Test video for comment and review

[Patrick Lally]

Don´t worry guy.

You, like me ,we have the right to be wrong.

See you and take it easy.... ;)

 

 

I can't seem to find a ways to delete my 5yr old account.

 

Can this be done for me, or should I just stay around and shut up and

learn until I have something worthy of the group to post?

[Kevin Andrews SOC]

Still using a certain steadicam walking technique to TRY to get steady.

 

I tend to use a custom blend of the Los Angeles C-Walk technique made popular by Ice Cube.

 

 

Aha I know it well, here is a Training video of me and the guys working on our technique at a recent "Tiffen Gold Workshop"

 

 

If you watch carefully you can see Larry McConkeys feet pass by half way through ;)

 

 

That's the one

[Lars Erik]

Patrick,

 

I really don't see the need for you to delete your account.

 

So you get a few negative comments about your post. What's the big deal? Are you really that surprised? I mean, this is a site for steadicam operators. You post something you've done via YT, and using a tripod and stabilizer in post. It really has nothing to do with our profession.

 

If you posted something you'd done on a stabilizer, any brand, then stabilized it more in post, sure a different story.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

LE

[Amando Crespo]

I agree Lars´s comment...

[Brian Freesh]

Yowser,

 

I agree in general with Lars. Though I think the post is completely relevant. It was posted in General Discussion (not Operating) and part of the subject line is "new techniques for steadi shots"

 

Post stabilization is a topic that we have discussed before with much interest and should be of concern to us. I'm not suggesting (nor do I believe) that we are in any immediate danger of post stabilization turning us into handheld operators even when we would normally do steadicam. But I don't see why we should treat the concept any differently than the rise of >10k lightweight rigs and DSLRs. I think it's very telling that youtube has an integrated function now. Sure, it's nowhere near useable on a professional level, but the fact that it is so easy to do it at all could affect how some things are shot in the future, and there are impressive solutions at a greater cost. With the rise of HD and >2k capture, stabilizing in post doesn't even mean an effective resolution loss anymore.

 

It's so "easy" these days to buy a rig and call one's self a steadicam operator, and charge so little it drives the rates down. Who's to say the idea of mediocre post-stabilization won't be difficult to compete with? I see it happening already among filmmakers today who will be bigger filmmakers tomorrow.

 

I also do not think that Amando's post that Patrick quoted was at all called for. I do not believe Patrick committed most if not all of the transgressions listed. There are some other recent threads that I think more than deserved it, I initially thought it was intended for one of those and put in the wrong thread.

 

This video itself is certainly no threat to on-set stabilization, but the concept could be. Patrick very respectfully asked if this would pass acknowledging the difference, and was told the answer was no. What's the harm?

[Lars Erik]

Interesting point of view Brian,

 

one should be wary of new technology, or we could all end up like Kodak has done these days, filing for a chapter 11.

 

I'm not sure this technology will cause a threat in the foreseeable future, perhaps on very small projects. But in majority, I do believe the director and DP still will want to see the footage as complete as possible while on set, and not wait until they get into post. After all, I'm quite sure most of us gave experienced or heard from others how productions has had to re-shoot scenes due to footage not working after all. Hell of a lot more expensive than not hiring a steadicam operator.

 

But maybe this is just one of those factors that will push us into becoming even better to compete with everything else. It certainly shows that one should not just become a steadicam operator. One should be a complete camera operator before taking on the task of becoming a steadicam operator.

[Tommy Stork]

Nothing, in my opinion, will ever beat the pleasure and exhilaration of immediate gratification. Production isn't paying for, "I hope we can get that handheld shot to look good in post." They are paying for "you better make that shot look perfect NOW!". After you complete a shot and the director jumps out from behind video village and yells some positive proclamation like, "brilliant, check the gate", you know he has the satisfaction of his expectations for the shot met, and that's why a good steadicam operator is essential to doing a shot and not a tripod. We satisfy immediately. In the end though, I'm not that afraid of technology taking over my job. I enjoy the perspectives that both Lars and Brian brig to the topic. In my opinion this type of conversation is what will sharpen and hone steadicam operators into the operators of the future: an asset for any set. I think Lars put the hammer to the nail when saying that we are "camera operators first" and steadicam is just another tool we endeavor to be excellent at using.

[James Davis]

Still my favourite test video/showreel ever:

 

[Charles Papert]

There's a sure but steady erosion in production budgets, and everything is coming down to economics to a degree that is truly shocking (I just had a fierce and bloody argument with a line producer over a $30 rental item of mine intended for a shot that was cancelled because the actor didn't show up, and they don't want to pay for it. Thirty. Friggin' dollars. What???!) If it becomes possible (and it already is) to post-stabilize a handheld shot to the point where it replicates Steadicam for the most part, and said process can be done in-house by the editorial department for "free"--once producers get wind of it, there will be a definite push to eliminate the line item of Steadicam. Certainly there are issues right now with warping and distortion, but that may actually be less distracting than a poorly operated Steadicam shot--and there's not shortage of those around...

 

Ironically, the fact that said line item has been ever-diminishing may just be the factor that prolongs the life of the Noble Instrument...talk about a silver lining!

[Lars Erik]

Charles,

 

are you saying that we're all an endangered species, and that in the not so distant future, most of us will be out of a job?

[Brian Freesh]

I don't think he said that, especially considering his last line. I do think, like me, he suggested it's a worthy concern to be aware of for our own good. Charles' post is 100% of what I was getting at, but did not elaborate well on. I don't think any regulars on this forum would disagree with Tommy's sentiments, but that's not the concern. The concern is the people with the money. I challenge Tommy's suggestion that producers are paying for on-set results. There has been a lot of progression against that logic over the past couple decades. But moreover, I think producers are paying for as little as possible, and that's the bottom line for them. All I was getting at is that it behooves us to be aware of the possibilities and accept them to be better prepared. If we dismiss them outright we run the risk of being caught with our pants down.

[Charles Papert]

Here's one thing we can all agree on: real-time processing will continue to get faster. Post-stabilization takes a while to render right now, but eventually it could approach on-the-fly speeds, and then it can be built into cameras. We'll likely see it on the consumer/prosumer cameras first, which will take out the smaller Steadicam rigs from contention (that's a group of people who it will serve well, because generally they don't like spending the money and shlepping additional gear, and in particular having to take time to learn skills). As the resolution of cameras continue to climb, it leaves room for the inevitable blowup without image loss. Hate to say it, but I think the days of Steadicam being replaced by the "little black box with a blinking light" that Garrett foresaw from the beginning is probably inevitable. Not tomorrow or next week, but at some point. I'm not generally much for making predictions, but after what the last ten years has brought in technological change (HD overcoming film) and the increased push from manufacturers to bring out new cameras one on top of the other, it feels like the environment where this sort of thing will be tackled sooner rather than later.

 

But I'll again point out that with Steadicam rates approaching scale and now the rentals dropping inexorably each year, by the time this all happens it may cost production so little extra to have Steadicam on set that it may not be as relevant. It's an interesting convergence of lines on a graph. Another interesting one is that while Steadicam becomes more standardized as a skill, will new operators feel motivated to spend the money and take the time to learn the gear with so relatively little reward (or timely payback)?

[richard bellon]

hi all

 

i think that short video is actually quite good for what it is...

i mean its only gonna get better.

 

now as steadicam being threatened.. i dont think so.

if u combine top notch post stabilization with mediocre operating everyone is gonna be

a Larry or a Charles :)

now THAT'S what i am afraid of.. if everyone can pull off these amazing shots with little skill

who is gonna inspire us to become better, i mean the general public is not gonna care

how or who did it, but at the end of the day we as filmmakers make films for other filmmakers.

 

and im sure every op here has a "Holy Cr#P" shot that inspires them on a daily basis

[Afton Grant]

Richard, I think you fail to recognize exactly what makes (made) Larry and Charles great operators. Very little of it has to do with their ability to move a camera smoothly.

[richard bellon]

Richard, I think you fail to recognize exactly what makes (made) Larry and Charles great operators. Very little of it has to do with their ability to move a camera smoothly.

 

 

hi Afton

 

maybe its a bit late and ive had to many johnnie walkers ;)

but i dont understand what u mean...

 

it has EVERYTHING to do with their abilty to move smoothly.

thats what i think we will lose. is the high skillset that inspires us to become better

because on a daily basis im trying to improve my operating but if u can stabilise mediocr operating into aweinspiring shots, what the point of becoming the best that you can possibly be