SUGGESTIONS pls (cool gear)
 

HEY check this out. not bad for low budget film making:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3319&item=3841387825&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

what do you guys think? good? bad? garbage?

and how much should i pay for it approx? what should i bid? suggestions?

if link doesnt work, go to ebay and type in "camera car mount"

I see paying for a lot of body work in your future....

Not really a "Steadycam".
 

50 miles an hour in a residential district?

I would not let those "feet" touch my car! :)

As for the steadicam/glidecam part: why does he feel the need to compare two different tools?
A steadicam is particulary usefull (and invented for) small spaces (where a dolly won't fit, for example). I don't see you driving in the living room...
Yes, you could use a steadi to shoot from car. But let's see you frameing the runing girl beside the car you're driving, whith this thing!

I might come to hard on this, but I get annoyd when I read "This is no cheap imitation- this is the real thing."

I would think that the buffeting from the nylon straps in the wind would transfer vibration to the rack.
If you strap the thing down too tight, I could see those little feet leaving divets on the hood.
I think I like the suction cup idea better like the Stickypod or the one this ebay guy put together with Manfrotto parts, less damaging to the car.

Clarification
 

It has occurred to me my first post may benefit from some clarification.

1- The seller's description "Professional Camera Car Mount Steadicam" caught my attention.

I am very interested in a "vehicle mount" type steadicam. After looking over the design I felt the description was misleading. If the seller's mounting system qualifies as a "steadicam" system then I guess my B/M 3292 window pod w/390RC head and B/M 3500 vacume base w/3028 head would also qualify(?).

It seems to me the shock/vibration absorption/isolation is accomplished through the vehicle itself and not the design of the vehicle mounting system.

I put forth it might be more accurate to describe the ststem as a (rather ingenious) "multicam" mounting system.

2-50 mph in a residential district.....while attempting to document the test with a camera (by the driver or an occupant)?

The idea made me very uncomfortable. (Stay away from my neighborhood.)

With my fertile little imagination I can invision the scene on television with the fine print at the bottom of the screen reading:

"Nonprofessional driver on public street. Do not attempt (!)." :o)

There's also the word "Professional" that he used. This system looks Ghetto. I can identify all the parts he used right down to the flat black rustoleum straight out of my local HD.

Look at the 4th pic down. Is that leg supposed to be bent over like that. I can imagine if there is any failure anywhere in that system, the straps would loose tension and the entire rig would fall off the car and not only that, you would end up running over you own equipment. At $31 right now, this crap is overpriced.
I'm not trying to be critical... Oh wait, yes I am.

So to summarize, yes this is bad for low budget film making. Don't do it man.

edit: 50MPH is nothing, lets see how it hangs on at 130+ in Rick's neighborhood.

Here is another manufacture for car shooting.

http://www.cinekinetic.com/invention...ynamicuse.html

Let me play devil's advocate here.

What's the difference between the $300+ Cinesaddle (mentioned above by Leigh) and a $15 duffle bag filled with $33 worth of styrofoam beads?

Has anyone used the Cinesaddle?

Michael

PS: Knowing the quality of $15 duffle bags, I can answer my own question with a single word: "leakage". But $300? Surely we can do better!

Mike, I can do better. You could easily solve the leakage problem with a plastic bag or pillowcase liner.
$33 worth of styro beads will give you enough to make 4 Cinesaddle knockoffs.
So lets see. $355 (Cinesaddle) - $15 (duffel bag) - $33/4 (styrobeads) = $332.
That's $332 saved to spend on anything else.

He's been around since 1987 so maybe there's something special about this bag o' balls.

<<<-- Originally posted by Cliff Hepburn : Mike, I can do better. You could easily solve the leakage problem with a plastic bag or pillowcase liner.
$33 worth of styro beads will give you enough to make 4 Cinesaddle knockoffs.
So lets see. $355 (Cinesaddle) - $15 (duffel bag) - $33/4 (styrobeads) = $332.
That's $332 saved to spend on anything else.

He's been around since 1987 so maybe there's something special about this bag o' balls. -->>>

I don't want to start a war here.

But I must say that formula is unfair. Otherwise Microsoft Windows only need to be paid by cdrom cost which is less than 1 dolloar. Same apply to musician. And maybe only need to pay to cost of glass of a high end lense. People put lots of research on these products. We are moving to knowlege economy which means knowledge/idea is money.

Claim: I have no link to Cinesaddle.

Leigh has a good point here, although the latest Outkast CD (and much of the value of MS Windows) is protected by copyright, and the CineSaddle is the sort of thing that you'd protect by one or more patents.

If you have the copyright on a novel about a man who cheats on his wife by pretending to work late at the office, then no one can reproduce your novel verbatim without your permission, but someone could write another novel with the same plot device . If you have a patent on a device that conveniently makes an empty office sound busy by remotely operating copy machines and telephones, then not only can no one make an identical machine, no one can make a machine that uses the same principle of remote operation for busy-sound-making.

Surely I'm not the only person who has thought in the past twenty years that sitting a camera on top of something squashy yet firm (a pile of clothes, a bean-bag chair) might be a good way to stabilize it. Perhaps our CineSaddle-making colleague has come up with a novel and exciting version of that principle. If we copy his design too closely, we let ourselves in for legal trouble--assuming he's patented it.

This same principle might conceivably apply to, um, building your own Kino-Flo imitation, or mini35, both of which undoubtedly have patents involved in their design. But should that stop you from building your own flourescent fixtures or lens converters?

Michael

The beanbag idea has been around as long as portable photography. He just happens to be the one of the people that marketed it as a photo gadget. There doesn't appear to be anything special about this product or at least that's the impression I get from the website. It's just a beanbag.

Sometimes I put my camera on a table or bench and put the lens cap under the lens to prop it up. I suppose I could add some kind of nook to the cap that fits under the lens perfectly and maybe the deluxe version would have a couple of swing out legs. I could then set up a website to tell you how wonderful it works and sell it on the internet for $60. I imagine I would even sell a few. But you have to step back and realize that it's just a lens cap.

As far as your analogy, Microsoft creates a product that I couldn't possibly recreate on my own, lens manufacturers, the same. In the case of MS's primary product and much to their chagrin, we have OSX and Linux which pretty much accomplish the same task.
I know that's not the point you were making but what Schneider and MS have are original ideas on how to accomplish a task. The Cinesaddle is an interpretation of an unoriginal idea.

There's lots of examples out there of people with low/no tech or cross market products that seem to be gouging the market. If I was spending someone else's money, why not, this is how I imagine he sells most of these things, but I'm spending my own and I have too much sense than to drop $355 for a beanbag.

Remember this is just conversation, I'm not trying to flame or engage a war and I'm sorry if I come off like that.

Yikes! Those legs need some suction cups! I wonder if they include "Mr. fix-a-dent" in the package. It's also a bad idea to go 50 mph with a real professional rig, much less this thing. Very dangerous. The car mount in my book is much more versital and a lot cheaper (you can make it for less than 50 bucks). You can check out a quicktime movie of the rig in action at:

http://www.dvcamerarigs.com/killercontents.html

Click on "They drive by night car mount" QT link. It uses four, count 'em four, suction cups. I simply don't trust rigs that use just one. One little pop of the suction and there goes your camera. And no, I don't recommend going 50mph with mine either.

Arthur, if mine doesn't float your boat, check out these pro rigs from film tools:
http://store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/carmounts.html

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com