Jump to content

Arms that "bottom out" - Operator Preferences


Jamie Northrup

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Members

...

To answer a couple of Eric's points ... I have flown large rigs, but only at a workshop many moons ago and my muscle memory recall is not very precise. I have recently done more extensive data testing on a Flyer, as well as various low-end Chinese arms. I have put together my webpage in a serious effort to assist other aspiring prosumers in a similar position to myself who wish to compare performance parameters of low-end brands against industry leading brands.

Check out Chris's website, and demo video.

Anyone with some knowledge of a Steadicam Flyer (I don't think Chris owns one) and plays with some knock off steadYcam arms can write a "How to Test a Steadicam" blog.

Wow!! A genius!!!

 

"BMW, Audi, Mercedes? Toyota, Honda, or Chevy? Curves? No! Test drive."

Alex, based on what I just learned from "How to Test a Steadicam", all cars are the same.

All have 4 wheels and 1 steering wheel.

All can carry 4 persons from point A to point B.

So, there is no different.

Yeah!! I am also a genius about car.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken Nguyen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Back to the original questions:

 

Is that just something that you get used to?

Yes, of course. We all use our own arms well.

Does hitting the bottom every hurt/ruin your shot?

Ever? Again, of course, but rarely. Most likely in unrehearsed situations, hard-mounted vehicle shots, where the unexpected bites you.

Do any other operators share my preference resistance at the end of the boom range?

Yes. Of course. Count me and Garrett in.

To respond to another statement:

"A feathered stop just reduces the useable boom range of the arm while in motion. It is not a feature, it's a bug!"

Not so. It is designed into the G-arms as a feature. It does not restrict the boom range at all, and provides a wonderful bit of feedback that you are getting to the end of the range. You get used to this feature just like you would working with any other arm. On the G-arms specifically, the boom range is a tad bigger than some other arms (last I measured), so you get both more boom range and the cushioned end warning.

 

Regardless: my 2 cents: I like Audi (but I don't own one and never have; so my rationale for the preference is a bit odd).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Is that just something that you get used to?

Yeah.

Does hitting the bottom every hurt/ruin your shot?

I've never had a shot ruined by hitting the ends of my arm, but I've had other things ruin shots.

Do any other operators share my preference resistance at the end of the boom range?

Yup. Feedback and muscle memory go a long way.

 

Also,I prefer Audi. Audiworld forms have a great user base.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Hi David,

 

I guess it's personal preference. I am very used to the soft stop at the end of my unashamedly un-exed G arm, and that is what I like.

 

Race car chassis designers over at the Audiworld forum would probably recognise the value of different handling characteristics to suit different drivers' tastes.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Premium Members

Hi Jamie

Ive got a good range of arms

 

Flyer as I think they said in the original advertising behaves like a $20000-00 kit

I've not noticed it bottoming out ever it does seem to get stiffer near its limits. Has been going strong for many years. Carries a lot, lot more than the original specification. Thanks Chris F and Robin Tiffen for spares and help and bearings many years ago btw

 

Zephyr. acquired recently I think its great better than Flyer although one user mentioned he couldn't seem to lose steps in the shot. Seems smooth to me so I'm thinking it behaves in a different fashion depending on camera weight, maybe ? Overall though fantastic kit. Early days but probably another great Tiffen success.

 

Model 3 nearly 30 years old . Used it all last week on a show and behaves beautifully. Nice and light too Gold Springs gets very stiff near limits mainly because I use lighter rigs so would be better with different springs. Never noticed it bottom out. Thank you Brian Busby for servicing btw.

 

Master arm recently serviced Absolutely beautiful . I think a lot of people have had these but not properly maintained so get bad press. Bottoms out yes but the advantages far, far out weigh this. Works like a dream Thanks Brian Busby btw. As has been mentioned you get used to the bottoming out use your knees.

 

Baer Bel arm. A little vested interest here in that I represent Markus (Baer Bel) in UK. Most business now though is through Baer Bels own website.

Really long boom range. Compression springs I think. Lovely to look at. I've never notice bottoming out with this arm. I used it for years with too heavy springs but now got lighter ones and its like a different arm very responsive.

 

Ive had an Ultra arm too same as Master really, superb.

 

So there you have it any questions please fire away

 

All best with your decision

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

So far I have not heard anyone say that arm performance data "does not exist" (e.g. somewhere in personal or company archives), but rather that data couldn't be particularly relied upon for purchasing decisions, or that people just dislike the idea of data.

 

If official graphs or tables are not available, then it would be good to have a common shorthand for describing the force curve.

 

(e.g. Type X arm with load of 40 lbs and float point set to zero degrees requires 1.2 to 2.5 pounds to boom from +3 inches to +25 inches, with a stiffening from 2.5 to 4 pounds over the final 3 inches)

 

Yes it would certainly need to get more "dimensional" to paint a true overall performance picture for an arm (by consideration of min/max/key loads, spring combinations, "ride" settings if applicable, internal friction, etc.). All very doable in simple tables or graphs and no harder to interpret than depth of field data.

 

Who has the time or interest to assemble or absorb such data? From the track record and contributions so far, obviously very few. But the geeks are out there, and an "Arm Performance Primer" is not that hard to envisage ... and could be a useful resource for the community, even if it is not fully exhaustive for available models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Several Issues that you seem to be missing Chris, and it's all been discussed in this thread. Reading a set of numbers on paper mean NOTHING, actually flying the arm means EVERTHING. The force curve means nothing to the operator because there is no tuning of it.

 

The other issue I have with this is that your testing methods are flawed. That and your "How to test a steadicam" web page is not only flawed in the information that it presents but you are using the wrong methodology.

 

What I would suggest is that you focus your time and effort on actually using the gear to better inform yourself on what arms feel like and how rigs fly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Hi Chris,

 

The data may exist but it's useless without context. And that context is individual preference, experience, technique, camera package, terrain, type of shot etc.

 

In other words whilst it may seem like reducing this to a data set seems useful, it will ultimately provide no benefit. It's not like I can prep a days shooting knowing that none of the shots I'm supposed to be doing will require me to be close to bottoming out. That's because whilst our job is to repeat every shot perfectly, the practical experience of shooting (especially with actors) is that those will always have slight variations that an operators skill and experience deals with.

 

Additionally when it comes to lower costing arms, there can be a terrific variation from arm to arm from the same manufacturer. These are not items that are manufactured by robots in an automated way. They are required to be assembled by hand. The original Flyer arm had an upper limit that was a minimum, meaning that some arms could lift more. That meant there was a variation in a number of components that would make "force curve" data meaningless as different arms might bottom out with different camera packages at the upper limits. There is clearly more consistency with top of the range arms, but in the area where you are trying to inform it's often a moving target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd like to approach this issue of possible benefits of having of the force curve data in a different way.

 

i also agree that the data alone will be insignificant if not misleading without the context. But most of us has already tried all the major arms in the market and we have some idea about their performance. So having scientific data in addition to our experiences would be beneficial in order for us to better understand our equipment and help (not guide! only help) us for our future investments. Even if we don't have any personal experiences with every arm out there we will know that data alone wont give us enough information to judge.

 

i don't understand why we are so reluctant to have(or at least to ask for) additional data, if we all agree that main source of information should always be personal experience and said data should only be used as an addition to better analyse our own decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Who has the time or interest to assemble or absorb such data? From the track record and contributions so far, obviously very few. But the geeks are out there, and an "Arm Performance Primer" is not that hard to envisage ... and could be a useful resource for the community, even if it is not fully exhaustive for available models.

 

I fear this is a topic where the geeks find themselves as outsiders to the individuals most likely to use the gear. A primer might be helpful, but the majority of operators determine their gear preferences early on based on other factors (financial, proximity to manufacturer, etc), and as they succeed, their gear preferences are based on actual experience.

 

What I'm saying is that the opportunity to inform those individuals doesn't really exist, considering they buy what they afford in the beginning and what they really want when they are in a position to pay for the quality they expect. The geeks are looking at the specs, but the operators are out there operating.

 

I was at GPI earlier today, and Jack said something that I remind myself of frequently: for all of the geek indulgence, for all the technology and precision and enthusiasm we bring to this trade, in the end it doesn't really matter. ALL that matters is the SHOT. Knowing the performance data doesn't really mean much.

 

As you said, few people are out there with the time or interest to put together a proper test, and even with all that effort, might not (as you said) be fully exhaustive. So, what good is the data accumulated if not exhaustive or comprehensive?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...