Jump to content

Motorized Stage


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Members

It's really a moot point anyways because Eric couldn't get a tilt stage on his rig if he wanted to..

 

 

Mike,

 

It's post like that, that show you don't know what's available gear wise.

 

If I wanted to I COULD get a tilt stage. 30 years being around this gear Mike, that's my tally. I've seen more gear than I care to remember. Never say "Couldn't" around a steadicam operator especially someone that's been around it for so long.

 

Oh and just a point of reference, Like most Americans you used "Moot" incorrectly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric-

 

As you claim to understand my thinking, I'd like to be a bit more clear.

 

I really don't care what rig anyone owns. It's always the quality of work that matters (and everyone has their won opinions about what's good or bad). You have perfectly valid reasons to fly what you fly, as do others, and the fact that "sled A" has some features or doesn't have others that some other folks think are important, well, that's like many things in life: we all have our cherished beliefs. There are many sleds that work well (yours among them), and a good number that fail to do the basic tasks well.

 

What I object to, and was trying to hint at, was that you shouldn't assume or pontificate that your way and opinions are the only valid ones out there. This thread started with Chris's surprise that he likes and uses the motorized stage so much more than he thought he would; why can't we leave it at that? Or if Mike finds the tilt head very useful or critical for his work, well, I think that's interesting and fine. But to say a piece of gear is unnecessary or especially to imply that someone's operating is less skillful because they own a widget - well, I don't get it, especially if you've never owned it (and there are, or were, many valid reasons not to). Worse, I don't think the comments, or the attitude they represent, are helpful or informative, and I find that a waste of your considerable experience.

 

Jerry

 

Jerry, thank you for being the voice of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Well my friends, it looks like we will agree to disagree. The best part about this forum is that everyone has opinions. It still doesn't change my decision to have production buy the U2 w/ manual tilt stage.

 

What was this topic about again? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

I have a patent pending on a "motorized stage" that will move the actors past us, thus obviating the need to rise from a chair. It will revolutionize Steadicam, and render Lisigav a thing of the past.

 

LOL! I wish someone would invent a motor device that would assure that actors hit their marks. LOL!

 

I started with no motors and no tilt stage and had a very basic sled. I was able to do some very fine work with just basic tools. No doubt technique is everything.

 

I have had motors and a tilting top stage for about the past 6 years or so. I can say without a doubt that I am a better operator with these tools. I am not saying they make me better than other operators I am saying that basically it makes the job of operating easier but it comes with a few trade offs. My motors in my top stages have not stopped working thus far and I have never had any interference problems. Probably because I take good care of my sled and I get it serviced routinely between shows...just clean up and such, nothing major.

 

As for the tilting top stage there is a huge trade off and some ops will not be willing to go there. I use mine daily so that my post remains as vertical as possible for the majority of any given shot. The benefit of doing that should be obvious to any operator that understands dynamic balance. Necessary? No. But does it make operating easier? Yes! I know many operators don't seem to care about it however this tilting top stage thing works and it works well. Now the trade off for having that tilting top stage is that your gimbal is about 5.5" down from the top of the sled thus creating a longer post. This is caused from a combination of the arc and the aluminum post mounting/clamping hardware. I am working on moving my Hill docking ring up 1 full inch to allow my gimbal to go up about 3/4"-1" which will help dramatically. It is funny but my entire weight system was pretty much created because of this gap problem and the Ultra2 having such a light weight bottom thus creating a long post even with average weight cameras. As most of us hate long post operating, I am also a fan of a shorter post 90% of the time depending on the type of shot.

 

I personally don't mind carrying the extra "dead weight". The sled flies sweet at about 55-60lbs total. That said I believe Charles has hit the nail on the head regarding the weight of the cameras getting lighter. It is coming and coming fast. It is much harder to operate a nimble light weight sled than a sled that is 60+lbs. I am not talking about the physical effort I am talking about technique. You absolutly must have excellent technique when flying a little light weight sled or all your problems will surface and surface fast.

 

Anyone that questions a motorized top stage and a tilting top stage should take a look at Larry McConkey's work. Granted he could probably take an old Model One and do amazing work with it today. However he uses motorized top stage and a tilting top stage and he has and is doing absolutely solid amazing work and refuses to work with any other sled. The reason is that it makes the job easier. His technique is probably the best of any of us however...he will not work without motors or a tilting top stage and he is using a modified version of the original Tiffen UltraCine sled. Yes he has modified it a bunch but the motors and the tilting top stage remain pretty much in tact. And by the way he has also done all that fine work with an original Ultra gimbal and an original Ultra arm which is pretty much the same as or slightly improved version from the Masters series. My point is that if Larry (arguably one of the best at our craft) is using this stuff...don't you think there might be something to it? Arguably there are many other GREAT operators not using this stuff so...it goes back to the same old thing...use what works for you!

 

Just my .02

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

That said, I think Larry is the perfect case-in-point for the argument that it's not about the tools--he was doing dead-on amazing work before he had the tilt and motorized stage as well. But the point is well taken that it's all about making it easier. That's why we like our modern sleds--you don't have to think about them as much any more, they can become transparent to your process so you can focus on the shots--so any tool that helps that along is a good tool. I totally "got" the tilt stage when it first appeared and even though I've never owned one (and I'm not crazy about the tradeoff in terms of gimbal height and how that affects the length of post/weight of base), I know I would like and use it.

 

Thank you Eric for bringing the phrase "moot point" into question as it led me to research that a bit--generally I enjoy etymology more than discussing the finer points of Steadicam. Looks like you are referring to the one-time more prevalent use of the term as meaning "debatable or subject to debate", but it appears that over the years the usage "irrelevant or not worthy of debate" has become so widespread that this has become the accepted definition, or at least appended. So I think we have to give Mike a pass on this one. I personally think that any definition should cite Rick Springfield as the definitive example of the term "moot"; probably one of the best lines ever in a pop song, especially when rhymed with "cute".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

 

Anyone that questions a motorized top stage and a tilting top stage should take a look at Larry McConkey's work.

 

Just my .02

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

Heard about you from Larry, and before you posted this I was thinking of citing his example for this thread. I have had the pleasure of working with Larry over an extended period of time, and he absolutely adores his tilting stage. He will adjust it precisely for each shot, setting it for the head room he needs at the required lens height while retaining dynamic balance. He has modified his ultra, but not a lot, and his tilt and motorized stage remain untouched. Granted, he was always an amazing operator, and will be amazing whatever tool you give him to work with, but in his own words, it makes it all easier, faster and more precise. He constantly trims his sled with the remote for different parts of the shot, because he uses such a bottom heavy sled. He also has his sled in perfect dynamic balance at the start of every shot and can go back to his nominal settings on the fly, should he choose to do so. He is fanatical about dynamic balance and uses the remote in the most unusual manner to achieve it ( Jerry ??) . I have seen him pull off multiple whip pans in a single shot, stopping more accurately than you could with a fluid head. He gets into dynamic balance real quick, and his particular method would not be possible without a motorised stage and remote.

I think Larry is the perfect example of embracing technology to move one step forward.

 

Sanjay Sami

www.thegripworks.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Premium Members

Thank you Eric for bringing the phrase "moot point" into question as it led me to research that a bit--generally I enjoy etymology more than discussing the finer points of Steadicam. Looks like you are referring to the one-time more prevalent use of the term as meaning "debatable or subject to debate", but it appears that over the years the usage "irrelevant or not worthy of debate" has become so widespread that this has become the accepted definition, or at least appended. So I think we have to give Mike a pass on this one. I personally think that any definition should cite Rick Springfield as the definitive example of the term "moot"; probably one of the best lines ever in a pop song, especially when rhymed with "cute".

 

Charles my friend, you are a genius... tongue.gif

 

 

From the Oxford University Press:

Garner's Modern American Usage

The adjective moot refers to something that is debatable or of no practical importance.

 

Example:

 

  • The court ruled on Thursday that the appeal was moot because the hostile offer had been withdrawn.

 

Usage Notes:

  • "A moot point was classically seen as one that is arguable. A moot case was a hypothetical case proposed for discussion in a 'moot' of law students (i.e., the word was once a noun). In U.S. law schools, students practice arguing hypothetical cases before appellate courts in moot court.
     
    "From that sense of moot derived the extended sense 'of no practical importance; hypothetical; academic.' This shift in meaning occurred about 1900 <because the question has already become moot, we need not decide it.> Today, in American English, that is the predominant sense of moot Theodore M. Bernstein and other writers have called this sense of the word incorrect, but it is now a fait accompli, especially in the set phrase moot point. To use moot in the sense 'open to argument' in modern American English is to create an ambiguity and to confuse readers. In British English, the transformation in sense has been slower, and mootin its older sense retains vitality."
    (Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2003)
  • "Moot in British English means arguable, doubtful, or open to debate. Americans often use it to mean hypothetical or academic, i.e. of no practical significance."
    (The Economist Style Guide, Profile Books, 2005)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...