Portahead 10 brushless gimbal with Arri Alexa on steadicam

[Alan Rencher]

Greg posted a picture of that a while back, but made no mention of it since.

[Marc R. Berger]

Would be very good to hear something about this or the Wagner WXB, and see a working production model, but maybe they all stopped working on it because of the arising of the Gimbals.

[Marc R. Berger]

And (because I don´t want to change subject in this thread), gimbals like the one from Andreas really seem to be a big jump.

[Frank Schwaiger]

Hey Andreas,

 

who is controlling the tilt on your video? Can you fix the tilt to follow your movements and to have one axis stabilized only?

 

Best,

 

Frank

[AndreasKielb]

Hey Andreas,

 

who is controlling the tilt on your video? Can you fix the tilt to follow your movements and to have one axis stabilized only?

 

Best,

 

Frank

 

 

Hello Frank,

 

the steadicam operator also controls the head with the same movements as with conventional steadicam. The tilt is set to a really tight follow mode and is following the movement of the sled very closely, as the operator tilts the sled up or down. It feels like normal steadicam operating and the tilt also reacts precisely to slight headroom changes.

 

It's common praxis with the steadicam to compensate fast changes of the subject with a boom up or down with the arm rather than a tilt, like if an actor is taking his first step down on a flight of stairs. It would still be necessary to do compensate such movements with an height change of the arm rather than tilting but I never felt that I was too late with framing even though the head reacts milliseconds slower than with a direct mechanical connection between sled and camera. I only had a few chances to test the system, though.

 

This pictures are from a shooting with Epic, Leica lenses and accessories like SDI splitter, hotswap and larger battery. As I was afraid the scedule with the kids was very tight and I had no time to do additional test with the camera. Also the white background was not really a challenge for the system as there were no straight lines. But I did some fast pushs into close ups as you can tell from the unusual body position in the second picture. I think it was taken while braking after such a push in. They looked good but I will try to make better example footage before I edit another video to show the advantages of the rig, as I know the ballet scenes were not very challenging either. I thought about fast push ins, direction changes with the rig facing sideways, very wide angle scenes with a lot of straight lines but also shots with long lenses.

 

 

 

[Rich Cottrell]

but the real question is WHY?

[AndreasKielb]

It might seem odd to put additional weight on the steadicam which already does a great job in stabilization. But at the moment there are a lot of shots that usually don't utilize a steadicam and the reason is often explained with a gesture that insinuates a slight sway, like for instance a pack shot for a commercial. I won't suggest auto-levelling is a game changer but it might be a helpfull tool anyway.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

What did you achieve with using that over what a decent steadicam operator can do? I see no advantage for all the trouble and additional rig length (which is comedically long)

[Marc R. Berger]

One or two axis stabilization with a lighter setup then this would be great for longtime operating (sports and documentary films). I just had the situation shooting the whole day, sometimes for 1 1/2 hour without a brake. After a couple of hours I would have loved having some electronic help to keep the horizon steady. But I´m not a very experienced and decent operator yet.

I don´t see those gimbals overtaking the brilliant work of decent steadicam operators. A beautifully made steadicam move is IMHO still breathtaking and somehow with a elegance those gimbals can´t deliver, but I see a big advantage in the near future bringing some of those gimbal techniques into the steadicam rig: with much less electronic parts and more precise and rugged mechanical solutions. Somehow more integrated in the rig, top stage, gimbal, or a extra box like the WXB.

(I apologize if sometimes my english is a bit complicated).

[AndreasKielb]

What did you achieve with using that over what a decent steadicam operator can do? I see no advantage for all the trouble and additional rig length (which is comedically long)

 

 

The rig length is only because I heave fairly light weights at the bottom of my sled. It's actually the same conventional with heavy cameras up to 15 kg and if there is a bridge plate under the camera which increases the distance to the topstage. But having a long post doesn't bother me actually. I need to limit the overall rig weight to 23 or 24 kg as that's the weight limit of my arm.

 

At the moment my attempts are mainly to explore the possibilities of this new technology in combination with the steadicam and to get a rig which allows dolly-like shots under all circumstances. It's just to add an extra bit of perfection. If you are interested I already wrote a little technical description about why I think that improvements are possible with the combination of brushless gimbals and steadicam which go beyond using both systems on their own: http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21005&p=103777

 

A more integrated system which allows low to high mode shots on steadicam for heavier cameras is also in the planning but will require CNC machining and probably a cooperation partner. I already built a system for lighter cameras and with available parts, though: