Does anybody know how and when dynamic balance was first discovered?

[Alan Rencher]

Shawn, who cares?

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

 

 

Shaun,

 

A few things, First take Alec's advice, your videos have NOTHING to do with Dynamic Balance, Dynamic Balance requires a gimbal. You're creations lack that. also your crations and their accompanying videos are more suited to the Homebuilt stabilizer forum

 

 

Shawn Sutherland, on 29 Mar 2013 - 15:02, said:

 

So the relevance to this thread is that I too had a stabilizer prototype that would've benefited greatly from the use of dynamic balance.

 

If I only knew then what I know now....

Unless you used a gimbal you couldn't have benefited from Dynamic Balance

 

You're quite right. This is not the forum for home built stabilizers, and my videos have nothing to do with Dynamic Balance. I get it. I only put them up to prove that I built and designed my own rig. But trust me on this one: I wouldn't have needed a gimbal to achieve dynamic balance with my design. I know that for a fact.

 

When I built my first prototype, I never even saw a Steadicam in real life. Except for the occasional photograph or two, I had no idea how they actually worked. I approached this design problem from an inventor's perspective, and literally re-invented the wheel.

 

I still do.

 

Okay you mounted a weight on the bottom of a stick and a camera on the top, you held it with your hand, Big deal. I've built rigs from the ground up, I've built Upper stages, I've machined my own gimbals. Yes you HAVE TO HAVE A GIMBAL for dynamic balance, you don't therefore you can't spin your rig about it's Z-Axis. If you don't understand that you don't understand what Dynamic Balance is.

 

 

 

Shawn you started a very interesting topic and engaged very knowledgeable veteran designers / operators in it. Good for you. Good for all of us who love to hear about steadicam history.

 

But,

 

These people tell you that, without a gimbal there is no point/no way in dynamically balancing a stabilizer. By insisting, I feel that you are betraying your own topic.

 

No.....

 

You just don't know how I designed my rig.

 

If you saw it working, you would immediately know why I don't need a gimbal to achieve dynamic balance.

 

Well then show us, until then well you're just a troll

 

 

 

Can somebody wake me up when is is over....

 

 

 

A lot of times in engineering a prototype is developed and only years later we fully understand how it works, see airplanes vs birds, aerodynamics, nothing unusual here...

 

Got a better idea:

 

How 'bout I just wake you up while it's not over?

 

Telescoping Zoom lenses, and their inherit effect on dynamic balance.

 

How would you solve this?

 

It's not a problem, most zoom lenses use two groups of glass moving linearly towards or away from each other reducing their weight shift. I'm kinda starting to think you have yet to see or work with real equipment.

[Jens Piotrowski SOC]

"Got a better idea:

How 'bout I just wake you up while it's not over?

Telescoping Zoom lenses, and their inherit effect on dynamic balance.

How would you solve this?"

 

 

I don't have to, since companies like Zeiss, Panavision, Angenieux and Cooke took care of that for me....

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

I don't have to, since companies like Zeiss, Panavision, Angenieux and Cooke took care of that for me....

 

 

Like I said Jens this guy hasn't used our level of gear. He is comparing the camcorder he shot his stuff with to our gear

[Victor Lazaro]

Dear Shawn, As much as I enjoyed your initial question, I believe you are doing a few things wrong here in this thread.

 

1. This is a professional Steadicam forum, lower end rigs and DIY have little to do here (even Glidecam is frowned upon here), therefore your DIY rig is not suited to be discussed here, or only in the Off-Topic section.

 

2. You started a thread with a theme, Dynamic Balance, upon which many peers of Steadicam gladly answered. Do not change the subject to your creation, create a separate thread for it (in the Off-Topic or on another forum, may I suggest http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?47-DIY-Gear)

 

3. It seems that you have yet to understand what dynamic balance means. Here is a video showing what it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DruB3j9doQ . Eric tried tell you that your rig is not achieving and will never achieve dynamic balance and therefore had nothing to do with it (or this thread). He is one of the most knowledgable operators here in the forum (among others), and you should listen to him. If you wish to understand what dynamic balance really is, you can read about it here: http://www.steadicam-ops.com/docs/dynamicPrimer.pdf in the Steadicam Operator's Handbook http://www.amazon.com/Steadicam®-Operators-Handbook-Jerry-Holway/dp/024082380X or try it for yourself during a workshop with a full rig (and a gimbal). Dynamic Balance is different than fore and aft balancing. it only involves the rig spinning fast on it z-axis (vertical) generating a "whip pan" of at least a fast pan. Your video did not use any of the situations where dynamic balancing is needed. Also, your rig can be perfectly balanced fore and aft and operate smoothly without a dynamic balance as long as you don't pan too fast (which you didn't)

 

4. Please do not flood the thread with multiple consecutive messages on a thread. If you need to post multiple time, may I suggest to think about what to write for a while before pressing "Post".

 

5. Lastly, do not rush people for an answer, if they are not answering, maybe they are busy, or they simply do not wish to answer you.

 

Kindly,
Victor Lazaro

[Shawn Sutherland]

OK, I'll try to answer everyone:

Evrim KAYA:

My home-built stabilizer prototypes weren't even close to a Pogocam. I used completely different concepts with no need for a gimbal.

Alec Jarnagin:

You're absolutely right. This thread is about the history of Dynamic balance. That's why I started it. But history isn't limited to past events, it's also in the making.

Eric Fletcher:

I didn't mount a weight on the bottom of a stick and a camera on top just to hold it in my hand, but thanks for the guess. Keep in mind that physics don't particularly care about the size, make, or level of your gear. It doesn't even matter whether it's real equipment or not. You can fly a toaster oven for all I care.

By the way, what's a "troll"? I've been called a lot of things in my day, but I gotta admit I never heard that one before. Should I wear a cape?

Jens Piotrowski:

You're absolutely right. Companies like Zeiss, Panavision, Angenieux and Cooke have made it easy for you to avoid dealing with telescoping lenses pretty much the same way jet airliners make crop dusting a breeze. For the rest of us mere mortals, there are hideous people like me out there with alternative solutions that work just as well.

Afton Grant:

If you ever do use a zoom that telescopes on your rig, you'll run straight into the same issue I did with mine. The good news is that I already solved this problem.

Alan Rencher:

Here's the list of people who posted something on this thread so far:

RonBaldwin

Janice Arthur

Tom Wills

Jerry Holway

Alec Jarnagin

Eric Fletcher

Victor Lazaro

Evrim KAYA

Jens Piotrowski

Afton Grant

Alan Rencher

One can only assume these people care, otherwise they wouldn't have replied to me in the first place.

Incidentally, why do you have a pink version of the Black Flag logo? Most unusual.

Victor Lazaro:

The beginning of this thread was instructive, and so too will be its ending. Lower end rigs and DIY have just as much in common with dynamic balance as professional rigs. When it comes to physics, it's all relative. I don't separate pro rigs from lower end. Physics doesn't work that way and neither do I. A solution for a lower end rig works equally well on a high-end model. I showed my videos to prove that I designed my own rigs, and to say they would've been much better had I knew something about dynamic balance back then when I built them.

But you're right. I started a thread with a theme, Dynamic Balance, upon which many Steadicam peers gladly answered. Trouble is, a lot of them answered it wrong. They insist that a gimbal is absolutely necessary in order to achieve dynamic balance. This is not the case with either of my 2 designs. The only reason I didn't achieve dynamic balance with either of my prototypes was not because couldn't, but because I never even heard of it before. And why would I go looking for something I didn't even know about? If I knew about dynamic balance back then, I would've made use of it.

But that was then. Fast forward to 2009 when I bought my first semi-professional rig. Vest, arm, sled with monitor, the whole 9 yards. By that time, I had already read plenty of material on dynamic balance so once I unwrapped all the packaging, it wasn't long before I got my rig up and running. But as you would expect, I wasn't satisfied with the existing design. So I changed it a little. OK, I changed it a lot.

Here's what it looks like in dynamic balance:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCs7XOxwys

OK, so here's the instructive part you were waiting for: Telescoping Zoom lenses, and their inherit effect on dynamic balance.

Here's how I solved it. I own a Sony FS-100 camera and the main reason I bought it was for its greater range of lens options. But greater options can also produce unexpected problems.

The lens extrudes at full zoom.

I solved this using a counter weight system.

The result is perfect dynamic balance when the counter weight is slid in the opposite direction of the extruding lens.

 

If you want pictures, send me an email: steditrak@gmail.com

 

(I can't seem to upload anything worthwhile to this forum)

Go ahead and build one for yourself.

[Alan Rencher]

...But the counterweights don't automatically slide when the lens is zoomed, so you just re-invented the Merlin weights (yay!)

[Shawn Sutherland]

Well you got me there. I don't think I ever heard of that before. Imagine: a counterweight that slides all by itself at the precise rate of inches per second to offset the weight of an extruding zoom lens.

Hey while we're at it, why not get another weight to move from side to side all by itself just to keep a level horizon for us?

Wouldn't that be cool.

[Victor Lazaro]

Well you got me there. I don't think I ever heard of that before. Imagine: a counterweight that slides all by itself at the precise rate of inches per second to offset the weight of an extruding zoom lens.

 

Hey while we're at it, why not get another weight to move from side to side all by itself just to keep a level horizon for us?

 

Wouldn't that be cool.

 

You mean a motorized stage? http://www.tiffen.com/images/content/U2_SmartMotorizedStage.pdf

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Holy crap, that post is ridiculous as is the video of your "Rig"

 

Your answers to a few of us made me laugh, no need for you to wear a cape, maybe a jacket with extra long sleeves. As someone who has flown cropdusters I can tell you that Jets have nothing to do with them (Not even a Turbine Thrush which was a blast to fly). I know that Afton has flown zooms but I also know that they haven't been an issue for him. As Alan will attest, we don't really care, this thread turned into pure comedy with your 2nd video. In your response to Victor you mistakenly equated yourself as one of our peers, you're not. Then you go on to say that those of us that understand dynamic balance (Both theoretically and empirically) don't actually know what we are talking about... Please do go on, you're fascinating.

 

You then argue that your active static balancer is a game changer for dynamic balance and that you have had the proverbial EUREKA moment with your motorized counter weight system (Why you need additional weight for balance is beyond me but hey that must be outside the box thinking). Since you really want to try to tackle this "Problem" you might want to know that it was done long ago, long before you thought of it.

 

Back in 1992 or so Cinema Products was working on the rig that would replace the 3A, the Design was the Master Series and one of the original PATENTED features used a Torridal Mercury bubble level (Later touted as the "Bubble Tamer") to work as a Horizon Keeper by running the motorized side to side axis of the upper stage, fore/aft was left to the operator. The patent also had an internal cable system that would keep the sled in dynamic balance as you expanded the monitor and batteries to increase your pan inertia. Both proved troublesome to implement and were deleted on the production units.

 

In the intervening 20 plus years somehow hundreds of thousands of shots have been done with rigs that were both in dynamic balance and out of dynamic balance and no one has had the issues you describe with the "Telescoping, Extruding Zoom Lenses" you have identified. So here's to you Mr. Telescoping, Extruding Zoom Lens guy, this bud's for you

[Alan Rencher]

And with Eric's response, I think I can safely say that the debate is over.

 

Shawn, here's something for you to ruminate on:

 

in·vent

/inˈvent/

Verb

1. Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.

 

Ignorance isn't always bliss. Did you also discover gravity?

[Shawn Sutherland]

Holy crap, that post is ridiculous as is the video of your "Rig"

 

Your answers to a few of us made me laugh, no need for you to wear a cape, maybe a jacket with extra long sleeves. As someone who has flown cropdusters I can tell you that Jets have nothing to do with them (Not even a Turbine Thrush which was a blast to fly). I know that Afton has flown zooms but I also know that they haven't been an issue for him. As Alan will attest, we don't really care, this thread turned into pure comedy with your 2nd video. In your response to Victor you mistakenly equated yourself as one of our peers, you're not. Then you go on to say that those of us that understand dynamic balance (Both theoretically and empirically) don't actually know what we are talking about... Please do go on, you're fascinating.

 

You then argue that your active static balancer is a game changer for dynamic balance and that you have had the proverbial EUREKA moment with your motorized counter weight system (Why you need additional weight for balance is beyond me but hey that must be outside the box thinking). Since you really want to try to tackle this "Problem" you might want to know that it was done long ago, long before you thought of it.

 

Back in 1992 or so Cinema Products was working on the rig that would replace the 3A, the Design was the Master Series and one of the original PATENTED features used a Torridal Mercury bubble level (Later touted as the "Bubble Tamer") to work as a Horizon Keeper by running the motorized side to side axis of the upper stage, fore/aft was left to the operator. The patent also had an internal cable system that would keep the sled in dynamic balance as you expanded the monitor and batteries to increase your pan inertia. Both proved troublesome to implement and were deleted on the production units.

 

In the intervening 20 plus years somehow hundreds of thousands of shots have been done with rigs that were both in dynamic balance and out of dynamic balance and no one has had the issues you describe with the "Telescoping, Extruding Zoom Lenses" you have identified. So here's to you Mr. Telescoping, Extruding Zoom Lens guy, this bud's for you

 

OK now you're making me laugh. The crop-duster analogy wasn't meant to be taken literally, but apparently you did. Most entertaining.

 

If there's one thing I know, it's my own stabilizer designs. They both worked without gimbals and if I knew about dynamic balance back then, I would've got that working too. So if you think dynamic balance can not be achieved without a gimbal, you're sadly mistaken.

 

And what's this about my “motorized counter weight system”? I never said it was motorized. Where did you get that from?

 

Telescoping, Extruding Zoom Lenses are an issue for operators with DSLR cameras, as well as FS-100 owners using certain lenses. If you don't use these cameras, this problem doesn't come up for you or anyone else you know with your level of gear. But just because you don't experience it doesn't mean other people don't.

 

And if you must know, I prefer Corona.

[Shawn Sutherland]

 

And with Eric's response, I think I can safely say that the debate is over.

 

Shawn, here's something for you to ruminate on:

 

in·vent

/inˈvent/

Verb

1. Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.

 

Ignorance isn't always bliss. Did you also discover gravity?

 

You can safely say whatever you like. The debate's not over yet. And what have you invented lately?

 

Ever?

[Jerry Holway]

Shawn-

 

Sure, dynamic balance can apply to things other than Steadicam sleds, but this is a Steadicam forum, and a professional one at that. And our discussions of dynamic balance, or any other subject, are, by our choice, related to Steadicam-type stabilizers, accessories, practice, history, etc., and not to tripods, dollies, cranes, shakycams, rockets, space capsules, and the like.

 

The minimal requirement for a Steadicam-type sled is three displaced and balanced masses supported by a three axis gimbal. The masses increase angular inertia, and the gimbal both isolates the sled from the lift angle and also separates the large lifting force from the resulting, incredibly tiny, aiming forces. If these three masses are big enough, we can add a mechanical arm and a vest to place the lifting mostly on our biggest muscles (leg muscles) and further isolate the 3 mass and gimbal system from our body's lateral and vertical movements.

 

Steadicam is what we are interested in on this forum, and what we want to discuss. Your initial question in regards to the history of dynamic balance in relation to Steadicam was of some interest to some members of this forum, but when then the discussion went elsewhere. Personal attacks by you or of you are unwarranted, but you can't blame us for not being interested in you "invention" - whatever it is.

 

Further, your ignorance of what has gone before, been invented, claims of what Garrett knew and when he knew it (and how you are therefore like him), is annoying to many of us. For instance, many ops used motors to automatically move the stage side to side when shooting with coaxial 35mm film magazines - 4 pounds moving over an inch and a half!That particular trick is in the book, BTW, as is auto-leveling.

 

What started as a gentle hint - that this is a professional forum for Steadicam operators and concerns, seems to have eluded you, and provoked posts with more than a little heat in them.

 

I suggest, as others, have, that the discussion of your inventions belongs elsewhere on the Web. For the sake of civility, I suggest we all stop posting attacks and counterattacks on this thread, however justified.

[Erwin Landau]

Oh man really...?

Sorry that I moved it into the History section... my bad.

I'll rectify it now..