Tilting Stage

[Anthony Hardwick]

Jerry,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post the information you did (including the link to the Patent).

 

I agree with your views, and I would like to hope that this community is predominantly composed of ethically minded people. Certainly no one's hard work and ingenuity should ever be ripped off by anyone. I think we must all agree on that.

 

In any case, I am not in the business of trying to build a better mouse trap. Rather, I am just trying to use the mouse trap that I have to elegantly, skillfully and artistically catch those elusive mice. ;)

 

In any case, as my cat repeatedly proves to me... it's not the mouse trap... it's the mouser.

 

Best,

Anthony

[Brad Grimmett]

Lots of good info there Larry. Thanks.

 

"I modified the post clamp in the arm to stay in a fixed position"

 

How'd you do this? I've been considering doing this to my arm, or at least having the option of doing it, but I haven't really looked into it too much. It would be great to hear the details of how you did this.

Thanks.

[DavidWest]

wow..........

 

looks like a hornets nest got kicked over here.....

 

 

since this thread sat idle for awhile until i started asking design questions let me clarify a few things that may not have been clear from my earlier posts...

 

if i, or anyone for that matter, wanted to steal the existing design , it would be EASY!! you wouldnt have to ask weight estimates as to what might still be allowable or any other questions for that matter.... you would pull up the patent page and make it as is detailed there... no real mystery (some patents obscure some of the finer points as long as they can still be awarded. this one does not. pretty much cut some grooves in a plate that keep the CG in one place.) other than that it is just a tilting support for a camera, just like has been made for the last hundred years.

 

do i have an ORIGINAL IDEA... (a completely different method of achieving the same goal!!) well, i would like to think so. ultimately the attornies seem to be the ones who decide that... and i have no great fondness of attornies... so, i draw up my idea, pay 400 bucks, and give it a chance at the us patent office... if i get awarded a patent- i immediately sell it to chroziel who is more than happy to have it, and then i take the money and buy the master series -which already has a tilting topstage- and make a few videos which is all i started out to do in the first place...

 

 

or- i keep working at mcdonalds, saving for my master rig, which i should hopefully have by the time im 50 if i never get married and invest wisely...

 

 

 

**********

one thought though:

 

it used to be that companies would create teams of engineers to test existing products and come up with new ideas for improvements and modifications to that product and future products...

 

communication and the internet have changed the rules... now the average guy has access to the end users of products in groups such as this and can ASK questions as to what improvements are desired. in addition most steadicam operators are an extremely bright bunch. understanding the camera alone is tough, now understand a 0-gravity device too...hmmm... that is probably why there is a lot of inventing going on outside of the manufacturer....

 

 

 

did i ever say that i would COPY the existing designs??? NO!!! why not?? because frankly i think i can do better... time will tell...

[Jerry Holway]

Will-

 

Alas, the something simple you want, I originally wanted as well, and I tried to design it for the then prototype for the Ultra, "the XP."

 

By the way, I made the XP by myself, which is my choice as the best way for me to discover and get what I want. I was so thrilled with my first gen XP, but after 10 minutes on the set I figured it was useless without a tilt head, a painful lesson to say the least.

 

I also quickly came to the conclusion that an add-on tilt head would add way too much height between gimbal and stage for any heavy camera, cause interference with the stage, etc., (as pointed out in other posts) and I was quickly forced to come up with an integral head that would add the least possible height between gimbal and stage. I looked at the Rob Gelder sort of design (also integral), but decided the c.g. and height shift was too much, and I wanted both plus and minus 20 degrees tilting... and for quite a while I was looking at my XP a bit sideways....

 

Even trying out the first prototype was a painful choice which required me to saw off a couple of inches from the top of my custom purchased $2.5K carbon fiber post (that was dicey, to say the least, and I was told not to do it....)

 

Having no arrnagement with CP at that time, I also took a look at the PRO rig, and came to the conclusion that the nature of Donkey Boxes would make it additionally hard to get the gimbal high enough with an add-on, and also improbable - from my point of view - of making an integral tilt head without completely redesigning that part ? a can of worms that made little sense for me to pursue in light of everything else on my plate.

 

If you can imagine it, I had a hard time convincing folks that an integral tilt head was a good idea. And once they did, it took several generations of prototypes and production units to get it in the current form for the Ultra....

 

Like Larry, I also customized my prototype Ultra (for which I made a lot of the parts....) - large digit voltage meter, several generations of monitor mounts, holes in covers, switches... changes to the vest (some of which are in the current Ultra vest)...

 

But back to the point. In my opinion, a non-integral tilt head was not a very useful object, so I chose not to make it. An integral tilt head is just that, integral, and it must integrate with everything else at the top of the post, and redesigning all that for each rig is not going to be either fruitful or rewarding in any sense of the word.

 

Jerry

[Larry McConkey]

?A hornet?s nest? is a wonderful image, and it is amazing that this thread has kicked up so much interest and complicated sets of feelings. We are seeing a new age in the Steadicam community in which the end users are starting to feel more empowered to affect the end product. I have been in this game for over 25 years now, and when I entered into it I could not afford the big toys. I also could see lots of room for improvement and both factors impelled me to make my own stuff, and this tinkering let me do shots that I could only dream about otherwise, frustrated by technical limitations.

Along with a host of other gadgets, I designed a few radio systems for myself before working with John Seitz to give other operators a good, working system. I never made any money on these devices, but I gained access to a full machine shop at Seitz Technical, and after solving a particular problem, I had the satisfaction of being able to do better work, and an arrangement whereby I got the final product at cost which made it affordable for me. There were others doing much the same thing, pushing to advance the art really just for the thrill of seeing a glorious shot on the screen, ultimately fully realized in the PRO design. It was operators pushing the design to do more and do it better that got us to the place we find ourselves today, with numerous machines and many, many accessories available.

 

Competition to make a profit is of course the other side of this coin, and necessary if serious new designs are to continue to be developed. A lot is riding on the financial success of the companies who enter into this arena, without which the only development will be incremental and of the add-on type of improvements that I am so familiar with. I am thrilled by the variety of new designs, accessories, and passions that are blossoming today; I only hope the current financial environment of Steadicam Operating will support it. Rates are being forced by accounting pressures to such low levels that affording these new designs becomes questionable. It is this pressure that fuels the desire to modify existing designs with add-on pieces. In spite of the variety of new systems, most operators are still in the same place I was when I started out ? wanting to do more with their equipment, but not wanting or able to afford an entire new system to fulfill that desire. I hope this enthusiasm to do better work is not stifled by the hotly contested marketing wars that are emerging, but only enabled by it.

 

I think this discussion has revealed the depths of effort, energy and thoughtfulness that go into designing, producing and marketing machines from which we can realize our dreams. The aftermarket devices clearly spur insightful system manufacturers into redesigning their base products to new heights, and create the sharp desire among other operators to improve their craft with modifications. I think there is room for both approaches and I hope this will always be the case. The operators are clearly the best source of real inspiration for new designs and gadgets, and the manufacturers that respond to their expressed desires will no doubt be the most successful in the end. In between releases of new models, these aftermarket designs are the most useful expression of new ideas, and I would hope operators will continue to develop them. Anyone hoping to market them, however, needs to be cognizant of the realities of the patent system, and the absolute need to treat the companies that have dedicated themselves and their financial futures to producing these wonderful machines with the respect they deserve. If they fail, we all lose.

 

I think more discussions like this one are only helpful ? perhaps there is a way to produce a useful, add-on tilt stage to existing designs without patent infringement. That could only help operators everywhere. There is no question in my mind, and I hope anyone else?s mind either, that incorporating this into a sled design is a far superior solution, but then you have to buy that whole sled, of course. I am very thankful to Jerry for working out a clever solution and doing the hard work of convincing the factory to implement it on the Ultra, and it was one of the reasons I chose that design for my current system. Perhaps one day all sleds will have this clear improvement, after the patents protecting it expire. Until then, having a better than nothing add-on is clearly a great idea, if doable as a legally and ethically marketable item. If not, there is nothing to stop anyone from making their own mods, as I have always done, and so many others as well.

 

My question is, can aftermarket mods which infringe upon existing patents be manufactured and sold at cost to others. Assuming no profit, is there a mechanism to allow this? Is there some way to determine to everyone?s satisfaction if a particular design might be infringing without going through the fairly respectable challenge of researching patents on a one by one basis? For instance, if someone wants to make an accessory available, could the idea could be presented on the forum, just as this idea is being discussed now, and manufacturers could comment upon infringements that they would be well aware of?

 

How can we advance the state of the art without undermining the efforts of the manufacturers that we depend upon for enabling our passions and our careers? As Will is asking also, does anyone have ideas on how to resolve these questions?

 

Larry

[Larry McConkey]

Brad,

I did this many years ago. As I remember CP had designed a free-floating clamp that employs two 10-32 socket head bolts to tighten around the post. I think it was the original design that was supplanted by the springy-thing that is now supplied. It may still be an option - I happened to see one while visiting the factory and immediately offered to buy it. I added a simple piece of steel (about 1" wide, 2" tall and 3/16" thick) that projects up behind the top part of the arm structure, just contacting it firmly when the clamp is tightened onto the post. This involved machining a flat on the back of the clamp, and drilling and tapping a couple of holes in the flat, and matching clearance holes in the steel part. I made one for my brother as well and it took less than 1 hour in all. I will take a pic and post it if you would like to see that. I can always substitute the springy-thing when I want to, but I have never wanted to. It violates the tool-free idea, but I haven't come up with a clever hand-tightened solution yet, so I live with the need of an allen wrench for this... anyone have an idea for a better solution?

 

Larry

[Jerry Holway]

Larry,

 

my two cents on the last part of your post.

 

Quote: "My question is, can aftermarket mods which infringe upon existing patents be manufactured and sold at cost to others. Assuming no profit, is there a mechanism to allow this? Is there some way to determine to everyone?s satisfaction if a particular design might be infringing without going through the fairly respectable challenge of researching patents on a one by one basis?"

 

"Sold at cost" sounds nice enough, but it means that the inventor, manufacturer, etc. loses a sale, and, alas, the economic value of the idea is diminished. It's also why company plans are protected and not published (regardless of patent).

 

Again, reverse engineering happens (often legally and ethically), and making things for oneself is also just fine. It's the making of the patented idea commercially (whether for profit or not) that is troublesome.

 

As to "the fairly respectable challenge of researching patents...," it was a fairly respectable (and expensive) job getting the patent (including researching case by case, other existing patents), I doubt if any patent holder would like to assist anyone to get around it.

 

The choice to get a patent at all depends on the inventor's idea about the uniqueness and economic value of the product, and how easy it is to copy an idea. Because one discloses a lot in a patent - and you can't hide anything you want to protect with a patent - one hopes that the protection of the patent provides will be worth the effort. Many times, it isn't. And as we all know, a lot is contested and ends up in courts (like the intermittent windsheild washers we all enjoy on cars....)

 

Oh well, must run.

 

Jerry

[Brad Grimmett]

I will take a pic and post it if you would like to see that. I can always substitute the springy-thing when I want to, but I have never wanted to. It violates the tool-free idea, but I haven't come up with a clever hand-tightened solution yet, so I live with the need of an allen wrench for this... anyone have an idea for a better solution?

 

Larry

Larry,

Yes, it would be great if you posted a picture. I use the "springy thingy", and it can be frustrating at times. It does the job, but I've always wished I had something better. I'm looking forward to seeing your solution.

Thanks.

[Larry McConkey]

Jerry,

I may be naive here, but what I meant was not help getting around a patent, but finding out if an idea WAS patented or not. It is not a trivial matter to decipher patents, and wouldn't it be useful for everyone to understand the game before it gets to the point of litigation rather than after?

 

Larry

[WillArnot]

Larry and Jerry thank you both for taking the time to share your expertise. Jerry, I think it's important that we all get to understand the trials and tribulations by which you came up with the tilt head. It is a testament to how important this issue of design is. Larry, your clear and well written insight is invaluable and filled with such great information. Thank you.

 

Larry, I remember your rig well from when you so generously took time to have myself and Ray over for a look-see, and great talk, when I was researching a new sled after 8 yrs w/ my Master. I was pretty much sold on the Ultra when we left. So when I approached Tiffen about purchasing one, the only thing I asked of them was to add the wire up the post for gyro pwr as you had done, and for them to re-locate that big connecter at the bottom side of the sled; where as you had pointed out, is the worst possible location in terms of leg clearance. Well, the response I got was, "NO WAY" ... basically, "like it or leave it". I was dismayed to say the least, as a returning customer and w/ high hopes that things would be different now with Tiffen. I believe they have evolved somewhat since then, but at the time it was the last straw w/ me.

 

Being a purist for those 8 yrs, also the Master was not very gyro friendly, I used antlers alot, and was not very well educated in using gyros. Now having the most gyro friendly sled out there w/ the Ultimate and it's amazing pwr management, I am utterly sold of course and know alot more about them. For all those out there learning, knowing when to pull gyros out and what that will entail is very important to understand. They are not a fix all and they certainly don't make you a better operator. And Larry, we need to talk about the work you and Jim have been doing.

 

So my question that I didn't know to ask at the time is... is that a DC cable going up the post for gyro power, and therefore you have to place an inverter on top of camera to give AC pwr to the 3rd gyro? Surely running AC pwr up the post alongside DC pwr is extremely risky, no?

 

The other thing in response to your posting is Modularity. This to me is the other Achilles heel of the Ultra. Since, you say, all these improvements have been made to eliminate "the shakes" in the head, and a much stiffer post... Did you then purchase or swap out these components as they became the new and improved? Was Tiffen helpful in this? And more importantly, how easy is it to swap out these components... head, gimbal, post etc.

 

Case in point: literally 1 hour ago I was visiting your brother Jimmy on the Will Smith set where he is doing B cam / Steadi and my good friend Dave Knox is the A-camera op. While I was there the spindle nut on his gimbal - in helicopter terms the equivalent being the "jesus nut" which holds the rotor on - this is the nut which attaches the handle to the yolk... stripped out. After two takes, enough time for team camera to fetch a back-up gimbal from the truck, like a group of surgeons ... 'doctor'... the Pro quick-release (Erwin <_< :)) was undone from the top stage, the 1st AC lifted w/ camera et al attached to D-box, 2nd AC removed center post cable, docking ring...pulled the gimbal... back-up gimbal goes on, reverse the process, and in two minutes, 'Bob's yer uncle'. Good on ya Jimmy and crew, it was great to watch. Inspiring, and a testament to how far all the gadgetry has come as you pointed out Larry. To switch a gimbal out in between takes. Awesome.

 

For me too on the Ron Howard film last yr when my gimbal seized up from a wind storm in a gypsum quarry. At wrap I was able to pop the gimbal off in 40 secs, take it home and spray it out very easily with carburator cleaner, to put it back into perfect working order for the following days work. Had I not been able to do this, and was forced to operate w/ it loaded w/ grit, the bearings would have been irreparably damaged. Very, very costly had I not been able to pop the gimbal off and back on easily.

 

So how easy or not is it to make these kinds of component switches on the Ultra?

 

And finally back to the tilt plate. I hadn't looked back far enough in the thread until now to see that part of what re-awakened this thread was mention of the Chrosziel tilt head. Finally tracking down the website for this new sled, i was at first impressed, then quickly uncomfortable, and understood a little better how this hornets nest was perhaps formed.

 

This sled IS the bastard step-child of the Ultra, the Pro, and the Ultimate. No doubt. It has the tilt head, optional motorised stage, and 4 stage built in super post, all w/ quick-release no-tools clamps. PRO style bottom, very simple 3 battery system. And the Ultimate's full 2 inches of rigid beauty in the post diameter. Now what's up with that??? Check it out at

WWW.ANTHRAZIT-DESIGN.COM

 

Now I can understand what the noise is about. Really, i just want a one-off of SOMETHING that will allow me to pre set tilt. This however is a whole different ball of wax. It's very much a knock off Ultra with all the benefits of PRO and Ultimate mixed right in. So Jerry, what is the course of action here?? Is Tiffen aware of this? How far do the current patents cover and protect??

 

Thanks for all the input and great information this thread has produced. It really adressess the roots of this job we all love so much.

 

Will

[Brad Grimmett]

Check it out at

WWW.ANTHRAZIT-DESIGN.COM

 

 

Will

So I went to the site to check out the design, and I noticed something that seems very strange to me. When you click on the monitor a picture of the monitor and bracket come up and it says, "Ted Churchill monitor bracket allows quick and easy switch from high to low mode. It is mountable in any position." Am I the only one that finds that weird? Maybe "Ted Churchill monitor bracket" is some standard lingo that I've never heard before. If it is please correct me, but if not, what the hell is up with that? Somebody enlighten me here.....

Oh, and there also selling a "Holway bracket".

Are they using these names in a legitimate manner?

[Stephen Murphy]

Dont know its true origins but that "Ted Churchill" monitor arm has been around for some time now. When i had my 3A i originally bought it from a small rental company and it had one of these monitor arms on it, along with a chrosziel topstage (which i still have). Chrosziel had retro-fitted a stock 3A for them and these were some of the changes they had made. Judging by the poor condition of the sled when i bought it id imagine the mods, and hence the "Ted churchill" arm had been around for several years.

[Larry McConkey]

Will,

I always paid full price for all the upgrades... some of these I resented because I felt the original design was flawed, but I was always grateful to have the redesign available. One of the problems I am hoping Tiffen corrects is the lack of information about redesigns. When problems are found and corrected, they should make every effort to inform their customers. I find the general attitude at Tiffen to be very much improved over the CP operating philosophy, so I am very optimistic that customer service in general, which is already light years better than CP, will continue to improve. When pressed, they have most often consented to my requests for modifications such as extra wires up the post, although I still do most of the work myself. I first tested running AC along a small twisted pair of unshielded wires and found absolutely no interference to anything. The AC is at 400 Hz, and this is a substantial difference from the 60 Hz nightmares that we are so aware of on set. I then prepared the extra wiring bundle (which also included 2 additional miniature coax cables for my microphone and speaker which are mounted on the camera stage) and afterwards I did all the connector work and wiring myself. This happened during a repair/upgrade to the post so very little extra work was required by them. I installed a matching pair of small 2 pin lemos (matching the PRO standard) on my stage and the bottom electronics box. When running the umbilical from my external gyro pack (which holds 2 batteries - the 28.8v Ultra battery for sled power and a separate 12v battery for gyro power for which I resurected by Model 3 batteries - the gyro inverter, and often my mini-DV recorder as well) I connect two leads to the bottom gyros directly and plug the third lead into the bottom lemo. A short lemo-lemo cable up top goes to the third camera mounted gyro.

 

Larry

[guillermo nespolo]

for me the question ...its when u finish and finally get happy for ones with the sled...cause i just reading and reading and sames that the upgrade thing never its gonna end....?

i have some problems with the vivatring low mode universal cage...(i need to upgrade for a long trhoat mags and a low mode bracket .....ok that is ok )....

but if i put a super post i will also need a tilting plate for shure.....

so i dont have so much work now to pay all these ...in the end i must sale my rig and buy a new one that have all the feachures ...or be paciense and grow up as my jobs grouw up ......

(yes jannis arthur the steadicam world its a black hole where all your money go )

ps no woman in this forum ....that is saddd :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jerry Holway]

Check it out at

WWW.ANTHRAZIT-DESIGN.COM

 

 

Will

So I went to the site to check out the design, and I noticed something that seems very strange to me. When you click on the monitor a picture of the monitor and bracket come up and it says, "Ted Churchill monitor bracket allows quick and easy switch from high to low mode. It is mountable in any position." Am I the only one that finds that weird? Maybe "Ted Churchill monitor bracket" is some standard lingo that I've never heard before. If it is please correct me, but if not, what the hell is up with that? Somebody enlighten me here.....

Oh, and there also selling a "Holway bracket".

Are they using these names in a legitimate manner?

A lot of questions and thought here, and I swore I had said my peace and would let it rest.

 

But-

 

I was surprised as anyone at a bracket called "the Holway bracket" ... the real design idea for that (non-patented....) item was conceived by Jacob Bonfils of Copenhagen way back in 92 or 93... I think Chrosziel was "being nice" about its origin as I promoted the idea to the world, but they didn't ask to use my name and I don't think it's worth a response.

 

I suspect the same for Ted's monitor arm; he did a lot of workshops with Alfred, and it's a way of giving him a nod. And, in my opinion, it's a better name than a "DRX-2003Azz or some such like all the video gear at NAB... legimate? oh jeez.

 

Again to Larry and the patent stuff. There are a number of "invented" items I've made without patents. A couple of them seemed like really good candidates for patenting, and I did my research as best I could (as Garrett and thousands of others have done) to find out what was done before.

 

And I realized, to my dismay, that my thoughts we not as original as I had hoped, and that a USEFUL patent would not be issued... so I either abandoned the idea or just made the darn thing for myself, or manufactured it, or made a deal with someone else to make it first and compete with anyone and everyone else that came along.

 

My experience in all this is very small and limited - I share one and only one patent with Garrett, and only hired a lawyer once to investigate another idea, an idea that went nowhere.

 

I do know that the world is full of people finding out the hard way that they are in violation of patents. And it takes lawyers, like the ones that wrote the damn things, to sort it all out.

 

So having lay folks like you or me either decide or discover what is LEGALLY patentable or infringing - with all the best intentions - is probably not a good idea.

 

Finally, (I hope), it's my VERY limited understanding of patent law in the USA, let alone world-wide, that a patent holder should keep his mouth shut as part of protecting his/her patent. That's why patents are so carefully and painfully worded.

 

And, let's say Joe Somebody makes 100 widgets at no profit (and how to determine profit, see Enron) and any or all such widgets has a problem, Houston. Who stands behind it?

 

Hope this point of view is helpful, even if frustrating, and I disclaim any of it as even remotely legal advice.

 

Jerry "going back to the drawing board now" Holway