<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Leigh...I see my estimation of what sort of response you were likely to get in the Steadicam forum largely came true (certainly the part about "take a workshop")!

Not to pour fuel on the fire, but I could suggest this: even though making it to a workshop seems like an unsurmountable dream, it actually makes good business sense as you are thinking about getting into the manufacturing end of things. Learning as much as you can about your product and application and techniques etc. is a solid investment.

If however your goal is to get good enough at operating to be able to make a decent demo video to sell your rig, and that is all you are waiting on, wouldn't it make sense to hire an experienced operator to take the footage with your rig? I know you are in NZ--too bad this conversation didn't happen a year ago when I trekked through both islands!; regardless, you could even ship them your rig anywhere in the world. Whatever that would cost would be offset against the time you are currently losing, which equals revenue--each day that you aren't selling rigs, you are losing that income stream.

Personally, I think that if you had a solid product that is ready to sell, you should put up your website and get it out there even if you don't have a demo video yet. I would perhaps recommend that you when you do have that demo ready, you post it in either QT, Windows or Real--asking people to download the Divx plug-in may turn some off. And my two cents about stabilization video is that it's much more important to deliver a high frame rate than a large image, if you need to compromise on the size of the file. -->>>

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the suggestion.

It seems that I can't pickup my operating problem on my 17 inch lcd monitor initially. Only after spending hours watching my low mode video on a projector, I can clearly see the problem now.

I spent around 20 years using computer including ten years working as a programmer and I feel that I am competent enough to write some general business software now. Thus I think that I should do the same to my stablizer business. I am not in a hurry to make money as stablizer business is just my part time business and I have my main job as a programmer to support me as I stated in my previous post. I will give a time frame for 8 years for my stablizer business to grow up.

Regards
Leigh

<<It seems that I can't pickup my operating problem on my 17 inch lcd monitor initially. Only after spending hours watching my low mode video on a projector, I can clearly see the problem now. >>

And what would that be?

<<What were you doing in NZ?>>

Strictly sight-seeing. 6 weeks through NZ and Oz, loved all of it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : <<It seems that I can't pickup my operating problem on my 17 inch lcd monitor initially. Only after spending hours watching my low mode video on a projector, I can clearly see the problem now. >>

And what would that be?>>

Obvious one is you said in your previous post start shot around several seconds shaking, end shot without too much thinking about how to end, thus cause hesitation to end the shot and cause it not fluid ending.

Less obvious one is that I use my left hand constantly touching the camera and tilting the post.

Maybe you can tell me other missing one I have not figure out yet.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,
I'm back and hoping for some new excersize stills, but none i see!


- Mikko..

<<<-- Originally posted by Mikko Wilson : Leigh,
I'm back and hoping for some new excersize stills, but none i see!


- Mikko.. -->>>

Hi Mikko,

How was your holiday? Fun? 8 ) Skiing is my dream hobby too. But I never try it.

I got some photo in my PC and I am selecting some photo for our review. I am hoping to upload to my server in next two days.

I have uploaded some photo I shot last month.
Click here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33194&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) My post date is from April 2nd, 2005 03:58

Just check the one mark with small size photo as you have slow internet connection. They are around three times smaller than full size photo.

Tell me what you think of these photo. 8 )

Regards
Leigh

<<<-- Originally posted by Mikko Wilson : Leigh,
I'm back and hoping for some new excersize stills, but none i see!


- Mikko.. -->>>

Hi Mikko,

Here are some photo I shot for our review. 8 )

The one mark small is small size photo. They are around 140k bytes.

Flower 1 small size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2484_s.jpg)
Flower 1 full size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2484.JPG)

Flower 2 small size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2486_s.jpg)
Flower 2 full size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2486.JPG)

Flower 3 small size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2501_s.jpg)
Flower 3 full size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2501.JPG)

Flower 4 small size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2502_s.jpg)
Flower 4 full size photo (http://www.salenz.com/picture/IMGA2502.JPG)

The decision for me to select which one is best is quite hard. All are nice photos IMHO. I really like the one is number 4. Both corner got flower and it seems offer some balance and talking to each other. 8 )

Thank you for your time and effort to teach me and I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards
Leigh

Hi Mikko,

I look forward to your comments.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,

Pictures 1 and 3 look like the same picture. They are better than 2 and 4. Picture 4 doesn't have a definite focal point. It looks like you are framing for something in the middle but there isn't anything in the middle.

How did this thread go from video to stills?

Nice flowers though.

Terry

<<<-- Originally posted by Terry Thompson : Leigh,

Pictures 1 and 3 look like the same picture. They are better than 2 and 4. Picture 4 doesn't have a definite focal point. It looks like you are framing for something in the middle but there isn't anything in the middle.

How did this thread go from video to stills?

Nice flowers though.

Terry -->>>

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the comment.

Mikko suggested me to learn to take photo first, so I just go back to where the industry started. 8 )

Regards
Leigh

Oh, I get it, composition. Good idea!

Tery

You got it Terry. I see that needing some work before moving!

Leigh;

I like the pictures. and i definatly think that terry put it very well abotu shots 2 and 4. you can probabaly see that yourself.
4 is somewhat balanced as you said. but with the left flower out of focus it looses importance and puts the shot off balance.

However, 1 and 3 - are very similar, but one is definatly better than the other in my oppinion. It has "balance" of objects in the frame without the distraction of unimportant elements.
Can you tell which one i'm talking about? Which is better of 1 and 3? why?

First tell me which is better, 1 or 3? Then surf over to: http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp022.htm and read that module as well as modules 23, 24 and 25.

- Mikko.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mikko Wilson : You got it Terry. I see that needing some work before moving!

Leigh;

I like the pictures. and i definatly think that terry put it very well abotu shots 2 and 4. you can probabaly see that yourself.
4 is somewhat balanced as you said. but with the left flower out of focus it looses importance and puts the shot off balance.

However, 1 and 3 - are very similar, but one is definatly better than the other in my oppinion. It has "balance" of objects in the frame without the distraction of unimportant elements.
Can you tell which one i'm talking about? Which is better of 1 and 3? why?

First tell me which is better, 1 or 3? Then surf over to: http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp022.htm and read that module as well as modules 23, 24 and 25.

- Mikko. -->>>

Hi Mikko,

The flower in the right bottom in picture 3 should be completely out of focus, but it is reasonable focus now. I did not successfully throw that element out of the picture which distract of the important element, the center flower in the picture 3. Thus picture 3 got two focus flower which left top corner became empty cause picture not balanced.

Am I right?

Regards
Leigh

Legh.

I like picture 3 more.
The flower in the top left of picture 1 does provide a little balance, but it's out of focus and there fore part of the backgroudn and not in the equation of balance.
Therefore i'd say that picutre 3 is better becaus the focus is in the right place in the frame. in picutre 1 it's all too far in the bottom right corner.

That beeing said none of those pcitures are what i'd call a "great" picture.

Ok. next assignment:
Take another set of photos. but of a person. Again same questions abotu composition. ignore focus, ignore everything else, just where is the person in your frame.

Oh and even smaller image sizes would be better - about 50% of the smaller ones of this set.


- Mikko.

Hello everyone,

Here is a video I shot backward today. Glad the day is not sunny, so it is quite easy to control the camera. The camera is my old jvc gy-dv5000 camera with a fujinon s20x6.4brm-sd lense.

I found that shot backward is harder than shot forward. I think I need some more exercise. ;-)

wmv format

Here is the link

[short]file size around 10mb
http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_5_21_small.wmv

[long]file size around 98mb
http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_5_21.wmv

I hope you'll check out this video and offer some constructive criticism. I look forward to your comments.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,

You're a skunk! The video looks very good but I was waiting for you to "reveal" yourself as you panned at the end of your shot. I thought I might see you reflected in the glass but you panned perfectly at the end of the building. NOT FAIR!

Thanks for the smaller file size. It looked fine on my computer.

Terry

Leigh,

You're a skunk! The video looks very good but I was waiting for you to "reveal" yourself as you panned at the end of your shot. I though I might see you reflected in the glass but you panned perfectly at the end of the building. NOT FAIR!

Thanks for the smaller file size. It looked fine on my computer.

Terry

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the comment.

I am shy in front of the camera. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Excellent Leigh. Very nicely done.

[edit: See, I can be nice.]

-Rick

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the praise. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Excellent Leigh. Very nicely done.

[edit: See, I can be nice.]

-Rick

Leigh:

Yes indeed, the operating is looking solid. Your horizons are looking better every time.

It would be helpful for you to start using a subject again, perhaps you have some friends that you can corral for this purpose; block out a "scene" and start to work on the reactive aspect of operating; moving with a person, framing, using the boom arm, pans and tilts etc.

Now, let me ask you this: is your rig substantially improved from when you posted your earlier clips, or is it basically the same?

Hi Charles Papert,

Thanks for the comment.

There is no change for the device for the last six months. I was very sad that we can not invent device help cameraman instantly get steady shot. It seems that still need lots of training. For me, as I mentioned before, I spent an hour training everyday and I bought myself a nice mp3 player and walking with the music to get rid of boring stuff. 8 )

Regards
Leigh

Leigh:

Yes indeed, the operating is looking solid. Your horizons are looking better every time.

It would be helpful for you to start using a subject again, perhaps you have some friends that you can corral for this purpose; block out a "scene" and start to work on the reactive aspect of operating; moving with a person, framing, using the boom arm, pans and tilts etc.

Now, let me ask you this: is your rig substantially improved from when you posted your earlier clips, or is it basically the same?

The reason I asked about whether your rig has changed was that you are always seeking out demo footage from other rigs, as you once said so that you could compare them to your own rig. My contention then (I don't know which thread this discussion took place in, don't think it was this one) that it was irrelevant since they were all done by different operators at different skill levels. I think it safe to say that if you had posted your current video on a web site offering your stabilizer, it would have had quite a different effect on sales than the earlier videos. That is as much a compliment to the improvement of your operating as it is a proof of my earlier point!

Hi Charles Papert,

Thanks for the point.

I did not realize the significance of your point though as I always heard that it is not the camera, but the person behind the camera make a difference.

Thanks again.

Regards
Leigh

Hello everyone,

I think that I need to test how is handheld shot compare to stablizer's shot, so I make this video. First part mainly handheld shot, second part is my stablizer's shot. I can feel my hand shaking in handheld shot, and I wish that I have a crane. Shot by JVC GY-DV5000 with Fujinon s20x6.4BRM-SD lense.

WMV format
File Size around 52m bytes

Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_6.wmv)

Small file
WMV format
File Size around 28m bytes

Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_6_small.wmv)

Regards
Leigh

Hello everyone,

I just want to see if I can manage to shoot low angle again. It is hard and I think that I need more practise.

Shot by JVC GY-DV5000 with Fujinon s20x6.4BRM-SD lense.

WMV format
File Size around 64m bytes

Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_11.wmv)

Sorry that I do not have more space to put a small size file.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,
If space is a concern, then you really *Should* be posting smaller files.


- Mikko

Leigh,
If space is a concern, then you really *Should* be posting smaller files.


- Mikko

I agree. If it's too large a file not many will download it and hence, no feedback. A thirty second clip at a decent size can be created with the file size below 10 meg. We can tell if your work is good without extremely high resolution or size. We're not talking postage stamp here nor "Cinerama". Something in between.

Tery

Leigh,
What program do you use to make your .WMVs?
Beacuse if you use Windows Media Encoder (free from microsoft) i can send you a good set of presets for making nice files for web.

Personally the settings I use for web encoding are:
320x240, 15fps. - That's VHS quality at ½ framerate. I encode the stream at 150kpbs. Resultign in a stream that for all practical purposes looks decent on a computer and is about 1MB per min. - That's good enough that msot anyone on even a Dial-Up will download a 60 clip!
Or 512x288 (16:9) at 25fps (i'm in PAL land, jsut like you) - That's allready getting close to pal resolution at full framerate!
The stream is 400kbps resulting in about 14MB for a 5 min clip - Definatly in the range for most uses.

Examples of above for comparison can be seen in the Video Gallery of my website at http://mikko.n3.net

You are a programmer, i'm sure you know this stuff...

- Mikko

Hi Mikko,

Thanks

I thought that 720x480, 29.97fps with 2mbps would offer the reasonable quality which was I encoded in that video. I like the video encoding quality, of couse that quality can't beat origianl DV AVI quality on clarity. I can clearly see 320x240, 15fps in full screen mode really fuzzy as I was encoding the same video on last Saturday and I don't like that. I will try to delete some my old stuff on my server and upload the same video at a setting suggested by you.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,
What program do you use to make your .WMVs?
Beacuse if you use Windows Media Encoder (free from microsoft) i can send you a good set of presets for making nice files for web.

Personally the settings I use for web encoding are:
320x240, 15fps. - That's VHS quality at ½ framerate. I encode the stream at 150kpbs. Resultign in a stream that for all practical purposes looks decent on a computer and is about 1MB per min. - That's good enough that msot anyone on even a Dial-Up will download a 60 clip!
Or 512x288 (16:9) at 25fps (i'm in PAL land, jsut like you) - That's allready getting close to pal resolution at full framerate!
The stream is 400kbps resulting in about 14MB for a 5 min clip - Definatly in the range for most uses.

Examples of above for comparison can be seen in the Video Gallery of my website at http://mikko.n3.net

You are a programmer, i'm sure you know this stuff...

- Mikko

AARRGGHHH!!!
my net connection just bugged out and I lost a big post i just wrote about video compression.

here's the short version:

Leigh: 320x240 is PLEANTY for the web. - you dont' have to watch full screen!
- infact i prefer not to as I like ot be able ot give feedback while i'm watchign a clip in a smaller window.

Check your encoding settings!
720x480, 29.97fps is NTSC video! New Zeland is a PAL country.
You are actually DEGRADING your video quality by encoding at 29.97fps! Drop it down to 25fps at least! (it will take a 6th of your files sizes, that's 10 megs off your last post!)
Preferably use 12.5fps - it will drop your fiule size in half from 25fps without sacreficing any resolution. I promise you will barely notice the drop in framerate!

Get it down to 320x240 and 12.5fps at a "high quality" setting and it will look fine for what you need it for! I promise!

And USE THE RIGHT PRESETS!
Using a preset for "2mbps video over LAN" is great if you are on a LAN!
But this is the internet, yoru target audience is mostnly on meduim speed cable and DSL modems.. so use the "video for broadband" settings! you will get a mcuh happeir audience, and in return mcuh more feedback whcih will improve yoru work.
- This holds true not only in web video but all performances, be it broadcast (which i've been dooing for 8 years) or Theater (10 years):
KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

- Mikko

Hi Mikko,

Thanks for the advice.

I bought the JVC GY-DV5000U and PANASONIC GS400 camera, both are NTSC cameras. And I did know NZ was PAL country at the time I purchased the cameras. My main interest is USA market and that is the reason I bought both cameras in NTSC.

Regards
Leigh

Check your encoding settings!
720x480, 29.97fps is NTSC video! New Zeland is a PAL country.
You are actually DEGRADING your video quality by encoding at 29.97fps! Drop it down to 25fps at least! (it will take a 6th of your files sizes, that's 10 megs off your last post!)
Preferably use 12.5fps - it will drop your fiule size in half from 25fps without sacreficing any resolution. I promise you will barely notice the drop in framerate!

Get it down to 320x240 and 12.5fps at a "high quality" setting and it will look fine for what you need it for! I promise!

- Mikko

Leigh,

My statement still stands. If you are putting videos on the web for others to see they need to be of the size that we will actually download. There are a few who will download 70-80 meg files but not many so take Mikko's suggestion and get them down to a reasonable file size. Remember, you are doing this for us, not you.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of your latest footage so let me know when thay area available.

Thanks,

Tery

Hi Mikko,

Thanks for the advice.

I bought the JVC GY-DV5000U and PANASONIC GS400 camera, both are NTSC cameras. And I did know NZ was PAL country at the time I purchased the cameras. My main interest is USA market and that is the reason I bought both cameras in NTSC.

Regards
Leigh

An NTSC Camera in PAL land.. to each his own i guess.

Well then use 15fps!

Hmm... compatibilty seems to be a strong point with Leigh..

- Mikko

Hi Mikko,

I still think that the requirement of high video encoding rate. It is quite different than normal tripod shot. As tripod shot, most background is still and can be easily compressed by video encoder. But stablizer shot is completely different which requires huge bandwidth. Mr. Job Scholtz did a really nice job to show that by encoding a very high encoding rate and the result is fantastic. :-)

Here is the link to his demo video.

Click here (http://home.wxs.nl/~thecrew/demo/demo.htm)

By the way, I heard that high speed internet connection is getting popular everyday worldwide. It is consider the telecommunication in New Zealand lack of competion compare to USA, but here I got 256kbps connection which is not high speed. That speed is quite reasonable to download megas of data without problem. Video always demand far more bandwidth than other forms of communication.

Regards
Leigh

The first 2 of Jobs clips ar 555kbps - that's 25% of your 2mbps streams. And they looked fine.
I got fed up downloading the 3rd one (at 2,2mbps) and i'm on a 1mbps cable connection. And that was only a 26 second clip. The first frame looked fine, but after 3mins i gave up waiting for it to pregesss ot the next one.

I'm done with my advice about file sizes for you Leigh.

I'll be happy to coment on any of your futur footage you post, provided i can download it at a reasonable rate.

- Mikko

Hi Mikko,

May I suggest that you use some sorts of download manager instead of watching the video while downloading if I was guessing correctly? You might get far better experience. ;-)

Here is the link to one of these kind of softwares.

Click here (http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,6898,00.asp)

Regards
Leigh

The first 2 of Jobs clips ar 555kbps - that's 25% of your 2mbps streams. And they looked fine.
I got fed up downloading the 3rd one (at 2,2mbps) and i'm on a 1mbps cable connection. And that was only a 26 second clip. The first frame looked fine, but after 3mins i gave up waiting for it to pregesss ot the next one.

I'm done with my advice about file sizes for you Leigh.

I'll be happy to coment on any of your futur footage you post, provided i can download it at a reasonable rate.

- Mikko

Leigh:

I would suggest that if your intention by putting up videos is to have members of this or other forums watch them and critique them for you, consider that you are asking them for a favor and thus it would be worth addressing if you are consistently putting up files that many feel are larger than average. I know from your previous posts that you yourself find it difficult to analyze Steadicam footage unless it is full-screen (I seem to recall you saying that you couldn't figure out what a specific problem was until you projected it, rather than watch it on a regular display--does my memory serve me correctly?) I don't believe I'm going out on a limb by suggesting that this is something you might have more of an issue with than many who would watch your videos.

Consider this: as an operator, you must be responsive to an image that is at most 7" wide; your onboard monitor. Any minute variation in framing should be apparent even at that small size once you are attuned to it; and that's not taking into consideration one's distance from the monitor, the ambient light conditions, that one is moving through space and carrying the weight of the rig, etc. etc. rather than relaxing in front of a computer. Should I mention that the original Steadicam monitors were 2.5"--imagine framing an anamorphic image within that diagonal!

I know you haven't included this in your videos, but I will encourage you again to practice your holds. It may seem counter-intuitive--why would you use a stabilizer for shots that could be done on a tripod?--but I promise you, at least half of operating a Steadicam device involves coming to a stop and holding still, and it is actually a very good test of the system to ensure that the operator's breathing or stiction/friction in the gimbal or arm is not translating into an "active" frame (i.e. unable to maintain a lock-off), plus, it's a lot more tiring and challenging than it would seem. At any given time in your shot, come to a graceful stop, hold for a good 5 seconds, and then equally gracefully push off into your next adventure. Try tilting up the side of a building and holding a lockoff frame; do combination pans and tilts (diagonal moves--not easy).

In addition, you should incorporate acceleration and deceleration into your practices. These are also exceptionally challenging, to keep the rig from tipping. In fact, the very easiest thing you can do with a rig is simply walk in a straight line at a constant speed, not concerned with the start or the stop, and that's what your videos mostly consist of. Walk as slowly as you possibly can for a period of time, then suddenly speed up into a jog, then hit the brakes, then creep forward again. And don't forget to do everything backwards as well as forwards!

Thanks everyone for the advice.

I will post a small screen video next time.

Regards
Leigh

Mr. Job Scholtz did a really nice job to show that by encoding a very high encoding rate and the result is fantastic. :-)

Here is the link to his demo video.

Click here (http://home.wxs.nl/~thecrew/demo/demo.htm)


Anyone watching the Mr. Job Scholtz video? I think the video quality is amazing and is this can be done without using mini35/pro35? What about same lighting but with a video lense? Will that still be good? What make a difference? Which effect most? Nice lighting? Or Pro35 with really dear movie/still camera lense?

By watching the video, the lighting is left side softlight box with back ground changing color lights.

TIA

Regards
Leigh

From the behind-the-scenes video, it's a 2/3" camera (Phillips?) with a PRO35 adaptor. It's a matter of opinion which makes more difference, the lighting or the adaptor; there's thread upon thread about this subject elsewhere in DVI...my opinion is that the lighting, composition and camera moves are more important than the DoF, but it's great to have that working for you as well.

From the behind-the-scenes video, it's a 2/3" camera (Phillips?) with a PRO35 adaptor. It's a matter of opinion which makes more difference, the lighting or the adaptor; there's thread upon thread about this subject elsewhere in DVI...my opinion is that the lighting, composition and camera moves are more important than the DoF, but it's great to have that working for you as well.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the comment.

Do you still have the web url link I can read?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,

I can't think of any specifically, but as recently as a week or two ago I recall someone listing in order of "importance" the factors that make DV look like film, or just good. They had placed DoF at the top and felt that nothing else, including 24p cadence, was as important. This sort of discussion has been going on in earnest in multiple threads for the past year or so, at least since the Mini35 became widespread and the homebuilt variations became all the rage.

My contention, after having seen numerous clips linked through this site that feature fabulously long lenses and languorous rack focuses that elicit squeals of envious delight, is that for many DV filmmakers, this is just another tool that is being embraced as the "next coming" simply because it is can be achieved mechanically, as opposed to the more elusive aspects of filmmaking--excellent composition, lighting, camera moves etc. As a Mini35 owner, I obviously have an interest in controlling depth of field, but I believe that a badly lit scene that happens to have shallow focus will be less watchable than a well-lit scene with a lot of depth of field.

If you like, you can watch the MiniDV portion of my reel (http://www.demoreelnetwork.com/chupap/index.shtml): http://www.demoreelnetwork.com/chupap/index.shtml

The first few shots were done with a Mini35, the rest (starting with the swoop around the car) were not. Although the projects have very different looks, I don't believe the latter material looks "bad" because it has deep focus. In about a week the reel will be updated online and will have additional DV footage as well as some new segments elsewhere.

Charles,

Great shots on the DOP section. I hadn't looked at it before but WOW. The lighting is excellent and is the the compostion. At first I thought the "bungie jumpers" looked like you and your lady but upon further examination...nope.

Your steadycam exercises are going to be tuff to do but that's what separates the good from the bad. Hum...the good, the bad, and the ugly...I done all of those shots.

What camera did you use for the 24P shots?

OK, how is the training video going? I'm still going to "bug" you.

A question for you Charles and others...Does shooting in 24p (ie 100a) look different than converting from 30i to 24P in post (I have Vegas Video)? The reason I ask is that I just had a close encounter with the Sony HVR-Z1U and I like it. I like it a lot! I would sell my 100a and buy one if the 24p conversion in post looked the same or close. I suppose I will try the two different shots ands see for myself but I was interested in your thoughts as well.

Leigh,

Thanks for deciding to give us smaller file sizes. I'll be checking out your next clip. I've been interested in looking at your clips but didn't want to download 75 megs.

Tery

Thanks Terry!

The bungee jumpers were nominally Zach Braff and Sarah Chalke, the leads of "Scrubs"--but it was actually two stuntpeople who took the real leap. I was safely sequestered behind the controls of the Technocrane at the time.

The MiniDV footage is mostly DVX100a, but there are some XL1 bits in there too.

I haven't dealt with the conversion you refer to, so I'll leave that to others (I think there's been a good deal of discussion about this in the HDV forum).

Thanks for the bug on the Steadi video--we're in the final stages with the house remodel and that continues to take up all of my time.

Leigh,

My contention, after having seen numerous clips linked through this site that feature fabulously long lenses and languorous rack focuses that elicit squeals of envious delight, is that for many DV filmmakers, this is just another tool that is being embraced as the "next coming" simply because it is can be achieved mechanically, as opposed to the more elusive aspects of filmmaking--excellent composition, lighting, camera moves etc.

Marvelous view ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Hi Charles,

Just for your information, I am using the LCD on my jvc gy-dv5000 which is a 2.5 inch lcd.

Here is a test video I made this morning. Does that match your shot description? I mean stop and move and stop. Because the size requirement, I tried to keep it short, so no long pause.

Small size around 2mbytes encoded with wmv format

Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_18_small.wmv)

Full screen size around 9mbytes encoded with wmv format

Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_18.wmv)

Regards
Leigh

Leigh:

I would suggest that if your intention by putting up videos is to have members of this or other forums watch them and critique them for you, consider that you are asking them for a favor and thus it would be worth addressing if you are consistently putting up files that many feel are larger than average. I know from your previous posts that you yourself find it difficult to analyze Steadicam footage unless it is full-screen (I seem to recall you saying that you couldn't figure out what a specific problem was until you projected it, rather than watch it on a regular display--does my memory serve me correctly?) I don't believe I'm going out on a limb by suggesting that this is something you might have more of an issue with than many who would watch your videos.

Consider this: as an operator, you must be responsive to an image that is at most 7" wide; your onboard monitor. Any minute variation in framing should be apparent even at that small size once you are attuned to it; and that's not taking into consideration one's distance from the monitor, the ambient light conditions, that one is moving through space and carrying the weight of the rig, etc. etc. rather than relaxing in front of a computer. Should I mention that the original Steadicam monitors were 2.5"--imagine framing an anamorphic image within that diagonal!

I know you haven't included this in your videos, but I will encourage you again to practice your holds. It may seem counter-intuitive--why would you use a stabilizer for shots that could be done on a tripod?--but I promise you, at least half of operating a Steadicam device involves coming to a stop and holding still, and it is actually a very good test of the system to ensure that the operator's breathing or stiction/friction in the gimbal or arm is not translating into an "active" frame (i.e. unable to maintain a lock-off), plus, it's a lot more tiring and challenging than it would seem. At any given time in your shot, come to a graceful stop, hold for a good 5 seconds, and then equally gracefully push off into your next adventure. Try tilting up the side of a building and holding a lockoff frame; do combination pans and tilts (diagonal moves--not easy).

In addition, you should incorporate acceleration and deceleration into your practices. These are also exceptionally challenging, to keep the rig from tipping. In fact, the very easiest thing you can do with a rig is simply walk in a straight line at a constant speed, not concerned with the start or the stop, and that's what your videos mostly consist of. Walk as slowly as you possibly can for a period of time, then suddenly speed up into a jog, then hit the brakes, then creep forward again. And don't forget to do everything backwards as well as forwards!

Leigh.
Good looking stops and starts! very little penduluming!
You Lock-offs (AKA: not moving) are a little wobbly though. Once you are stoped, be sure not to bump the gimble. - Don't hold your breath when stopped though, you shoudl still eb able ot breath without difficulty!

Normally when dooing starts and stops it's a good idea to actually accelerate to a steady speed and hold that speed for a moment before stopping.

- Mikko.

Leigh.
Good looking stops and starts! very little penduluming!
You Lock-offs (AKA: not moving) are a little wobbly though. Once you are stoped, be sure not to bump the gimble. - Don't hold your breath when stopped though, you shoudl still eb able ot breath without difficulty!

Normally when dooing starts and stops it's a good idea to actually accelerate to a steady speed and hold that speed for a moment before stopping.

- Mikko.

Hi Mikko,

Thanks for the advice.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh,

Watched the new and improved (smaller) video. Thanks for that.

The stop and starts are fairly good but the lock-offs need help as mentioned by Mikko. Not a critisism-just a comment.

A word of advise given to me by Charles P. When starting and stopping-feather the movement a bit so the starts and stops have a gradual effect. I watched Charles in operation and when he came to a stop he added just a little bit of movement to give his shot a professional effect.

I'm looking forward to more video from you that I can watch. I wish I had a good server like yours to show video and get helpful comments as I have a lot to work on. That might be coming with my new web site etc. I'm also having my gimbal made by a machine shop on their CNC machine.

CNC stands for Computer Numerical Control for those who read this and might be wondering what I'm talking about.

Tery

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the suggestion.

CNC machine is really cool. I look forward to purchase one which will cost around US$100,000 plus. All you need to do is input the data and the machine made the goods for you. ;-)

Regards
Leigh


Leigh,

Watched the new and improved (smaller) video. Thanks for that.

The stop and starts are fairly good but the lock-offs need help as mentioned by Mikko. Not a critisism-just a comment.

A word of advise given to me by Charles P. When starting and stopping-feather the movement a bit so the starts and stops have a gradual effect. I watched Charles in operation and when he came to a stop he added just a little bit of movement to give his shot a professional effect.

I'm looking forward to more video from you that I can watch. I wish I had a good server like yours to show video and get helpful comments as I have a lot to work on. That might be coming with my new web site etc. I'm also having my gimbal made by a machine shop on their CNC machine.

CNC stands for Computer Numerical Control for those who read this and might be wondering what I'm talking about.

Tery

I made another video this afternoon. Still needs more practising.

Here is a picture of my house for an overview of my shooting environment.
Click here (http://www.salenz.com/picture/house.jpg)

Small size around 3mbytes encoded with wmv format
Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_18_1_small.wmv)

Full screen size around 69mbytes encoded with wmv format
Click here (http://www.salenz.com/movie/2005_6_18_1.wmv)

Regards
Leigh