What do you support this rig with? at DVinfo.net

Laura Kamler · January 23rd, 2004, 11:50 AM

This looks very heavy to be supported with a tripod.
What is the rig supported with?
Thanks,
Laura

Mizell Wilson · January 23rd, 2004, 11:56 AM

Laura,

The Mini35 with any given camera/lens configuration has the heft and wait of an SR-III or XTRProd. It can be as light as about 12lbs and can get as heavy as you can outfit it.

The unit has a standard support interface plate which allows it to connect to all sorts of jibs, cranes, steadicams, and of course tripods.

A good place to start is the Sachtler DV8 for very minimum setups. For small to mid-range setups you would then step up the Sachtler DV12, or my personal choice, the O'Connor Ultimate DV head. I'd put either head on the Sachtler ENG 2 CF legs.

mizell

David Ziegelheim · January 23rd, 2004, 03:35 PM

A DV12 with CF lens is not a typical DVX100 setup. That is a $4300 setup with a ground spreader, and over $5k with a mid-level spreader.

Mizell Wilson · January 23rd, 2004, 05:03 PM

Since this is the P+S Forum, I am under the assumption that her question is in regards to the Mini35, so I gave her the best advice for the that setup. The DVX100 would be fine, by itself, on a DV8. You could even put the Mini35/DVX100 on the DV8 but then you are overloading the head and it does not perform as well as it should.

A good tripod costs money, but it's one of the best investments you can make for your package. A setup like the DV12 or Ulitmate DV with the ENG 2 CF legs is going to be a set of sticks that not only serves your purposes now, but will grow with you over the next couple of years. Cameras are disposable, a good tripod and head can pay itself back 10 times over.

Josh Brusin · January 25th, 2004, 09:04 PM

within reason I'd expect an xl1 with the adaptor, tripod plate with a support for an angenieux 20-250... weighs what? 15+lbs?

Would that even work with a 15lb steadicam? Any model reccomendations?

David Ziegelheim · January 25th, 2004, 10:03 PM

Its just that it is really at the cost of a 2/3" setup, including tripod, lens, etc.

IMHO, it is hard to accept 2/3" costs on a 1/3" shoot.

Charles Papert · January 25th, 2004, 11:20 PM

I think that when you get into a Mini35 setup, you automatically propel into a different monetary realm. Matteboxes, follow focus etc. for 35mm front ends just cost a truckload, as do heads. It's a reasonable argument to then suggest that if you are going to be spending all that, why not upgrade the back end of the setup, the camera. It's a tough call. I've had wonderful results with the XL1 and the Mini35, but I'd rather be using the SDX900 and the Pro35 for the picture quality.

Mizell Wilson · January 26th, 2004, 11:13 AM

Josh,

Steadicam wise you are into at least an SK2, if not a ProVid or ProVid2.

Some very basic Mini35/XL1s configs could work on the Steadicam Mini, but you're really pushing it.

David,

The argument really becomes aesthetic. For the money that you end up investing into the purchase or rental of the Mini35 rig you could upgrade to a 2/3" package without the 35Digital technology but invariably people are going to assume, if done right, that the Mini35 footage was done at a higher production value then the 2/3", being richer and more aesthetically pleasing then the standard video people are used to seeing.

There are certainly cheaper tripods on the market, but part of achieving the film feel is to have proper equipment that can provide filmic movements. Whether you go 1/3" or 2/3", outside of the lenses, the tripod and head are the most important decision you will make and it should take a respectively large part of your budget. A good tripod will serve you for many, many years, whereas the camera on top it could change 5-6 times before you part with the support. Buying up now into a heftier rig, while raising the budget now, will save you so much money in the long run, continually having to buy bigger heads as your package grows.

Charles Papert · January 26th, 2004, 12:14 PM

<<within reason I'd expect an xl1 with the adaptor, tripod plate with a support for an angenieux 20-250... weighs what? 15+lbs?

Would that even work with a 15lb steadicam? Any model reccomendations?>>

woah, I didn't catch that before. The Angeniux 25-250 probably weighs about 25 lbs. Not something you'd want to fly on a Steadicam. Even though the entire package, at 37lbs or so would still come in within the "reasonable" weight range of a full-size rig, it would be an unpleasant mass to fly, being extremely long, not to mention the bizarro baseplate setup that would be required (the center of gravity of the whole system i.e. ideal mounting spot would be somewhere under the middle of the lens!) Best to stick to prime lenses!

January 23rd, 2004, 11:50 AM	#1
Laura Kamler New Boot Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Sullivan, MO Posts: 8	What do you support this rig with? This looks very heavy to be supported with a tripod. What is the rig supported with? Thanks, Laura __________________ Laura

January 23rd, 2004, 11:56 AM	#2
Mizell Wilson Sales: Reflecmedia Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Linden, NJ Posts: 147	Laura, The Mini35 with any given camera/lens configuration has the heft and wait of an SR-III or XTRProd. It can be as light as about 12lbs and can get as heavy as you can outfit it. The unit has a standard support interface plate which allows it to connect to all sorts of jibs, cranes, steadicams, and of course tripods. A good place to start is the Sachtler DV8 for very minimum setups. For small to mid-range setups you would then step up the Sachtler DV12, or my personal choice, the O'Connor Ultimate DV head. I'd put either head on the Sachtler ENG 2 CF legs. mizell __________________ Posts before Feb 2004 were on behalf of ZGC, afterwards they're all mine!

January 23rd, 2004, 05:03 PM	#4
Mizell Wilson Sales: Reflecmedia Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Linden, NJ Posts: 147	Since this is the P+S Forum, I am under the assumption that her question is in regards to the Mini35, so I gave her the best advice for the that setup. The DVX100 would be fine, by itself, on a DV8. You could even put the Mini35/DVX100 on the DV8 but then you are overloading the head and it does not perform as well as it should. A good tripod costs money, but it's one of the best investments you can make for your package. A setup like the DV12 or Ulitmate DV with the ENG 2 CF legs is going to be a set of sticks that not only serves your purposes now, but will grow with you over the next couple of years. Cameras are disposable, a good tripod and head can pay itself back 10 times over. __________________ Posts before Feb 2004 were on behalf of ZGC, afterwards they're all mine!

January 25th, 2004, 09:04 PM	#5
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	steadicam question.... within reason I'd expect an xl1 with the adaptor, tripod plate with a support for an angenieux 20-250... weighs what? 15+lbs? Would that even work with a 15lb steadicam? Any model reccomendations?

January 25th, 2004, 11:20 PM	#7
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I think that when you get into a Mini35 setup, you automatically propel into a different monetary realm. Matteboxes, follow focus etc. for 35mm front ends just cost a truckload, as do heads. It's a reasonable argument to then suggest that if you are going to be spending all that, why not upgrade the back end of the setup, the camera. It's a tough call. I've had wonderful results with the XL1 and the Mini35, but I'd rather be using the SDX900 and the Pro35 for the picture quality. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 23rd, 2004, 03:35 PM	#3
David Ziegelheim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warren, NJ Posts: 398	A DV12 with CF lens is not a typical DVX100 setup. That is a $4300 setup with a ground spreader, and over $5k with a mid-level spreader.

January 25th, 2004, 10:03 PM	#6
David Ziegelheim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warren, NJ Posts: 398	Its just that it is really at the cost of a 2/3" setup, including tripod, lens, etc. IMHO, it is hard to accept 2/3" costs on a 1/3" shoot.

January 26th, 2004, 11:13 AM	#8
Mizell Wilson Sales: Reflecmedia Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Linden, NJ Posts: 147	Josh, Steadicam wise you are into at least an SK2, if not a ProVid or ProVid2. Some very basic Mini35/XL1s configs could work on the Steadicam Mini, but you're really pushing it. David, The argument really becomes aesthetic. For the money that you end up investing into the purchase or rental of the Mini35 rig you could upgrade to a 2/3" package without the 35Digital technology but invariably people are going to assume, if done right, that the Mini35 footage was done at a higher production value then the 2/3", being richer and more aesthetically pleasing then the standard video people are used to seeing. There are certainly cheaper tripods on the market, but part of achieving the film feel is to have proper equipment that can provide filmic movements. Whether you go 1/3" or 2/3", outside of the lenses, the tripod and head are the most important decision you will make and it should take a respectively large part of your budget. A good tripod will serve you for many, many years, whereas the camera on top it could change 5-6 times before you part with the support. Buying up now into a heftier rig, while raising the budget now, will save you so much money in the long run, continually having to buy bigger heads as your package grows. __________________ Posts before Feb 2004 were on behalf of ZGC, afterwards they're all mine!

January 26th, 2004, 12:14 PM	#9
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	<<within reason I'd expect an xl1 with the adaptor, tripod plate with a support for an angenieux 20-250... weighs what? 15+lbs? Would that even work with a 15lb steadicam? Any model reccomendations?>> woah, I didn't catch that before. The Angeniux 25-250 probably weighs about 25 lbs. Not something you'd want to fly on a Steadicam. Even though the entire package, at 37lbs or so would still come in within the "reasonable" weight range of a full-size rig, it would be an unpleasant mass to fly, being extremely long, not to mention the bizarro baseplate setup that would be required (the center of gravity of the whole system i.e. ideal mounting spot would be somewhere under the middle of the lens!) Best to stick to prime lenses! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search