XCS Plates and camera screws

[RonBaldwin]

I had a DB-III (#011) and it benefitted greatly from the XCS plate. ANY Top stage will benefit from the I-beam construction of the XCS plate

 

just bought db3 #201 (my db2 finally gave up...it's in the hospital right now). It's pretty sweet and a huge difference. I will give Greg and Tom a call.

 

Yes, I like lisagav and leprechaun's, and I now feel inadequate having only needed 2 pro plates all these years.

 

rb

[nick franco]

Yes, I like lisagav and leprechaun's, and I now feel inadequate having only needed 2 pro plates all these years.

 

rb

So THAT"S why you drive that little econobox of a car!

 

I saw your d-box and your batt at PRO yesterday, they said they were sorry and would like to come home.

[RonBaldwin]

I saw your d-box and your batt at PRO yesterday, they said they were sorry and would like to come home.

 

I miss them too -- I hope you gave them a hug for me. The locations and weather here is really kicking the crap out of my gear.

[Justin Painter]

I saw your d-box and your batt at PRO yesterday, they said they were sorry and would like to come home.

 

I miss them too -- I hope you gave them a hug for me. The locations and weather here is really kicking the crap out of my gear.

 

 

Who makes/sells the transmitter bracket that fits in the dovetail on the back of the xcs plate?

 

Thanks

 

Justin Painter

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Who makes/sells the transmitter bracket that fits in the dovetail on the back of the xcs plate?

 

 

XCS

[Lawrence Karman]

I have a bunch of plates because with heavier cameras I like to keep the CG as low as possible and the PRO plates afford me some valuable space/weight savings above the gimbal.

 

The stiffness of the XCS plate far outweigh's the 1/4" rise of the cameras CG

 

 

Actually it is exactly 1/2". What is it you and Erwin are doing that requires such rigidity? I'm flying the latest PRO stuff and can't say I see much vibration in my dailies. In fact I don't see any.

BTW, I have one XCS plate and always thought the 3/8" tapped holes were a clever place to store the camera screws.

[Erwin Landau]

Hi Doc,

 

Actually it all started with my Donkey Box 2 and the appearance of the Panavised F-900 and the need to somehow get the Preston Motor out there to the lens some 10" away from the lens port... and the PRO plates flexing so mach that the FF motor would start to jump gears. For me it was always the issue with the FF motor mounting, running out of places to mount and mount solid, so I was looking for a better Iris rod adapter solution.

 

That got me into my first XCS plate which Greg had just introduced for his Ultimate as an option. It was Black and required slight machining to fit the D-Box 2 and it didn't fit all D-boxes out there, that was also around the time when he was getting inquires from Master Series and Ultra owners, that's when he added the 2 threats for the catch mechanism that made it work with the CP/Tiffen rigs.

That solved my problem of getting my FF motors securely onto the Lens barrel.

 

The final push into XCS plates came when I received my D-Box 3 (S#009). I was one of the first ops to use the LW-2 and the 435 in low mode. Due to the wider design of the D-Box, I was not able to invert the camera as in case of the Panaflex the XC-75 Videotap was hitting as well as on the 435 where the lowmode bracket attachment screw was hitting... As George didn't had a quick solution I got my next set of XCS plates in grey that solved the problem (the black plates turned out to be machined to that extend that they would not properly sit in the D-Box 3) with the third set anthracite colored replaced all my previous plates including all PRO and DeRose plates.

 

And finally the change over to the Ultimate where I got the new generation Gun Metal grey ones (and as we where using 2 cameras on a show, upping it from two to four plates) as I sold the others with my old PRO. And last but not least to the latest improved version in red...

 

Works for me...

[RonBaldwin]

The final push into XCS plates came when I received my D-Box 3 (S#009). I was one of the first ops to use the LW-2 and the 435 in low mode. Due to the wider design of the D-Box, I was not able to invert the camera as in case of the Panaflex the XC-75 Videotap was hitting as well as on the 435 where the lowmode bracket attachment screw was hitting...

 

I have a small 1/4" thick aks plate that can go between the low mode bracket and the plate. I haven't used it since I had my model 2 (no upper side to side) but I've carried it with me ever since and suspect it will come in handy next time I get one of those cameras as I imagine those cameras still hit? The low mode bracket on the Arri LT is really close to hitting too but (obviously) fine.

[Lawrence Karman]

Well Irwin I'd have to agree with you about the flex when mounting the focus motor way out there. Usually not a problem, but I have observed this. And yes, the reason bought the XCS plate was for the 435 low mode / DB3 clearance issues. Never happened with my old DB2. (Ron- the head of a allen bolt on the 435 low mode/100% tap plate sticks up about 2mm too far and hit the side of the DB3). PRO now makes a 12" long, extra thick camera plate which for me addresses any flex issues when balancing the camera waaay back in the DB (Genesis) or mounting a motor way out front.

Al that being said I, like Matt, prefer the lower CG of my PRO plates and rarely use my XCS plate.

[GBubb]

My thoughts on the XCS camera plates. Like everything I have designed (with the exception of one gimbal handle style) My concern is first of all for myself as an operator. It may sound a bit selfish but over the past 10+ years of selling my equipment designs, they show that others have had the same issues as I have. I have said, and will always say, that XCS designs are not for everybody. However, I find on this topic of camera plates that the discussion has missed a few of the concerns I had, that were the catilist for the XCS design.

 

1) Lens Motor placement. This was critical to me from day one. From my first CP focus system back in 1985 and up until I designed the XCS camera plate, motor placement was critical. WHY? 2/3rds of the nation has sub freezing temperatures and focus, iris & zoom motors will find the path of least resistance which is generally pulling away from the lens, or jumping gears rather than turning a cold lens. I needed to eliminate the need for swing arms (dog bones) and direct connect to a solid point. Prior to Preston motors I solved this issue other ways with a large number of brackets designed specifically for each camera. These were back in the BL, Arri's, Pana X, G2 ect. with .500 rods. The 15 mm Preston standard hole allowed me to use one 15mm rod through the motor and directly into the camera plate. With this camera plate design, one under the camera and one on top for low mode you are able to use 2 motors, one on top of the lens, one under that lens and have them directly connected into the camera plate. They will never pull away from a lens again. You will never have to remove the motors when flipping from high to low mode, so your balance will not change. These are very simple, time saving, and job saving concepts. Job saving when your lens gear slipped out or jumped a tooth or two and no one noticed until the end of the shot.

 

2) Slots verses holes. Again rigidity and since I have owned CP's, 2, 3, 3A and Pro sleds and can tell you that you can and will run out of camera adjustment room pushing the camera to the left on LW1, 2, and 2 modified with the latest color video. Why, because the cheese plate have holes every .8125 or was it .875" apart? Which is fine, it's just that most film cameras were not designed with weight balance on center of the camera left to right, and camera plate holes only put you closer. Slots can put you dead on center if you wish to find it. As long as 15 years ago I used slots on all my personal .250"camera plates so I would not run out of camera balance room on the above mentioned sleds with the exception of the 2 which I sold when the CP 3 came out, and then added my own left to right on adjustment on that sled. To me and only to me slots are the only way to go. I will say that after selling over a few hundred plates, other operators seem to agree.

 

3) Plate height. Within reason it doesn't matter. If it did matter I would suggest that opertaors measure the height of the camera platform to the locking mechanism on their center post and ask themselves or their manufacturer why is this 1.75-3" taller than my highest gimbal point. Either your camera platform and post wiggel/vibrates or it doesn't. I am sure this statement will bring a few comments, but I have yet to hear a reason why it matters? Have you run out of post length? On many popular sled designs if you raise the camers height above the gimbal .5" you would need to lower the batteries 1". If one wishes to keep the gimbal as close to the camera as possible, I can appreciate that. So we are now talking about moving the gimbal up about .3125" when the camera is raised .50" I have yet to hear of an opertor saying I can't do this job because the camera is too tall. By the way, I have dealt with that very situation, and my solution was I chopped a post down to 10" long, to fly a Moviecam SL. I had to add a third battery, I usually only fly two batteries on the Ultimate. I had a height limit and waist deep water with 16 hours to figure it out and make the shot. Most opertors I know live for these challenges.

 

4) Multiple XCS plate designs. I have changed the design 3 times in the last 6 years, and color code the camera plates to reflect these changes. With the exception of a dozen plates that were custom colors for specific operators. All my plates were based on CP standard plate widths. However, there was a manufacturer that had an upper stage that varied in width or at least the 2 dozen I measured varied at a greater point than the CP standard would allow. So a .015" wider plate was made for those opertors. To those that own the XCS sled this was not an issue. To the other manufacturer, they changed the clamping design and it no longer matters. That was camera plate change one. The last change was made when Panavision designed what was dubbed the "Whale's Tail". It was the two Dionic batteries that replaced the record deck for camera power. It added all the weight to the front of the camera when using a Primo lens. So the XCS plate went from 8" to 8.25" in length and the Panavision mounting holes went from one set to two sets of holes moving the camera back allowing for normal balance. Of course Panavision has stopped using that "Whales Tail " adapter so it is no longer a concern. I also added another gadget out of my bag of tricks, the transmitter dovetailed adaptor plate. This was the second camera plate change. FYI even though the XCS camera plate added 0.25" we reduced the weight by 2 ounces.

 

I think that about does it for the camera plates. Two plates is all one should need as far as I am concerned, a third possibly as a back up. I see no reason for longer plates. As in most all my designs practicality brings about the design. Operators, please don't over think my designs, I don't have products for everyones issues, nor would I claim to, that's why you should have a local machinist. I always try to design to some standard like the CP camera plate width, who I would claim set the standard, SMPTE for monitors & video, mechanical stress testing, FDA, FCC testing, ROHS & wiring awg standards to help eliminate our other issues.

 

Respectfully,

Greg Bubb

[Jens Piotrowski SOC]

RE: Erwin pictures:

 

 

TIP: I actually use washer, since the panavision screw heads are not very big.....

 

 

Nice work Greg!

 

JP

[Michael Stumpf]

Like Erwin stated, I've used 2 XCS plates for the past 6 years too (I think Erwin and I were the first to get them cut for the PRO 2 by Greg). When the Donkey Box 3 came out these plates were the savior to using a 435 in low mode where the old PRO plates were not tall enough to clear the DB3 latch release. I still have the same original 2 XCS plates too. Have never had an issue fitting them to any camera I've ever used and aligning them is pretty easy once you are used to it.