Test video for comment and review

[Brian Freesh]

I agree with Afton.

 

As has been said time and time again, a good Steadicam Operator must first and foremost be a good Camera Operator. There is a lot more that goes into a shot than just if it is smooth or not. The Goodfella's shot isn't brilliant because of it's smoothness, it's brilliant because of how well it serves the story.

 

But again, cost is the driving factor, and Charles' posts in this thread are so well distilled and reach the heart of the issue brilliantly. I too, suspect eventually the capabilities will lead to on-set, and even real time digital stabilization.

 

The thing is, it may not be about great operators anymore, much less great steadicam operators. Anyone can point a camera. There are so many movies these days where very little is helping tell the story, and operating is often one of the casualties. The shots aren't designed or planned in many if any ways. That's fine if the cene calls for it, but it so rarely does (IMHO). And even then it only works well with a great operator who has great instincts. These days the operator is often not respected based on their ability to tell a story with the camera. And I fear it will only get worse.

[richard bellon]

 

As has been said time and time again, a good Steadicam Operator must first and foremost be a good Camera Operator. There is a lot more that goes into a shot than just if it is smooth or not.

 

 

 

@Afton

ok i understand what u meant... i was talking about it from a pure skill in operating steadicam i.e being as smooth as humanly possible.

[Tommy Stork]

I like turtles.

[Charles Papert]

I think there are some interesting notions being brought up here. Certainly it is an excellent goal for all Steadicam operators to strive to achieve dolly-like (or post-stabilized-esque!) perfection as a pure technical skill, but it should be just as important to push for the more cerebral skills unique to the operating position. I think for me the most fun period of operating was when the physicality became easier in the sense that the rig sort of flew itself--I didn't have to put much thought into getting it from A to B, it just "behaved itself". At that point I could donate much more of my attention to the really cool stuff, like how to best tell the story while carving through space in the most interesting fashion. While "auto-stabilizing" technology would indeed level the playing field from a technical standpoint, which may be quite frustrating to an experienced op who has spent many years refining his fingerwork, all of the nuances of framing and timing and lens placement will remain intact. The real fact of the matter is that a surprising percentage of the people sitting behind monitors are fairly indifferent to the subtlety of excellent vs OK Steadicam operation, at least as far as the technical nuts and bolts. I visited another DP's set a few months back and watched a shot unfold that had all of the tell-tale issues: horizon consistently off in one direction, footsteps visible in the shot, overcontrolled gimbal hand resulting in choppiness to the shot. I asked, "is this a rehearsal?" hoping that the operator was saving it for the takes. The DP looked at me quizzically and said "no, it's probably the keeper take. Why, is something wrong with it?" I shook my head and smiled cheerfully. Kinda bizarre.

 

Anyway; I would support the view that even with perfectly level frames right out of the box thanks to emerging technology, there's still plenty of room for a great operator to shine over a merely OK one (and still have fun at his job). The real question is how much of the rig will remain relevant at that point. I'm not positive but it seems like digital stabilization does better with angular issues over spatial ones, so it seems like there will be room for a rig that perches on the end of a arm for a while to come. The rig itself may start to evolve into a different form, perhaps.