How to do close up circling shot?

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

A circling shot is a body pan, where your whole body is turning around the Z axis.

 

No. The z axis is the vertical, you meant y axis

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

A circling shot is a body pan, where your whole body is turning around the Z axis.

 

And actually no you are not body panning like the moon orbits the earth you are orbiting the subject. You are following a curved path which done correctly will always present the same aspect to the subject. You are not panning

[AndySchwartz]

Hey

 

Well, I guess in my logic, I seem to think that having a rig dynamically balanced will never be detrimental operating the rig.

 

Whether we are doing a shot that requires a pan or a whip pan or a circle or just walking in a straight line, putting the rig in a more stable position, whether that is in relation to my body, or to itself, wont really hurt my operating. I do not necessarily think it is a requirement but a preference.

 

In this case, it seems like we are arguing the action required for this shot of circling people and how to do it right, and what you need to do in order to do that. Some of us think its a body pan, some think its a bit of that and maybe panning the rig a little, some think it would be helpful to be in dynamic balance, and others do not. And who knows maybe there is a pan during a pass off in the shot, or a whip pan into it or out of it, or maybe they will decide to throw that into it. So that is my only reason I think I usually try to be in balance in as many ways as I can, with me in my preferred relation the rig, a good drop time that I prefer, and on the pan axis in dynamic balance, or close to it.

 

It is preference, level of skill, testing, learning, confidence.

 

What if Sean never dynamically balanced his rig before this, and then before this shot, he got it, and whether he needs it or not for this shot, he goes in with more confidence, and operates the shot the way it should be for the director. Who knows, maybe that is a good thing for his operating and one or both of those things, helped him get his shot done right.

[Lawrence Karman]

I have one of these shots on my reel. It replaced another 1080 degree shot done under the Santa Monica pier of a couple kissing. It was done fast for dramatic effect, as the director requested, but it tended to make me dizzy just watching it; the pier poles going by, the oean etc. The point is you don't want to do these type of shots too fast or for too long as it will make the audience sick. Slower and steadier will also help with headroom and keeping distance.

And what Eric said. Gimbletorque!

[William Demeritt]

But the moon does "turn" or "rotate" on an axis while it is also in orbit, so it does effectively "pan".

 

If a sled on a gimbal were mated to a pin floating in space (just floating in space, no operator), and that pin did roundies on a subject (same radius at all times, traveling the orbital path), inertia would keep the camera pointed in the same direction for the duration of the orbit/roundy; it would not maintain focus on the "subject", or in this example the point it's orbiting, or "focus".

 

If something initially set the object in rotation at just the right rotational velocity, and had no drag/friction on it's rotation, it would remain pointed at the focus it's orbiting while traveling it's orbital path (until otherwise accelerated upon).

 

If we were then attached to the sled, and did the same thing (we facilitated the initial rotation as well as traveling the revolution with perfect radius from the orbital center at all times), we would need to set the initial rotation. After which, inertia does it's job and the sled continues to rotate/pan and stay pointed at the focus.

 

Due to the limitations of our human bodies attached to the sled, we cannot maintain the same orientiation throughout the orbit: if we continued pointed in a set direction in space (our bodies were not rotating) while walking the circle, we'd get to 180 degrees of the orbit and be facing the wrong way, e.g. while we started the walk facing our monitor, at 180 degrees we'd be on the other side of the sled, facing away from the monitor. At 270 degrees, it would only get worse.

 

Granted, the gimbal has the benefit of minimizing friction, so maintaining the rotation requires minimal acceleration during the move. For that reason, while you're walking the roundy path, the gimbal/sled orientation to your body changes very little (unless you're doing handoffs). Yes, relative to the earth, it's rotating, but more to the point, relative to the focus, it's rotating. Rotational velocity is =/= 0.

 

Now for our damned, fragile human bodies. Unlike the gimbal, we don't have the benefit of frictionless interaction with the earth; so with every step, we are effectively rotating/panning our bodies. Relative to the focus, our bodies are rotating because the focus never sees our back (unless you're Jacques doing cartwheels or whatever). We rotate our bodies to match the initial rotation during the revolution, which keeps our body on the correct side of the rig and facing the monitor.

 

Relatively speaking:

Sled : operator = sled is technically not rotating (unless you do a handoff, in which case your focus remains the same but camera angle changes, so you accelerated the rotational velocity momentarily and then stopped accelerating to constant velocity).

(Sled + operator) : focus = the system is rotating in order to maintain the same "direction" as the focus (basically, the same direction as the centripetal force).

Focus : (sled + operator) = relatively speaking, it's rotating with negative rotational velocity to the (sled + operator) system.

 

TL;DR = I think sled + operator is "panning", sled relative to the operator is not "panning". Also, WTF is Sugru?

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

But the moon does "turn" or "rotate" on an axis while it is also in orbit, so it does effectively "pan".

 

Except that it's tidally locked to earth so that it never rotates (pans) in relation to the earth. That's why we never see the "Darkside"* of the moon, which unfortunately make the rest of your argument a pointless and incorrect exercise.

 

Maybe you should be selling steadicam's Will....

 

 

*any similarity of glidecam, "The book" or tiffen is purely coincidental and was not to be inferred or implied

[Afton Grant]

Did you guys know there's like 200 billion planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone?

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Did you guys know there's like 200 billion planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone?

 

yes and it means that this might actually be the equation for dynamic balance

 

N = R* • f_p • n_e • f_l • f_i • f_c • L

 

 

N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

R^* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.

f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.

f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

[Jerry Holway]

In two dimensional systems, the Y axis is the vertical axis, and the X axis is horizontal.

 

In some 3 dimensional systems, like on XY table for machining, the X and Y axes are horizontal - X is still left and right, but the Y axis in forward and back. The Z axis is the vertical axis.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

In two dimensional systems, the Y axis is the vertical axis, and the X axis is horizontal.

 

In some 3 dimensional systems, like on XY table for machining, the X and Y axes are horizontal - X is still left and right, but the Y axis in forward and back. The Z axis is the vertical axis.

 

Yes I know that, and last time I checked steadicam was operated in 3D space but in a 4D world with 10 axis of input

[Nick Tsamandanis]

"Frederick von Gimbletorque" :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jameson Johnson]

OK, everyone go back and read this thread from the top. If you can make it all the way through without cracking up, well you just aren't human...

[Brian Freesh]

The Moon, and the scientific fact that it does indeed rotate on it's own axis (once per revolution around the Earth thanks to tidal locking), has no bearing on how best to achieve a circle shot. Same goes for the direction of Z (which could just as easily be called X, Y, L, B, +, *, or vertical for any two people who agree on it).

 

Perhaps of more bearing is the semantic recognition of a circle shot either being (if only in part) a pan or not being a pan. As long as the two discussing it agree on (or simply understand the other's use of) the terminology, the same result can be achieved with each definition. A circle shot can easily be looked at as one big body pan while tracking or as one big tracking shot that happens to be on a curved track. Both interpretations are valid, what matters in the end is that we get the shot, and hopefully understand why we succeeded.

 

Will: As usual, well thought out and overly complex. Hats off to you :P

 

Of course Mr. Von Gimbletorque, as always, is the truest one among us.

[Osvaldo Silvera SOC]

Did I miss something, or has anyone suggested to put the couple on a big lazy suzan, have it spin the opposite way, so he doesn't have to go as fast, and buddy.....

practice, Practice Practice!!!!!!

 

If you've done 100 takes and it's no good......do another one!

but practice practice practice!!!

[David M. Aronson]

Yes I know that, and last time I checked steadicam was operated in 3D space but in a 4D world with 10 axis of input

I hear PRO's working on that. Should be out sometime late 2013.

 

If you need to move very precicly with a long lens in a perfect circle, why not just rent a circular dolly track? You can use as long a lens as possible and you can put stuff like lights on it.