in the event of a total loss, I always answer that I would be hard pressed to chose from these very three systems. As one of the last guys to learn on a model 1, own a model 2 and then 3a (granted all were old at the time) I have seen the evolution of Steadicam. To have three rigs that are this good “out of the box” is truly amazing; you young guys don’t know how good you have it!!!!

 

That said, one needs to ask themselves what they want out of their gear. Where do you draw the line between useful features versus simplicity and modularity is going to be different for every operator. For me, modularity is key as I don’t live in LA and if I want something looked at by a manufacturer, I want to be able to pop it off the rig and send JUST that piece. Modularity is also key for upgrades. I have not purchased a new sled since 2000, yet I realize now that I’m about to swap the last pieces of that sled out (the junction boxes as I’m going HD). That is pretty cool. No need to sell off an entire system and buy a new one. As new parts become available, I just buy them (have them shipped in a small box) and replace them myself at home. All done in cash so no need to take loans to buy the new rig and then wait to sell the old, etc.

 

 

Manufacturers:

 

Don’t underestimate the importance of the company behind the product. It is of equal importance to the gear itself. I fly an XCS/PRO hybrid and I will say that both of these companies are amazing. Period. You can’t go wrong; I’d go into battle with either rig and either support team. Nuff said. Tiffen? Ironically, the underdog as the brand name Steadicam is still the name that everyone knows worldwide, but it also comes with the Cinema Products’ baggage to many professionals who ran away from them in the 90’s because their customer service was so horrible. This is why I now own little with the name “Steadicam” on it, but by all accounts Tiffen has stepped up to the plate and stood behind their amazing new line of products.

 

What I love about all three of these companies and what separates them from the rest is that all three of them are innovators that subscribe to different philosophies on equipment. That is why they make the gear that they do – they all believe their way is the best way. And therein explains why the rigs differ from one another.

 

Sleds:

 

Many great points have been raised here about the weight distribution of the various designs. Which one is best depends on what you want. Weight distribution has become the name of the game in many ways as we face more models of cameras than ever before. The points about the XCS sled being designed to have the weight at the bottom is an excellent one and allows the operator to fly with a short post. I love this and for most of the work I do, it would make sense (again I fly a hybrid sled) as I do mostly 35mm and full size HD work. That said, there is such a range of cameras out there now that when one needs to fly a very light setup (or a setup with a very low CG) one needs to get the weight up top (although I suppose you could buy a really short post and swap it in about two minutes for this work). The Ultra 2’s weight distribution is much higher allowing more flexibility with lighter setups but poses issues with heavier cameras (or cameras with a high CG). The PRO is somewhere in between.

 

Post length & integral super posts. Eric’s story about Greg (XCS) and the super post made me laugh as the only time I was adamant about having one was a number of years ago when I was DPing some WWII reenactments and I knew I wanted the lens in the grass for a bunch of shots. I called Greg to buy one and he told me not to! Instead, he rented me one for a very reasonable fee. I ended up doing all the shots in the grass on a jib because it was really the right tool for the job anyway! When I told Greg the story, he insisted I hold on to the post (at no charge) so I could play with it. I went to a friend’s house, set it up (in way less than 20 minutes, by the way) and off I went. Great looking shots in low mode until the batteries hit tree branches. Sorry, but operating with a long post IS A LAST resort for me. I don’t like the feel of it; it makes your tilt axis way out of alignment with your pan. Its like putting reduction gears on the tilt wheel of a geard head and then placing your pan in “3.” Yuk. On this note, changing lens height by virtue of post length is baffling to me. Do it with arm posts!!!!! Like Charles, I carry a bunch on the dock. It is the fastest way to do it and it keeps the feel of the rig the same.

 

Integrated super post. Pros - quicker setup. Cons - you are always carrying the weight of the post and the cable inside (which had better be a damn good gauge or you will suffer serious voltage loss – I have not heard of issues with the Ultra 2, but I have regarding another manufacturers’ [not one of these three] integral S. post). The clamps for these posts now limit gimbal placement and increase the minimal distance from the top stage to gimbal. It also means that the camera stage is no longer attached to the thickest (and most ridged) post on the rig. If the clamps are not perfectly tight, whip pans can cause the various sections of the post to twist and then you will be getting out a lot of little tools to tighten them and scaring those actors that Jerry mentioned. In short, the more features a rig has, the more one needs to make sure it is “tuned up.” Then again, not having the features means you can’t use them! (I’d include the electronic stage in this category; great idea, but more to go wrong).

 

Tilt head. Another great feature (especially if you are using a super post) but it comes at the cost of an increased distance from the camera to the gimbal and is one more place for vibration to cause an issue. Same as above – complicates the plumbing a little but gives you more options.

 

The PRO sled is the antithesis of this as it is so simple it is almost mind boggling. Sure, you can’t do all those cool things listed above, but it really couldn’t be a more reliable or simpler device to maintain.

 

Arms:

 

I always tell people getting into Steadicam on a budget to buy a 3a arm because they are mostly reliable and crazy cheap. That said, I tell them under no circumstance to try a PRO arm because they would eat their liver to get one. I have owned a 3a style arm, a Master arm, and a PRO arm. My big concern going from a Master arm to a PRO arm was losing the sacred little red adjustment knobs for the lift. I thought it would be evil having to use a wrench again. My friend, Will Arnot, insisted it was not nearly that bad as the PRO arm is so forgiving that you just don’t need to adjust it as much. That is not something you can understand until you fly this arm and use it for a bit. It is simply amazing. It flies so well that it will actually improve your operating and it just feels the same all the time. While it is incredibly easy to adjust with an Allen wrench (while it is on a table, on your body, under load, not under load - doesn’t matter) you can skip it with most lens changes and it really doesn’t matter. I once heard an operator boast he could adjust the knobs on his Master arm mid-shot and get away with it, but I thought why the hell would you want to do that? What a distraction! And, for what its worth, I personally have never scared an actor with the wrench when I do make an adjustment, but I’m willing to bet there have been a few scared by exploding expansion springs flying across set from traditionally designed arms! The PRO arm is just THAT good; I use it & I put it away – I don’t think about it; I don’t need to clean it, alter it, mess with it. What else is there to say? Oh, spring changes - this is such a non-issue; it’s a joke. 99% of the time I leave in two blacks & two blues. If you need to change them to go out of that weight range, it takes thirty seconds. This also means, in the event of spring failure (anyone actually had one of these on a PRO arm???) you can swap it out in thirty seconds. God, I love this arm.

 

G-70. The first arm I tried since buying my PRO that I immediately didn’t pine for my arm. Very good arm. Wish it had the arm post bearing, but so be it. The ride adjustment is a great idea, but I doubt I’d use it as a lack of friction isn’t a problem for me (some like a stiffer arm for running or vehicle shots; I can see their point as the first time I ran with a PRO arm, it surprised me but I was used to it by the third take and have never thought about it again).

 

Vests:

 

Unless you’re a rental house (or teaching a workshop) I see no reason for the size of a vest to be adjusted in a tooless fashion. The PRO vest is fabulous. Best vest I have ever owned. You set it up when you get it (not a long process) and then you don’t touch it again except for the usual changes to accommodate a change in clothing layers, etc (and you obviously do this without tools). The tools are just to set things like height, etc (can’t say I‘ve changed height much between takes). The waist pad is the only custom part so it fits you like a glove but won’t kill your resell value because another one can be ordered at very little cost (and they are somewhat adjustable anyway). The Ultra 2 vest does seem pretty good, but I would agree with comments about the padding. I like the PRO’s padding.

 

Final thoughts:

 

Take your time in deciding and look at the options and make up your own mind. Don’t let others “tell you how it is.” I have spent my whole career trying to simplify my gear into a practical, reliable, modular & robust system that I put as little effort and thought into using as possible because I have known the horrors of the early systems. I am also keenly aware that I am a hypocrite for not embracing the same technology into my Steadicam life that makes the rest of my life so much easier – microprocessors, etc. Perhaps if I were to give in and trust these “bells and whistles” to do their job I would benefit from them in ways I can’t imagine, but I’m still entrenched in the less is more mentality and have no doubt that my gear will work rain or shine. Then again, I expect my iPhone, Plasma TV, Hybrid car, (come to think of it, my Preston HU3), etc to work in these same conditions too. So, if I were to start over, I’m not sure which philosophical camp I’d be a part of. Good luck.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Lets start with the PRO, Paddock Radical Options. IMHO there is nothing “radical” about this sled.

 

 

Back when the PRO was first introduced it was VERY radical and lived up to it's name. That was back in the day of the 3A, a rig that did not have the wiring up the center post, didn't have a reasonable way to move the lower section for and aft. Had the monitors drivers stuffed into the lower section, and didn't really have a top X,Y stage.

 

All of the modern rigs came from the PRO's design

[Mike McGowan SOC]

This is by far the best thread we have had on this forum in ages!!!!!

 

A note on the vest... I got my first PRO vest in 1998, I think it was vest #5. I sold it as part of a complete package 8 or 9 years later. When I got a new rig I called PRO (about 9 or 10 years later) and ordered a new vest. They still had my measurements from the first vest. They sent it to me, I pulled it out of the box, put it on and started operating. It was like the same vest, fit literally like a glove. Cant say enough about it.

 

And while I'm here, the arm. Everybody has already commented on the user preferences of each piece of equipment. I'll make a comment about the durability. I could not abuse my arm more if I used it as a door stop or a hammer. I beat the living shit out of it every time I use it. And I never clean it. When I say never, I mean the sand that got on it the first day I used it is still there. About once every 2 or 3 years I send it to PRO to have them service it and that's it. It works like a charm every time I put it on. In terms of adjustment, I hardly even adjust the tension. I use 2 black's and 2 blues and with a 435 and a Cook S4 it sits at about center mast. If I use an SR3 it probably sits a bit high and if I use something heavy it sits a bit low. I like adding a little lift or push to the arm. I guess that puts me in the 'keep it simple' category...........

[Alex Kornreich]

"I tell them under no circumstance to try a PRO arm because they would eat their liver to get one." -Alec Jarnagin

 

Best line I've ever read on a forum. Maybe that's why George told me he didn't have any demos...

 

This is all fantastic information. Can anyone describe in fairly simple terms the difference between the XCS 1 and 2? It would be helpful to know what limitations the XCS 2 has, especially as it may apply to real world shooting situations.

 

Also, what are the benefits of the WK back mounted vest? I've read it helps with fatigue, especially with regards to the lower back. Are there any limitations on it? I've also heard they're wider, so it may be more difficult to squeeze through tight spaces (which I've done often), as well as it's difficult to run in. It's close enough in price to the PRO vest and Steadicam vest that I'm considering it as well. I've never really had problems with the front mounted vest though, so I'm hesitant to switch.

 

BTW, I'll be placing my order at the most in 2 weeks (I've got a few demoes in between), as there's bonus depreciation for 2009, and it's certainly not guaranteed for 2010. Point is, all of your generous amounts of information will directly lead to a purchasing decision, and you'll know the results soon! Let's hope I still have a liver by the end of this week though...

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

This is all fantastic information. Can anyone describe in fairly simple terms the difference between the XCS 1 and 2? It would be helpful to know what limitations the XCS 2 has, especially as it may apply to real world shooting situations.

 

 

The difference is in the power distribution and video system.

 

On the power end it does not have the Ultimate 1's power supply so in order to have 24V's on the rig you need two batteries. OR 1 24 volt battery. Video wise it does not include an Electronic onscreen level and does not have the Uno Frameline generator. That's it. Fully modular so in the future if you decide that you want a Ultimate 1 base you buy it and bayonet it onto the post and you are done.

[Amando Crespo]

I went to a tiffen workshop once where they listed up every rig out there as non good, except their own.

Hi Roger,

 

I'm surprised you heard that. I've taught dozens of Tiffen workshops, and I don't remember any instructor expressing that opinion either privately or publicly.

 

Fly (on the wall),

 

Chris

 

I agree Chris post. Ihave been in 3 international Tiffen´s workshop and never...never some instructor said it...