View Full Version : Does the Glidecam 4000 pro work, or is it me?


Pages : [1] 2

J. Cody Lucido
July 8th, 2003, 11:36 AM
I recently bought a Glidecam Pro 4000 for my XL1s and I am having difficulties.

I wasn't surprised by the weight, but the almost impossbile balancing is killing me. I have spent over 8 hours trying to get my Xl1s balanced and I am having little to no success.

My Steadicam JR. was hard to balance, but not impossible, and once it was balanced, it was a piece of cake to fine tune when I needed. On the other hand, the 4000 is so touchy and impossible to balance, I am pulling my hair out.

Does anybody have any suggestions?

Please advise, as I have a shoot coming up and this just isn't working.

J. Cody Lucido
July 8th, 2003, 12:42 PM
Well the Glidecam guy called me back and seemed to clear up a few things. I really think it might be just me, but the manual could use some work.

It appears to be balanced fairly good, and I am going out to buy a quick release plate so that I can keep the micro fine adjustments I made.

Glen Elliott
July 8th, 2003, 12:47 PM
I, also, have the glidecam 4000 and use it with my DVX100. I can get it balanced "well" in roughly 10 minutes- however I think I've only ever truly balanced the rig "perfectly" once.
My main problem is sliding the top plate around- the camera will be leaning forward so I slide the plate forward a hair and it starts leaning backwarwds. You really have to adjust it in hairline incriments, which is actually really hard to do. It's hard to slide the plate a mm at a time!

What pointers did the tech from Glidecam give you?

J. Cody Lucido
July 8th, 2003, 03:54 PM
He sat with me on speakerphone and walked me through the finer points of claibration. The manual makes it seem like you do it one step at a time, but in reality, you need to keep fideling with all the knobs.

The tiny increments are hard to do. Sometimes you barely move it a hair and it goes way out of whack. I ended up extending the pole a bit to give it less sensitivity. This decreased the swing from 3 secs to 2.5 secs, but made it easier to adjust.

I just went out and bought a quick release sled so once I nail it, it will be easier to set up.

Glen Elliott
July 8th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Which quick release plate did you buy- how much- and how well does it work?

J. Cody Lucido
July 8th, 2003, 07:35 PM
I ended up getting the Manfrotto 577 quick release plate. This works with my tripod, so it was the only choice for me. I spent about $50 and had to re-balance everything. I also ended up with an extra sled, but that isn't a bad thing.

I think this will work much better. I tried mounting and removing it several times and the balance held. I'm sure I will probably have to adjust in the fields, but only slightly.

Just got the UPS with the Arm brace and will try the whole thing tomorrow.

By the way, my quick-mount didn't come with any mounting screws, but extras in the 4000 pro bag worked like a charm.

Glen Elliott
July 8th, 2003, 08:00 PM
Hmm I might have to go the same route. I do wedding videography and love to do shots with the glidecam. However in the field, especially in the fast paced environment of a wedding shoot, it's hard to take the time to balance it!

Josh Bass
July 8th, 2003, 08:54 PM
How do any of you with XL1s-es use this thing? I borrowed my friend's for a few days, couldn't get it balanced, and then when we did, my arm almost fell off after using it for about 20 seconds!

Jeff Donald
July 8th, 2003, 09:11 PM
I had basically the same experience, too heavy a load, too hard to balance. I went with the V-8.

Josh Bass
July 8th, 2003, 11:57 PM
Yeah! I mean, I felt like a badass walking around with the thing, but with the camera (with 16x manual lens), 5.6" LCD monitor, and all the extra weight needed to counterbalance the cam, I literally could not keep my wrist up for more than a few seconds at a time. . .it would just collapse and I'd have to support the rig with my other hand.

Andrew Petrie
July 9th, 2003, 09:15 AM
I'm slowly getting my new V16 rig balanced properly, so I understand your frustration :)

Jim Quinlan
July 9th, 2003, 09:35 AM
Good idea ! A quick release plate is just the thing I need to get.

I have the same problem where it takes forever to balance so I don't use it as much as I should.

I use the Vreeze camera stabilizer which is a little different than the Glidecam.

J. Cody Lucido
July 9th, 2003, 02:56 PM
Oh the pain!

Well to whomever is interested, I am sending my Glidecam 4000 pro back.

Even with the arm brace, it is next to impossible to use. I work out, and have pretty good arms, but I couldn't hold it up. After about 3 minutes of using it, my forearm was so sore, it went numb. And this was just the camera, no monitor or mic.

This system might work all right for a tiny camcorder, but if you have an XL1s, I recommend not even going here. I am very disappointed. I really can't afford thousands for a V-8. I will say that the people at Glidecam were very nice and helpful.

Also, the great folks at BH Photo, were completely cool about the return.

Dean Sensui
July 9th, 2003, 06:35 PM
"After about 3 minutes of using it, my forearm was so sore, it went numb. And this was just the camera, no monitor or mic."

Sorry to hear it didn't work out. But I figured the weight would be a problem. Just holding the camera by itself in that position is hard enough.

With the way I have the V-16 set up, the sled with camera, Gel Cel battery, monitor and top plate weights, it comes to just over 30 pounds.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Josh Bass
July 9th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Really? Even with the arm brace? That sucks. When you have a V16, though, the weight's distributed over your entire body, right?

Jeff Donald
July 9th, 2003, 09:25 PM
It is distributed mostly to your hips and then shoulders etc. My rig with the V-8 weighed in around 20 lbs. if I remember correctly. In my experience much easier to use than the 4000. Balancing the camera is hard at first, and glidecams instructions are lacking. Charles has an excellent series of posts about balancing the V-8 (and larger steadicam type supports) that is much more useful than the meager printed material provided by Glidecam. I'm happy to here they had good phone support.

Christopher Velasco
September 21st, 2004, 03:26 PM
I just bought a used Glidecam 4000...
no manual... and can't seem to find one on the net...
any tips on balancing? I'm using a Canon XL-1 and Marshall monitor...
from what I've read, I better get to the gym and start doing some forearm work, huh?

Charles Papert
September 21st, 2004, 09:45 PM
Probably!

I'm not a Glidecam expert per se so I can't tell you the specifics down to the screw and bolt, but all stabilizers have a similar process for balancing:

Hold it horizontally and make sure that it drops base-first (i.e. is bottom-heavy, not top-heavy). You are aiming for a 2.5 - 3 second drop from horizontal to vertical. It will continue swinging past vertical, that's OK, just count how long it takes to pass through the vertical mark. Don't worry about fine tuning just yet. As long as the drop time is between 2 and 4 seconds, you are in good shape. Add or subtract weights at the bottom to adjust this.

You will likely find it leaning one way or another. Adjust the fore-aft and/or side-side until the post stands nearly vertical. Once you are close, try the drop time test again. Now do a fine tune on it until it is right around 2.5 to 3 seconds. Then check out the fore-aft and side-to-side again, and make fine tuning adjustments in those axes.

And you are done!

(p.s. kudos for finding and resurrecting an old thread rather than start a new one!)

Leigh Wanstead
September 21st, 2004, 11:33 PM
Hi Charles,

I heard everyone talking about 2.5-3 seconds. Can you tell me why can't be center of the gravity to be just on gimbal?

Regards
Leigh

Charles Papert
September 22nd, 2004, 12:13 AM
The reason for this, Leigh, is that if the rig is operated in neutral balance it becomes very sensitive to minute forces. These range from play or friction in the gimbal to wind to operator error. A slightly bottom-heavy rig will tend to stay in level more easily than a neutral rig, which will just as easily lose horizon and drift off, requiring the operator to "keep" the level for the rig. And the slightest variation in balance will make a big difference also. The slower the drop time, the longer it takes to get the rig into balance.

All this said, there are a few operators out there who like to work in neutral balance. It's actually very handy when shooting from vehicles (it avoids the long period of acceleration that vehicles present). I don't like it much for general shooting myself.

Leigh Wanstead
September 22nd, 2004, 01:11 AM
Hi Charles,

Thanks for the quick reply.

But that gimbal above the center of gravitiy(COG) means body shaking will be more easily effect the camera as any force put on COG won't effect the direction of the post, but if force is put on non COG, it will effect the direction of the post, that is bad.

Regards
Leigh

Charles Papert
September 22nd, 2004, 01:48 AM
True enough. With the COG below the gimbal (bottom-heavy rig), you can hold on to it right at the COG. With a neutral rig, the COG is inside the gimbal where you can't get at it.

Christopher Velasco
September 22nd, 2004, 08:23 AM
Thanks for your help... I tried balancing it yesterday... not much luck... but I'll do some work on it today...

CMV

George Ellis
September 22nd, 2004, 11:12 AM
Remember to start with it as it will fly, including screen out and pitched, lense cap whereever it will be. Balance with the battery you will use and a tape in.

I do not do f/b s/s (front/back - side/side) at the same time. I get a good f/b with the side screws. I tighten them down but not screaming tight ;) Tightening the screws will change the position of the plate. Then do side to side. I will actually use a book or dike handle (wire cutters) to gently tap the fine position as trying to slide it always goes too far.

On the s/s (bottom screws), I find that you also need to apply some UP pressure as the plate tends to rest into a tight position. The push up/tap up helps overcome it and makes it easier to move.

Now go back using the tap method to get f/b fine tuned. Then you may have to adjust s/s one more time.

Edit - don't forget to test balance with the gimble handle where you will normally fly it. I use my right-hand as the hold hand, so the handle is usually 30-45 degrees to the right normally.

Leigh Wanstead
September 22nd, 2004, 03:07 PM
<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher Velasco : I just bought a used Glidecam 4000...
no manual... and can't seem to find one on the net...
any tips on balancing? I'm using a Canon XL-1 and Marshall monitor...
from what I've read, I better get to the gym and start doing some forearm work, huh? -->>>

Hi Christopher,

I bought a training video from bhphoto several months ago.

Award-Winning Video Tape: Vol #5 Advanced Steadicam Techniques

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=153906&is=REG

I think if you watch that it might help you. I learn a lot from that video. It is not so dear comparing go to a workshop.

Regards
Leigh

Dan Selakovich
September 25th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Heed George's advice!

" Edit - don't forget to test balance with the gimble handle where you will normally fly it. I use my right-hand as the hold hand, so the handle is usually 30-45 degrees to the right normally."

This is where most people mess up. The handle must be at the same angle when balancing the rig as when USING the rig.

Yes, these things get heavy, but with proper stance and practice, you can build up your rig muscle and get some good working time out of it. And if you master the hand-held units, and find you get enough use from a stabilizer want to up-grade to a vest/arm unit, you'll be in a really good position to apply what you've learned to the full rig.

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com

Charles Papert
September 25th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Well, there you go, that's why I normally don't get involved in "how to balance" discussions with DV rigs...the mechanics of the individual rig seem to dictate the workarounds involved in getting them to balance. Pushing, tapping--ugh. It sounds to me like even though it requires constant tweaking of rebalance, the worm gear adjustments of the JR are a lot easier to manage and fine tune.

Now I'm intrigued about the requirement of holding the handle at the same angle--theoretically one should be able to move the handle through as much of an arc as possible (until the handle bumps the post) and still have full isolation, as well as it not affecting balance. In which axis are you seeing the rig go off balance during this maneuver?

George Ellis
September 25th, 2004, 02:11 PM
<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : In which axis are you seeing the rig go off balance during this maneuver? -->>>
Because I am not using a monitor and using the built in screen, I cannot balance it and turn it 180 (Don Juan?). It has this piece hanging out to the side (the screen) that when turned, has it off balance to the screen side.

You would not normally see this with a monitor unless you had one of the side-mounted wireless or other equipment that is not on the centerline.

So while using the built-in saves money, it has its limitations. Another is it can be obscured when doing event shots because you have to take the rig up and to the left.

So, the answer is, to the side.

Edit, a counter-weight would do, but more weight and more 'stuff' hanging around.

Charles Papert
September 25th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Even with the screen out on one side, theoretically you are compensating for this by shifting the weight of the camera to the opposing side when balancing. This does create a bit of a weird mass. Nevertheless, you should be able to pan it 180 degrees without it listing, as the position of the gimbal handle should, in theory, not affect the balance of the sled. What is probably happening is that the yoke of the gimbal is not truly symmetrical, and the load is thus shifting when you pan, throwing off the balance. Sometimes this can be corrected by using shims in the bearings of the yoke (this has been discussed on the DVi before, try doing a search on this). Suffice to say that this is a design flaw; ideally, the rig spins flat and operates in the same balance regardless of the angle or position of the yoke/gimbal handle.

Dan Selakovich
September 26th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Charles wrote:
" Now I'm intrigued about the requirement of holding the handle at the same angle--theoretically one should be able to move the handle through as much of an arc as possible (until the handle bumps the post) and still have full isolation, as well as it not affecting balance. In which axis are you seeing the rig go off balance during this maneuver?"

Once balanced you can turn the center post 360 degrees. I know, it's odd. But the handle stays at the same angle to the post through out the move. To be clear: when first learning to balance one of these things, people find in general, that it does take some patience. But once you start using the rig and get use to things, it doesn't take any time at all. I can balance one of my units that I've been working with in about 3 minutes, if that.

I think more of an issue is that filmmakers think these things are going to replace other pieces of filmmaking equipment and solve all of their shot issues in one unit. In some cases it's easier and better to use a dolly with a jib attached. Ive talked to a couple of professional steadicam operators and asked their biggest complaint about directors. They often talk about being worn out early in the day because a director has used them when a simple dolly shot is called for. By the end of the day they are dripping in sweat and completely worn out, it's then that they are called on to do a complicated steadicam move with 60lbs hanging off them. (Ever meet an overweight steadicam operator?).

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com

Charles Papert
September 26th, 2004, 11:04 AM
<<(Ever meet an overweight steadicam operator?).>>

Err, yeah, actually! I can think of several off the bat. They are still strong guys nevertheless. (I could stand to lose a few pounds myself, Dan!)

It's true that we are not fans of being used as a human dolly ("the dolly that bleeds", as Steadicam pioneer Ted Churchill used to say), and there are a number of directors, especially in TV, who feel that they are saving time by using us as such. What sometimes happens is that a deceptively simple shot that seems like it would be easy on the dolly is assigned to Steadicam, and then it begins to take a life of its own and ultimately becomes a true Steadicam shot (and sometimes, if it stays on the dolly, it ends up being an entirely different shot which would be hard or impossible to replicate on Steadicam). That's the best case scenario. Unfortunately I've shot a lot of lockoffs also.

Dan, could you actually qualify your point about the gimbal again? My comment was a misunderstanding from the original post; I thought the angle that was being discussed was the orientation of the gimbal handle to the post as viewed vertically, which would change if the wrist is tilted, for example. In subsequent posts I understood that we were actually discussing the rotation of the gimbal around the post in the pan axis. That being the case, the effects of a lopsided gimbal will manifest the same if the handle is rotated or if the camera is panned.

For example, imagine that you are following someone from behind. The gimbal handle is as described earlier at around 30 to 45 degrees to the right (let's use clock face: 4 o'clock). Now we are required to accelerate and come up on their right side and shoot them in profile. Most likely we will still be facing forwards, but the rig has panned 90 degrees to the left, effectively locating the gimbal at 7 o'clock. And now, we accelerate some more and get in front of the actor as they break into a run. Unless you have the agility to run backwards at top speed, chances are you are forced into "Don Juan" and your gimbal is now at 10 o'clock.

But again, this is no different than panning the camera 90 degrees and then another 90 degrees.

George Ellis
September 26th, 2004, 03:02 PM
I think I see the confusion as I am now confused a little. I balance the rig with the camera 'panned' 30-45 degrees to the right from the handle.

With the mounting plate and the adjustment screws, it is a little different from a standard rig, but it is also cheaper. It can even fly it for short periods hand off it I need something. But pan it 180 and it tilts. Maybe I will mount my VX on it soon and see if it is different. My Sony consumer cam just is funky to balance.

BTW, I saw someone with a 4000 this summer with the weighted part side to side and not front to back. ? Could not talk to him to see if was a decision to do it or just misunderstood the directions. I did not get to see him use it either.

Dan Selakovich
September 26th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Charles wrote:
" ...Err, yeah, actually! I can think of several off the bat. They are still strong guys nevertheless. (I could stand to lose a few pounds myself, Dan!)"

Hey, that's muscle, not Fat, Charles! Every steadicam op that I've seen that's been at it for a while has legs like freakin' tree trunks.

"...It's true that we are not fans of being used as a human dolly ("the dolly that bleeds", as Steadicam pioneer Ted Churchill used to say), and there are a number of directors, especially in TV, who feel that they are saving time by using us as such. What sometimes happens is that a deceptively simple shot that seems like it would be easy on the dolly is assigned to Steadicam, and then it begins to take a life of its own and ultimately becomes a true Steadicam shot (and sometimes, if it stays on the dolly, it ends up being an entirely different shot which would be hard or impossible to replicate on Steadicam). That's the best case scenario. Unfortunately I've shot a lot of lockoffs also."

That's the nature of the beast, isn't it? It's along the same lines as that old adage: "The job expands to the time allowed". The job expands to the equipment you have on hand. I was an editor for years, and always appreciated a decisive director.

"...Dan, could you actually qualify your point about the gimbal again? My comment was a misunderstanding from the original post; I thought the angle that was being discussed was the orientation of the gimbal handle to the post as viewed vertically, which would change if the wrist is tilted, for example."

I understood the posts as people trying to balance the thing in the first place. So if you were looking straight down from the top of the rig, the angle of the handle would be pointing slightly right if you were right handed. Off to the left for a left hander. On my design, the handle itself has bearings, and comes straight out from the gimbal, so no matter what the wrist did, it wouldn't effect the unit or the balance at all. I never understood the "static" handles on commercial units like the glidecam. Fatigue sets in that much quicker, and if you twist your wrist, the gimbal is no longer on the same plane! (as you pointed out).

"...In subsequent posts I understood that we were actually discussing the rotation of the gimbal around the post in the pan axis. That being the case, the effects of a lopsided gimbal will manifest the same if the handle is rotated or if the camera is panned."

I think that is absolutely true. A lop-sided gimbal would throw everything off. That's why bearings in the handle are so important.

"...For example, imagine that you are following someone from behind. The gimbal handle is as described earlier at around 30 to 45 degrees to the right (let's use clock face: 4 o'clock). Now we are required to accelerate and come up on their right side and shoot them in profile. Most likely we will still be facing forwards, but the rig has panned 90 degrees to the left, effectively locating the gimbal at 7 o'clock. And now, we accelerate some more and get in front of the actor as they break into a run. Unless you have the agility to run backwards at top speed, chances are you are forced into "Don Juan" and your gimbal is now at 10 o'clock."

Once the rig is balanced, none of this will make any difference--even it the camera has the LCD screen open. You can spin the thing 360 degrees if you want. (Don Juan's are a bit tricky with the hand-held units). But when BALANCING, the handle has to angle off a bit on the hand-held units. Once it is balanced, the handle is always pointing the same place in relation to the center post, eventhough you are panning the camera. It really screws with your head, because the CAMERA is no longer in the same position. Yet, balancing it like this works. At least on my design. Of course, this wouldn't apply to rigs like the steadicam Jr where the handle is basically a universal joint.

I'm working on a vest/arm unit for Volume II of my book. I'll have to bring it by so you can have a look when it's done (still working on the iso-elastic arm mechanism). Seems you have a lot of experience with the real steadicam.

Hope this post made sense!

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com

Charles Papert
September 27th, 2004, 07:59 AM
I finally got around to looking at the GC website, and light is beginning to dawn in my cobwebby brain. Am I understanding that the GC 4000 gimbal has a two-axis gimbal? This would explain the issues described here, but I'm a bit baffled how it achieves isolation without that third axis bearing in the handle itself. Or am I not seeing something in this picture (http://www.glidecam.com/4000pro.html)?

George Ellis
September 27th, 2004, 09:10 AM
The handle rotates around the bolt attached to the arm and does s/s. The arm attaches bearing and does up/down. The bearing does the pan.

Dan Selakovich
September 27th, 2004, 10:00 AM
Hi Charles,

That's exactly my point about the glidecam. There ARE NO bearings in the handle. And if there were, they would have to mount it differently to the gimbal, more like a real steadicam. To me, Glidecam really missed the boat, and I can't for the life of me why they designed the handle like this. Cost is really minimal to do it "right" so there must be some other reason I haven't discovered.

Check out the photo on my site. Maybe that will clear things up:

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

So you have 3 axis points: the gimbal itself, the bracket that attaches to the gimbal, and the bearings in the handle. Sure, mine doesn't look as pretty, but I think it works much better!

Dan

Charles Papert
September 27th, 2004, 09:32 PM
Sorry, George, not following your description. I know this stuff is a bit difficult to describe.

Dan, I'm hearing you and I am still trying to understand how this can possibly work (obviously I'm pretty familiar with the classic Steadicam gimbal). Without that bearing in the handle, and by holding the handle at, say, 45 degrees (or 3 o'clock), this means that you can't the tilt the rig without tilting the handle also??! And that if you pan 90 degrees to the left, you can tilt but there is now no isolation in the roll axis? Ugh!

Apologies, but I can't make out enough detail in the gimbal on your site (love the graphics!) to understand exactly what the design is like, but I'm glad you get the importance of a three-axis design.

Harkening back to something George asked about earlier:

<<BTW, I saw someone with a 4000 this summer with the weighted part side to side and not front to back. ? Could not talk to him to see if was a decision to do it or just misunderstood the directions. I did not get to see him use it either.>>

This is actually a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't bang into the legs and prevent one from being able to pan. It will give you added inertia in the roll axis, which is usually a problem area for most operators (that's what makes the photography look "floaty"). You are giving up some inertia in the tilt axis, but that is generally less of a problem. Except for this non-gimballed tilt thing! Jeez...

To understand this, one must think of the physics of the stabilizer; it creates inertia (steadiness) by spreading out the masses. The further from the center of gravity, the more inertia.Picture the rig with the lens facing sideways: you have a camera that is perhaps a foot wide, and a base that is about the same. That is the mass you are moving through space when tilting. Now turn that rig 90 degress, so that you are looking directly down the lens. You now have a mass that is only a few inches wide (as is the base). That's the mass that is affected by the roll axis. By turning the base sideways, you are increasing the inertia, rather like a tightrope walker's pole.

And with that, after having humped a Panaflex around a filthy industrial basement all day on a martial arts movie (with David Carradine, still around!), I'm off to the showers.

Christopher Velasco
September 28th, 2004, 07:23 AM
I shot a music video this weekend - and used the 4000 in some of the shots. Footage turned out pretty good... once i get the final product, I'll post a link...
Thanks for your help!

CMV

Casey Visco
September 28th, 2004, 05:31 PM
I'm slightly confused as to how some of you are coming to certain conclusions, but i'll just give the official answers anyway....

The gimbal on the 4000 Pro is 3-axis, not 2. And each axis has its own set of BEARINGS.

Casey Visco
September 28th, 2004, 05:44 PM
The operation of the gimbal as well as balancing information can be found by going to the "Videos" page on Glidecam.com

http://www.glidecam.com/demo.html

For example, take a look at "The Stability of Balance" for the basics behind balancing these things, and the "2000 Pro in operation" which illustrates the range of movement in the gimbal. These are excerpts from Glidecam's Demo DVD.

The audio didnt translate horribly well, but should be sufficient. I'll be remastering them soon for better web viewing.

Charles Papert
September 28th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Casey. I couldn't for the life of me imagine how the GC 4000 could have only two axes of movement. I've played with it at trades shows and figured I couldn't have missed that.

Zach Prichard
November 9th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Thread Necromancy!

Ok I just got my GlideCam 4000 Pro in. I'm using an XL1s sans viewfinder/mic. I also have a Marshall L4 monitor with sunshade and external battery pack attached to it.

I find it IMPOSSIBLE to get anything more than .8-1 second drop time from horizontal to vertical position. What am I doing wrong? I assumed that it needs more top heavy weight to have a slow drop time. So I took all but one weight off of each side and it STILL dropped in 1 second or under.

I'm guessing the monitor is adding too much weight to give it a slow drop time but I need some serious horizontal balance b/c this thing swings back and forth way way too much. The vertical balance is ok but if I walk and then stop it just starts swinging too much.


Any pointers?

Christopher Velasco
November 9th, 2004, 06:27 PM
I found that the key for me was to make the thing as bottom heavy as possible... then fine tuning would smooth out any imbalances.

Dean Sensui
November 9th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Zach...

It's important to balance the sled with the right drop time. Otherwise there's a tendency to act like a pendulum with every acceleration or deceleration.

A good example of that is a baton held at one end. Every movement of your hand will tend to swing the baton.

However, hold that baton in the middle, just above the balance point, and the tendency to swing each time you move forward or back is greatly reduced.

Same holds true for any camera stabilization system.

If the sled is too bottom heavy, you'll have to add weights to the top or shift the gimbal to a lower point along the column. At least that's how it works on the V-16.

Put the mic and viewfinder back on. That will add some mass high on the sled. Also, you'll need the viewfinder to provide critical exposure information as zebras will not be displayed on an external monitor.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

Christopher Velasco
November 9th, 2004, 08:36 PM
... Well... not TOOO bottom heavy.... I use the drop test mentioned in this thread as well... if the rig is top heavy (and mine is pretty heavy - xl-1 with marshall monitor) then imbalances will really be pronounced. As soon as you hold it in one hand it'll go flying. By making it a bit bottom heavy then these imbalances are slower to develop and you can resolve via fine tuning....

Charles Papert
November 9th, 2004, 09:59 PM
A top heavy rig will actually fall over and hang upside down. A rig that drops faster than 2 seconds will appear to be more stable, but will pendulum during acceleration and starts and stops as Zach noticed; also will require too much force to make a significant tilt.

With a 2-3 second drop time, it's true that it will act more "squirrely" and require a more delicate touch, but those are the conditions under which the best shots will be delivered.

Ken Beals
November 10th, 2004, 01:21 AM
Extremely fascinating thread on the physics and frustrations involved in getting these stabilizer gizmos balanced especially the Glidecam 4000.

Appreciated reading all the great inputs.

Speaking of balance...finally purchased my own gear, a Sony PD170 and the stabilizer I purchased was an ultralite made by Hollywood lite. It would not balance due to the extra front end weight of the WA lens.

It is going back to B&H and am considering replacing with a Glidecam 4000.

Without getting too dangerously close to changing the subject I have a couple concerns before purchasing the 4000 that some of my peers here could help me out with.

First, has anyone used a PD170 on a Glidecam 4k and have been able to get a good balance ?

Second, according to some of these posts it sounds like one needs the forearms of a sailor named Popeye to endure using the device.

That said, would you recommend getting the body harness or forearm accessories or can you develop endurance and techniques to minimize fatique?

Whew ! That was a bit lengthy. Thanks in advance for all your feedback(s)

Ken
Agape Productions
Mesa, Az.

Charles Papert
November 10th, 2004, 07:22 AM
Ken:

Start eating your spinach, mate!

A body mount will help considerably with the fatigue aspect, but bear in mind that you lose some of the flexibility of a handheld system, namely the ability to adjust your lens height from very low to above your head. Of course, you can always go handheld for those shots in particular.

Check out this (http://indicam.com/) 3rd-party bodymount system. The man behind it, Terry Thompson, posts here regularly so you can ask him questions about it.

Dennis Chapin
November 12th, 2004, 12:14 AM
I went with the Varizoom FlowPod and it works very well with the DVX100a. It is alittle on the heavy side but it is easy to balance, it comes with a very slick bracket that clamps to a table and lets the FlowPod float so you can easily balance the camera.

Zach Prichard
November 12th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Charles:

The thing with the pendulum effect for me is that the camera is already bottom heavy enough with just 3 total weights on the bottom (plus the monitor which isn't all THAT heavy) that it has an under 1 second drop time.

Won't adding more weight just make it drop quicker?