OK, I know there are other threads on this and I have read them all but am specifically looking for input.. From all you have wisdom on this steadicam...Mr. Bloom I hope to hear from you on this if possible.. Since you have the Merlin and said it flew well with the EX1.

1. I am leaning toward a Pilot over the Meriln due to some reviews and the weight of the EX1. Pro's Cons?

2. I am wondering how easy focus is considering we have no remote focus on the EX1 (Bummer!) To cover the Zoom I was going to get a remote for that at least.

3. Is the 5.8'' LCD monitor with the Pilot good enough for Focus, Framing should be good....I would think.

4. Any other opinions or advice would be great...


Thanks in advance!


Jason

I would like the answer to that too, Mr Bloom.

I would also ask what you use to ensure critical focus with the EX1 with and without the Letus attachment. Please advise.

Homage, Mr Bloom!

David-

The EX1 and Pilot is a great combination. With a 35mm adaptor you are getting close to the nominal 10lb weight limit depending on what lens and accessories you are using. As both of you noted, focus is the big issue here, at least from a budgetary standpoint. If you intend for your Steadicam shots to demonstrate a shallow depth of field, you WILL need to be able to pull focus remotely or your shot design will be compromised significantly (maintaining very specific distance throughout). There are affordable solutions on the way; View Factor Studios is developing a system with an attractive price point but at the current time the most inexpensive reliable setup starts around $4K (the price of the Pilot!).

OK, I know there are other threads on this and I have read them all but am specifically looking for input.. From all you have wisdom on this steadicam...Mr. Bloom I hope to hear from you on this if possible.. Since you have the Merlin and said it flew well with the EX1.

Jason

I have a pilot and EX1 and it flies very well. I had a merlin with a Z1 as well and it was a dog, very difficult with that weight for any length of time and very little control.

To answer your other questions

- focus : as charles says without remote wireless focus AND probably a remote monitor you're going to be hard pushed. In general you either keep shots in focus at the same distance or avoid shallow DOF. (and on an EX1 you'd probably be shooting at the wider end therefore more DOF).

- the monitor it comes with is no good for focusing (great for framing) but then you're flying the camera and you're not going to be focusing. You can't touch the camera in motion and there are no electronic remote focus solutions for the EX1 afaik. You'll be too far away from the EX1 LCD to do critical focus and you're going to be moving. Whlist you're at it you may as well try juggling at the same time... :)

- I would be a bit doubtful of sticking a 35mm kit on there. If you have batteries, matte box and wireless controls i think you're loading up pretty high anyway. If you're going to do that then perhaps rent an operator would be a better use of the price of the kit?

- i would consider making up another cable for the connection from the video out of the camera to the video in on the pilot, because the supplied sony lead is way too long.

One thing you can do if you're feeling brave (which i haven't but would consider it) is to program an A-B change on camera, like a zoom on a timed basis and then play that back whilst flying. I *think* the EX1 will record focus position as well as zoom, so if you need to pull focus during a move and you practise you may well get the shot that way. So you you fire off the record button, have a countdown to the move and time it with the physical steadicam move.

hope this helps
paul

I know the question was about the Steadicam Pilot, but I thought I'd chime in here.

I have the Indicam Pilot and have flown my EX1 using it and it works very well.

I may be mistaken, but I think you can have a total 'payload' of 15lb on the Indicam Pilot.

I know the question was about the Steadicam Pilot, but I thought I'd chime in here.

I have the Indicam Pilot and have flown my EX1 using it and it works very well.

I may be mistaken, but I think you can have a total 'payload' of 15lb on the Indicam Pilot.

Thanks a million for your chime. I have never heard of the indiecam before, but I can tell you that when I saw the price I nearly spit out my coffee all over the computer screen. I cannot believe the price.

Honestly, as a graduate student who has had only experience with the JR system I don't know if I will be able to master the indicam or not. Moreover, I have had a few medical issues that have found me much more, uh, "rounded." Will someone who is a "big boy" have trouble with vest fit and operation of the rig? A student budget also is very tight as you might imagine. I am wondering if a better solution is for me to stick to a jib arm like the kessler and get many of the same smooth results.

What do you think?

Wow! What a response. I posted my question really late and the critical focus and the steadicam questions were originally intended to be seperate creatures. However, you bring up considerations that I would have run into next and for that I thank you. A complete assesment to say the least. Impressive. Most impressive.

I will keep these things in mind. Mostly, I am hoping for the right solution to critical focus. I can do without the steadicam and make jib solutions for the shooting, but the focus is a big concern over everything. The only thing I can figure out to do is buy a converter for hd-sdi from the EX1 to HDMI and use a large LCD HDTV with 1080p 120mhz for monitoring (and editing also.) I would rather not have to lug that kind of thing around on location, but better alternatives present difficulties. Distracts from the creative side for me.

There has been one other solution I ran accross somewhere that suggested using a laser measuring device and doing it by distance marks on the lens. I would need someone fast and sharp to do the focus with this thing. Also, would be difficult to do while the camera is on a jib arm.

If anyone has an exact date for any monitoring solution for critical focus and the EX1 please let us know. Is it possible to use a macbook pro w high-res monitor for critical focus during shots? That'd be awesome.

Thanks again for the reply. Wow.

Riding on this topic, I like to ask what kinda extra weights r the EX1 owners mounting on the rig? I like to try a config again with the Pilot+EX1 combo. Thks!

Well looks like Chris moved the thread to the proper spot... :) I was posting it the EX area due to folks using the steadicam and the EX1 and not always looking under the stabilizers....

So very good points all around so far... However my main concern is Focus now...so with that said what are people with the Pilot and the EX1 doing now for focus...since we do not have remote focus (which still amazes me) Keeping it wide and setting the focus at a specific distance then trying to stay within that set range while flying then maybe adjust for another distance etc. ??? How have the results been? Anyone willing to post some footage of the EX1 and Pilot in action so we can see how the focus was for some particular shots and if it will meet our needs... for focus?


Thanks!

The idea is to get folks to use the *entire* site. I left behind a re-directing link from the XDCAM EX board. Thanks for understanding,

No problem Chris...Saw the link...Thanks!

David,

We just sent you a personal email to keep this thread from going all over the place.

Tery
Indicam

Without a 35mm adaptor, you should be able to do a "set and forget" focus setting (i.e. working the hyperfocal) for any wide angle shot or a mid-range shot combined with small aperture. With a 1/3" chip you can shoot just about anything and maintain depth of field, with the 1/2" chips that is slightly more of a challenge but still doable. Early in my career I shot quite a bit of 2/3" video and 16mm with my Steadicam before I had a wireless lens controller; it's certainly possible. Again, you need to design your shots carefully and pick a focus point that carries as much of the variation in distances as possible.

With a 35mm adaptor, things become much more complicated in terms of focus. At the point at which you have enough depth to carry you through a typical Steadicam shot, you might as well just shoot the particular shot without the adaptor and not worry about it (I have done just this and the results were fine).

Jason, making a dependable and accurate remote focus system for the price point that is expected by those who are using this level of gear has proved to be difficult, so it's not amazing at all that it hasn't appeared on the market yet. I was sent a prototype for one such system that was so ill-functioning that I declined to review it (and it seems to have disappeared without much fanfare). Just yesterday we used Arri's wireless lens controller and it's range was so limited that we had to switch it out for a Preston (it may have been due to microwave interference). It's not the easiest technology to harness, simplify and job out to China to make affordable--in other words, it's not a mattebox. As I said, View Factor Studios seems to be the forerunner to cracking the code on all this but they are not ready to ship yet.

Charles, thanks for the info. When talking remote focus, I just wanted a wired zoom/focus controller for this camera but if my info is right Sony made this not possible with the Pin config for the remote port...I can understand the issues wireless would pose as I am an RF Engineer. If I set my focus and stay wide and use the Pilot and my body to adjust how close I am to the subject instead of using the zoom onboard the camera I should be able to maintain focus within a predetermined distance from the subject corrrect? In some situations obviously I would want to zoom but those would be controlled shots. I would be using the Pilot EX1 combo for several different things, Fight scene Jason Bourne style martial arts flying in/out and around the scene, also following a walking actor, Moving car (obviously slowly) and also a running scene. In your opinion how managable will keeping focus be with these types of shots and the Pilot EX1 combo.

When talking remote focus, I just wanted a wired zoom/focus controller for this camera but if my info is right Sony made this not possible with the Pin config for the remote port...

I believe the gist of it was that without a 35mm adapter, and really critical focus, you should not need remote focus (or design you shots as such).

You are correct as to that there is no remote control for focus in the EX1, but the product by ViewFactor Studios is a remote controlled motor drive that mounts on a rail system to move the focus (or anything else that's geared). Just like the Preston system Charles uses.

There's some vids on FrashDV from Cinegear '08 from ViewFactor.

George/

With a 35mm adaptor, things become much more complicated in terms of focus. At the point at which you have enough depth to carry you through a typical Steadicam shot, you might as well just shoot the particular shot without the adaptor and not worry about it (I have done just this and the results were fine).
Charles,

Maybe you could help me answer this question. Today I was asked to do some Steadicam work for another Columbia graduate student film, and it seems like this project would be great for my reel. The problem is that the rest of this student film is using the EX1 with a 35mm lens adapter. The producer and director didn't mind losing the shallow DOF for the steadicam shots, but they raised the question of visual continuity with and without the lens adapter.

Other than DOF, does the lens adapter significantly change the look of the shot?

For a low budget project or student film using the HVX or EX1, would it look OK to switch the lens adapter in and out for different shots?

Are there some specific camera settings that might help compensate so the look is similar?

Thanks, Dave.

Hi Dave:

It's a valid question. There's no doubt that the 35mm adaptors add a certain "something" to the image (or possibly subtract it, in terms of sharpness). However when I was shooting a lot with the Mini35 I had a few experiences where it was necessary to pull the adaptor, for instance when we were losing the light on a dusk exterior. I didn't find it to be an issue in the finished project. However this was shot on DV--it may be more noticeable in HD, I'm not sure. The most logical thing to do would be to shoot a test under various conditions (high-contrast exterior, lit interior, night exterior etc) both with and without the adaptor and duplicating everything else as much as possible, in terms of exposure and field of view, and compare the two. If they can be graded in post to match adequately, this would answer the question.

If the Steadicam scenes exist on their own and are not intercut extensively with conventional footage shot on the adaptor, it will most certainly not be a problem in my opinion.

For a side by side comparison of EX1's with and without a Letus, take a look at Phil Bloom's video here: Phil Bloom - Letus Extreme Guide (http://exposureroom.com/members/philipbloom.aspx/assets/7e1a0a3099b14d758a2f50b2e4fa876b/) on ExposureRoom.

George/

OK, but there's nothing new there outside of showing the difference in depth of field. I showed similar examples (right down to the foliage shots) in the demo of the HD100 with Mini35 (http://hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test1.php) I did 3 years ago, hosted right here.

What I'm talking about in terms of tests is a controlled, specific look at how the adaptor affects standard parameters; for this you would want to shoot resolution, grayscale and Macbeth charts. I would also shoot a test subject sitting in front of black and white panels, plus a setup with high contrast (perhaps a light bulb in the shot) to examine how the adaptor affects highlights, flaring and shadow detail.

Because you would want to keep the variables down, it would make sense to use a fairly wide lens for the tests so that depth of field is kept to a maximum. Again, the point of the tests would be to examine the optical effects of the adaptor on the image to determine what would be required to properly match footage shot with and without it. It's essentially a given that some softening will result; could this be duplicated in post, say, or would it be better to use a diffusion filter in front of the lens.

Because you would want to keep the variables down, it would make sense to use a fairly wide lens for the tests so that depth of field is kept to a maximum. Again, the point of the tests would be to examine the optical effects of the adapter on the image to determine what would be required to properly match footage shot with and without it. It's essentially a given that some softening will result; could this be duplicated in post, say, or would it be better to use a diffusion filter in front of the lens.

Hi Charles,

Yes, this type of test would really help. Also, since we know the 35mm lens adapter will make the image a little darker, it would be good to have the test adjust for that as well. Colors often look very different when the brightness level changes.

I think lens adapters will become the dominating issue for Steadicam HVX and EX1 users over the next 5-10 years.

The advantages of using a lens adapter on sticks is obvious. For a relatively low cost, a lens adapter overcomes the last obvious difference between film and video cameras. The limited DOF with a lens adapter allows the director or DP to really focus the viewers attention on a particular subject.

But for Steadicam shots, the movement of the camera tends to keep the viewer focused on the subject, so a limited DOF doesn't seem as necessary. This thought has been echoed by a number of different student and low budget film makers, so it's not just mine.

In addition, using a lens adapter on a Steadicam causes many issues:

1) The camera + lens adapter + matte box ends up begin really long (around 2 feet) so moving around in tight spots (e.g. narrow stairs or hallways) becomes a lot more difficult.

2) Limited DOF generally requires a dedicated focus puller AC, and a good wireless follow focus system, both of which are not common to productions that use the HVX or EX1.

3) The weight of the lens adapter requires a bigger rig than the Steadicam Pilot, which essentially doubles the price of the Steadicam. Since most people aren't prepared to spend more for a Steadicam than a camera, this makes the knockoff brands a lot more appealing than a real Steadicam.

So, if there was a test that shows that shots with and without a lens adapter can work well together in the same project, this would be really helpful to low-end Steadicam users. With this in mind, I would think Steadicam and Tiffen would welcome such a test...

Okay ladies and gentlemen. I have a question. Someone take me through this as if I was a six year old. Okay?

So much hubub and difficulty presented by the lack of a wireless follow focus system for this EX1. There are much more complicated and much more expensive equipment
controlled remotely. We can even put an unmanned machine in space and tell it how to fix itself remotely. Don't tell me we can't make a remote control unit for the EX1.

Someone please explain to me what the big deal is on this? I would think a Panaflex camera or Arriflex camera would be much more complicated to remote control. Yet, this happens all the time.

Why can't someone make a unit to plug into the camera lens control and the ilink on the EX1 and tap into the video and transmit a signal for fifty feet or so to a control unit with a picture of what the camera sees. Let the person with the remote focus the thing, and the operator keep the subject in frame, and let's get on with it. Right?

What's the hurdle that keeps this unit from a remote that is effective? Explain this to me like I am a six year old. Please.

D-

David, there are more than a few issues to overcome with follow focuses. Basically, a more complex/expensive/large on the same level of complexity to control as your EX1. I'm seeming to remember reading that there is no electronic focus port on the camera (unlike some cameras with LANC, which can control focus, or some of the newer Panasonics with their own control systems). So, what you need to do to control focus remotely is put a motor on the outside of the lens, just like any other camera.

Getting a motor that can properly control a lens with the finesse and power needed is tough, and getting one which can actively know its position is tougher still (but necessary, so that you won't end up with an uncalibrated system by the end of the day!). Then, the hand unit has to be able to control the motors precisely, has to have strong wireless that won't break up, and has to be rugged enough for set use. All in all, pretty complicated.

On the video side, you're probably going to want HD for precise focusing, and the picture quality is reasonably important in this case. Plus, you need very low latency on the video, so that by the time you make your focus move, the shot's not already blown. The wireless design for something along those lines is complicated, and having the picture not break up with a moving transmitter and receiver is a challenge!

Now, neither issue is impossible. There are several focus systems out there (and it looks like ViewFactor's new one may come in significantly under the prices of its competitors), and the new IDX wireless system delivers low-latency HD video. But, the cost is very high, because the amount of consumers are very low. Take all of the people who are shooting video with professional enough cameras to have proper focus controls on the lens, then take the subset of them who would actually find use for a remote follow focus, then take the amount of them who are willing to dedicate a person on the crew to using one, et cetera. When you get down to it, you can't really count on a ton of sales to offset a low price, with the amount of equipment in the device, and the R&D needed. It's the same thing that happens with stabilizers - when you look at a Steadicam Flyer, it costs more than a lot of the cameras you can fly on it, but then again, they're not selling them in the same numbers as those cameras!

There are some people who seem to be taking on the challenge of making remote focuses at low prices, or remote video at low prices, and more power to them. Stabilizers have come down in price over the years too. But, right now, the solutions just aren't there.

Good response Tom, that covers it well.

Just to clarify, we have been talking about two different things in this thread; focusing the EX1 itself remotely, and focusing the taking lens of a 35mm adaptor attached to an EX1 remotely. As far as having the camera on a stabilizer is concerned, the first instance is a relative non-issue as most shots can be achieved by the set-and-forget method of focusing. The second instance, working with an adaptor is much more complicated as one has actually now entered an arena that has to play by the same rules as Arri and Panavision equipment, those being the rules of physics and optics which thus dictate the degree of sophistication that remote lens controls must achieve. A 50mm lens set at T2 will have the same depth of field characteristic whether it is a Nikon on a Letus, or a Primo on a Panaflex, and thus will require the same accuracy to deliver critical focus. Currently the least expensive wireless system (transmitter, receiver and motor) that is good enough to achieve this is the Bartech at around $5K. The comparable View Factor setup is slated to cost around $900.

The HD transmitter that Tom refers to will cost around $6K (and add 1.5 lbs to your camera payload). And for what it is able to deliver, that is an astounding price point compared to its predecessors.

View Factor is much better on the price. Six grand isn't reasonable if one is not a rental house;in my mind. What is the actual cost for materials and labor to assemble these things. Seems over inflated to me. But seeing how I've let my electronics education slip I suppose I have little choice. Right, gentlemen?

I understand that there are number representations for the amount of zoom (expressed in a percentage.) This, I assume, has a digital value for the camera? Seems this kind of data could be manipulated to achieve precise focus. you could do it cheaply via cell phone if nothing else. Yes?

All of your help is sincerly appreciated, D-

Six grand isn't reasonable if one is not a rental house;in my mind. What is the actual cost for materials and labor to assemble these things. Seems over inflated to me.

There is a little lecture that gets doled out on a regular basis here at DVI, which is that for any given product that one can purchase, simply breaking it down into the cost of materials and labor does not take into account the R&D, prototyping, testing, distribution, promotion, customer service or other related expenses. The people who make this sort of equipment generally do not get rich on it, but they can't be faulted for trying to make a living for the amount of time and energy they have invested in it.

If you were to watch an experienced focus puller's hand on the knob (whether wireless or mechanical) on a 35mm shoot, you would see a lot of fast, minute corrections. If he is off in his timing or judgement, the result is a buzz in the shot. If the equipment in use does not respond accurately or immediately, any issue will be further compounded. Let's put it this way--even with all of the accumulated years of experience and advances in autofocus for video cameras, is there any current camera out there that you would explicitly trust in that mode for critical work? And that's in the 1/3" arena--there's a very good reason why you don't see autofocus in larger format cameras.

Point taken, Mr Papert. But, surely you would agree that with the potential of major studio returns on a successful project that there are tendancies to sock it to the industry. Yes?

I am all for feeding the family and capitolism and free enterprise. Profits keep the doors open.

Yet, it would be good to have a lower level solution to give we with small or no budgets to be able to get decent production values and be able to have something simple like picture in focus. A smooth moving shot. Basics. There is always a chance to move into a higher end model with a higher end price. More profit from the higher performer. That is fair if one has a choice. Agreed?

One more minor point. Don't you make more having an advanced mousetrap, with a smaller profit, at a lower price point which provides for wider sales and higher volume of units moving out the door. With Sigma Six or some other QA in place, of coarse. I was really just saying that with the advances in technology that it should be cheaper to achieve the same quality so that the prices would come down with the betterment of the technology. Isn't that what technology is intended to do?

Yet, I do understand what you are trying to say, Mr Papert. I do happen to have a BA in Business Management and Administration. Not to brag, mind you, but I mentioned it to let you know I have some sensitivity to business and pricing that maximizes sales, etc. Okay?

Thanks again for the help with this.....Do you know exactly how a follow focus system (we're talking the best one now) "works?" Any website you know of that will tell me exactly how one of these things work?

D-

Don't you make more having an advanced mousetrap, with a smaller profit, at a lower price point which provides for wider sales and higher volume of units moving out the door.If it's a small niche market to begin with (such as this one is), then the answer is no, definitely not. What you're describing is the Sam Walton school of economics, which applies only to very large markets that can reliably and consistently sustain a wider and higher volume of sales. That system works fine for Wal-Mart, but not for Hollywood nor the wedding video scene. It doesn't apply to this particular industry, not by a long shot.

Do you know exactly how a follow focus system (we're talking the best one now) "works?"See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_focus for a description. The one that's "best" is the one that has the most experienced, talented and skilled human operator running it.

Here the Preston Cinema Systems site:
http://www.prestoncinema.com/index.html

This is one of the systems used in the "real" movies. You can check the price list, but I think you'll start at about $15,000 and go up.

The Bartech is the bargain system that can give professionally acceptable results:
http://webpages.charter.net/bartech/focus.html
Actually, if you just want focus, I think you can get a Bartec for under $4,000. You can call him and discuss your needs. There are different options, different motors, etc. that affect the price. In any case, each system is individually hand built.

The way it works is that it's just a gear wheel attached to the lens, just like any cabled lens controller. But instead of being controlled by a cable, there's a motor that gets a signal from a a remote control unit.

If you are controlling focus, iris and zoom, you've got 3 gear wheels with motors attached to the lens.

Obviously, the motors are battery powered.

The mechanism has to be extremely precise because a distance change to the actor of a couple of inches will require a focus adjustment.

Since this is operated by someone with a high level of skill of has hundreds of hours of practice, someone who must be paid, $5,000 doesn't seem out of line.

Thanks, Gentlemen.
I suppose that three gears instead of one directly mounted on the motor is for mechanical advantage for the heavier lenses as well as the "stiffer" lenses. Correct?

I guess ya'll would laugh if I suggested a set of remote and servos from, say, Futaba? In case you are not clicking with the name, Futaba, they make high-end controllers for R/C airplanes, helicopters, and a few select model autos. Now, are these precise enough for follow focus? Good question. Two or three hundred dollars and a 15mm bracket and a gear to mesh with the lens on the EX1 might be worth at least a try. Or would it? Anyone try this yet on any camera?

Of coarse, being the cinefile that I am I would love the best and not worry what things cost as much as what results they bring, but I am not there yet. Must be nice to be in the studio system.

There is a camera system that works on a remote head that uses a radio transmitter that is worn like a mic unit. When someone walks around it causes the camera to follow the movement of the transmitter so that an operator is not necessary. I wonder if this type of technology could be employed to help the camera focus according to the whereabouts of a transmitter on the subject's person. Think this is possible? I really don't remember the name of this product as it's been a while since I saw a brochure for it some years ago. But, does anyone think this could work?

Does anyone rent the follow focus units by themselves for student projects. It would be expensive for a student to buy insurance for a follow focus unit by itself. I would think the rental houses would only allow a unit for their own cameras. Anyone?

It's great to have access to the opinions of those experienced in the industry. I suppose the best thing to do is to limit the movements or at least a change in distance from the camera to the subjects for any "steadi" related shots. The jib shots are going to be a challenge, but that is a different thread altogether.

I agree with David Hodge, that there certainly could be a better system out there. After all, cheap WiFi systems use OFDM wireless technology that is generations beyond Bartec.

But Charles Papert addresses the real issue here. Any product has to be profitable or it won't exist. For a remote focus pulling system, the number of units sold will be low, so any quality product will not be cheap.

Which brings me back to my original point: Today the HVX and EX1 are used in many low-budget, student, and indie projects. With these two cameras, a lens adapter makes a lot of sense on a tripod, dolly, or jib. But on a Steadicam, a lens adapter has lots of issues. So it's probably better to shoot the Steadicam shots without a lens adapter for these types of projects.

So the question still stands. If you are working with an HVX or EX1, and you are using a lens adapter on sticks, would a Steadicam shot without a lens adapter work with this project?

Mr Gish, you've hit on the reality of "could there be another way" when indie or student projects are concerned. I would tend to agree that the Letus on a steadicam shot, depending on the shot, but for the most part I likely would not use the Letus on those. However, the problem still remains of having a properly functioning mechanism to focus even without the Letus. Simple stuff from following a subject down a hallway and ending on a dutch tilt; for example. Must have proper focus or the audience is going to be turned off.

I am pleased at least someone agrees that the technology should be around to lessen the cost per unit for the manufacturer as well as the consumer buying the product. A better mousetrap scenario.

Come to think of it, the monkey is perhaps on the wrong back. What do I mean? I mean that instead of frowning at the cost of the focus units by their companies in a niche market perhaps the persons dropping the ball is the maker of the EX1 itself. Like how about building in a radio unit into the camera to follow focus and having the manufacturer sell a controller under $1k for it's own camera. The computer onboard the camera controls all kinds of things. It sinks to blackburst on many cameras. So why not include a digital control of the lens elements for focus inside the camera by digital means. Allow for control by wifi or even an iphone with picture available on the iphone. How about Sony helping us out? They're unit sales are high and they certainly have the technology and cheap work force. Who's with me? One thing is for sure, it would be the only camera out there with a unit on board. EX1 anyone?

Perhaps those revolutionary guys at Red could add such a feature into Scarlet. That would definately sell it for me. How bout it Red?

However, the problem still remains of having a properly functioning mechanism to focus even without the Letus. Simple stuff from following a subject down a hallway and ending on a dutch tilt; for example. Must have proper focus or the audience is going to be turned off.
I don't think this is a problem.

I actually just finished a 4-day shoot with the EX1 yesterday. This was a Columbia graduate student film, and they used the EX1 without a lens adapter for the whole project. On sticks and zoomed in, focus was an issue that the DP was always adjusting. He even had me rack the focus on a dolly shot one day while I wasn't doing Steadicam.

But with the EX1 zoomed out on the Steadicam Pilot, focus was no problem. We just set the focus somewhere between 5 and 10 feet (depending on the shot) and the large DOF carried the shot. The Director and DP saw everything on a 19" monitor with a wireless connection, so they would have seen any focus issues.

By the way, for around $300, this 19" monitor works great for low budget films:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889107034

Anyway, this was the first time I worked with the EX1. The weight of the EX1 is about the same as my HVX200, but the EX1 seems a bit more front heavy. When I added a wireless audio receiver on the shoe, I wasn't able to get dynamic balance, so we ended up using a separate recorder for sound and slating every shot.

Without the wireless audio receiver on the shoe, dynamic balance was fine, and the EX1 flew great. Everyone watching the monitor liked the Steadicam shots.

Come to think of it, the monkey is perhaps on the wrong back. What do I mean? I mean that instead of frowning at the cost of the focus units by their companies in a niche market perhaps the persons dropping the ball is the maker of the EX1 itself. Like how about building in a radio unit into the camera to follow focus and having the manufacturer sell a controller under $1k for it's own camera. The computer onboard the camera controls all kinds of things. It sinks to blackburst on many cameras. So why not include a digital control of the lens elements for focus inside the camera by digital means. Allow for control by wifi or even an iphone with picture available on the iphone. How about Sony helping us out? They're unit sales are high and they certainly have the technology and cheap work force. Who's with me? One thing is for sure, it would be the only camera out there with a unit on board. EX1 anyone?

Perhaps those revolutionary guys at Red could add such a feature into Scarlet. That would definitely sell it for me. How bout it Red?
Yes, I've been thinking the same thing for quite a while.

In particular, it would be nice to combine all the various functions into 1 wireless link. This would include:
- reference video and audio for the director and other crew
- real time focus, iris, and zoom adjustments
- entering memory card clip meta data info (e.g. scene # & take #)
- time code sync
- record start-stop
- other camera adjustments

This could be designed as 2 modules:

1) A small wireless camera module. There would be 1 multi-pin connector that attaches the module to the camera. This connector would include power, so that the camera also powers the wireless add-on camera module.

2) A wireless control module that sits next to the reference monitor. This would have many different connectors, such as:
- a USB connection to a laptop for configuration and entering clip meta data info
- composite, component, and HDMI connections for reference video
- multiple headphone connectors for reference audio
- multiple connections to various real time controllers (i.e. Bartec type focus device is hard wired into the wireless control module that sits next to the reference monitor).
- AC and DC power connections
- etc.

These 2 units would be optional add-on devices. The various wired real time controllers would also be purchased separately. In addition, there would be different versions to work with the wireless regulations in different countries.

Note that modern digital wireless systems allow for multiple wireless devices to share the same link. This is how many cell phones work with the same cellular base station. So it would be quite possible to use one wireless control module with multiple cameras. There could also be a small wireless module next to the sound recorder for reference audio and time code.

None of this would be cheap, but it would make production a lot easier. Think about how much time is spent dealing with wires on location. So if the price was reasonable, it should sell well enough to make it viable.

By the way, for around $300, this 19" monitor works great for low budget films:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889107034

Dave, I am wondering what wireless connection was used for the 19" monitor. I plan to shoot full 1920 x 1080 on my masters project. I was thinking about getting a converter box for Hd SDI out to HDMI and buying a 120hz 1080p consumer monitor for focus, as well as one of those distance lasers used by hunters. I was also going to include a bunch of measuring on location scouts and test shoots. I am going to have to include a courtroom scene and it's gonna need to be a jib shot all the way through. I can't think of a better way for the story I am going to tell. It's perfect in planning, but the trick will be to get the focus right.

I don't suppose you frequent San Antonio at all, do you?

D-

Okay ladies and gentlemen. I have a question. Someone take me through this as if I was a six year old. Okay?

Yet, I do understand what you are trying to say, Mr Papert. I do happen to have a BA in Business Management and Administration. Not to brag, mind you, but I mentioned it to let you know I have some sensitivity to business and pricing that maximizes sales, etc. Okay?

Guess you don't really want to be taken through this as if you were a six year old then...?!

I suppose that three gears instead of one directly mounted on the motor is for mechanical advantage for the heavier lenses as well as the "stiffer" lenses. Correct?

In the three gear setup, each gear is attached to an individual motor mounted on either focus, zoom or iris rings on the lens. The modern systems have motors that are powerful enough to turn any lens that can possibly be turned by hand (older incarnations did require doubling up/slaving of motors to achieve this). For many indie folk, only remote focus is required so a single channel system like the Bartech is ideal, especially when it can simply be duplicated for other channels. However, when shooting HD and assuming a reliable monitoring link is in use (i.e. a properly calibrated monitor either hard-wired or with lossless transmission), it is ideal for a DP to have remote control of the iris for exteriors, especially if the sun is in and out of clouds. And under certain conditions, remote zoom can be very handy also. A typical application for this is a crane or jib mounted camera; it's less common to need three motors on a Steadicam but I have been doing more of this lately.

I guess ya'll would laugh if I suggested a set of remote and servos from, say, Futaba?

RC setups like Futuba were behind some of the earlier efforts at wireless lens control; the higher end systems have moved on to more rugged, reliable and higher resolution technology but it's still viable for a low-end solution. I have evaluated an entry-level product based on an RC engine this but I found it completely unusable. Someone else might have better results.

Wireless is a finicky business when it comes to something as absolute as focus. Taking a "hit" while operating an RC car or a reference video transmission is not generally a deal-breaker, but having your focus suddenly whip from one end of the barrel to the other or stop working briefly is pretty disastrous.


Of coarse, being the cinefile that I am I would love the best and not worry what things cost as much as what results they bring, but I am not there yet. Must be nice to be in the studio system.

It's not exactly joyous to have to spend the kind of money we do on our equipment, but it is a simple fact that when every minute of production time costs many thousands of dollars, it is expected that one's gear that is being rented to the production be reliable and bullet-proof. I have learned over the years that "getting by" with lesser or jerry-rigged gear is just not worth the stress of hoping it will get the job done or nobody noticing if it doesn't. It can be a very difficult process for many who are starting out as Steadicam operators to be able to afford the equipment and it's not uncommon for people to get fired from jobs because their gear wasn't up to snuff and caused problems (happened to me years ago). The Catch-22 is that you need to have the right gear to get the jobs but you have to get the jobs to be able to afford the gear--that leaves a lot of relatively new operators sweating out their equipment loans until they can gain a foothold and get regular work.

There is a camera system that works on a remote head that uses a radio transmitter that is worn like a mic unit. When someone walks around it causes the camera to follow the movement of the transmitter so that an operator is not necessary. I wonder if this type of technology could be employed to help the camera focus according to the whereabouts of a transmitter on the subject's person. Think this is possible?

I've seen a prototype of such a system but it never came to market. This would be useful for certain types of shots; certainly you would need to be able to override it if it were literally tied to the servo motor directly but as a focusing aid, could be a useful but slightly exotic tool.

Does anyone rent the follow focus units by themselves for student projects. It would be expensive for a student to buy insurance for a follow focus unit by itself. I would think the rental houses would only allow a unit for their own cameras. Anyone?

You should be able to rent a Preston or Bartech a la carte from any rental house that offers them. Insurance is always an issue of course. Rental houses that have student deals set up often offer their own insurance which may be cheaper than going to a 3rd party broker.

Dave, I am wondering what wireless connection was used for the 19" monitor. I plan to shoot full 1920 x 1080 on my masters project. I was thinking about getting a converter box for Hd SDI out to HDMI and buying a 120hz 1080p consumer monitor for focus, as well as one of those distance lasers used by hunters. I was also going to include a bunch of measuring on location scouts and test shoots. I am going to have to include a courtroom scene and it's gonna need to be a jib shot all the way through. I can't think of a better way for the story I am going to tell. It's perfect in planning, but the trick will be to get the focus right.

I don't suppose you frequent San Antonio at all, do you?

D-
I don't use anything that fancy for the wireless connection. It's just a cheap composite signal. Charles Papert actually pointed me to this site:
http://www.supercircuits.com/Wireless-Devices/Video-Links/AVX900T4
http://www.supercircuits.com/Wireless-Devices/Video-Links/AVX900R1

On sticks, I've been using an HD analog Component signal to the monitor. All you need to do is buy a 10-20 foot component video cable, plus 3 RCA couplers, and use gaff tape to secure it to the component cable that comes with the camera. You also need to configure the camera menus to output an HD signal on the Component output.

But on the shoot that finished yesterday, the DP ended up using my composite wireless connection on sticks as well. Without a lens adapter, the focus on the EX1 seems to hold true at any zoom level, so the DP just zoomed in all the way, got focus there, and then zoomed out to the proper frame. Using this technique, composite was good enough, and it was nice to have the sticks completely untethered.

Dave. I thank you. First class reference. I can handle this in my budget. The transmitters that is....

Just to be sure that I understand this you use the settings in the EX1 to output with composite video to judge critical focus. Right? I do plan to use a Letus Extreme with Nikon Nikkors at various focal lengths. Still work in that case?

I am wondering if the transmitted signal from the transmitter and receiver is good enough to make a NTSC backup of the shots? Please advise.

Thanks

David

I am wondering if the transmitted signal from the transmitter and receiver is good enough to make a NTSC backup of the shots? Please advise.

RF transmission is always spotty, definitely nothing you would want to rely on as a backup.

RF transmission is always spotty, definitely nothing you would want to rely on as a backup.

Well, Bummer.

What would you charge per day for services in San Antonio? Local hire?

Send me a private email at luckyhouse@prodigy.net if you wish.

I don't know if I could afford you.

David Hodge

Just to be sure that I understand this you use the settings in the EX1 to output with composite video to judge critical focus. Right? I do plan to use a Letus Extreme with Nikon Nikkors at various focal lengths. Still work in that case?
Ummm, maybe. If you are using a lens adapter on sticks, I would definitely use HD component video cables, since this is basically free. If you are using a lens adapter on a Steadicam, then you'll need to rent a good wireless follow focus system. In that case, you might also want to rent a good HD wireless video system for critical focus. On the other hand, if your Steadicam shots don't require a shallow DOF, then you could leave the lens adapter off for the Steadicam shots, forget about the wireless follow focus, and just use the cheap composite wireless video system I mentioned above.

I am wondering if the transmitted signal from the transmitter and receiver is good enough to make a NTSC backup of the shots? Please advise.
Definitely not. The wireless system I mention above is powerful - it will get through steel doors and such, but it does flicker and change colors frequently, so it's not something you would want to record.