Anyone here using some sort of steadicam or monopods ? If so, what are your experiences, and which ones do you like ?

Art-

I have't played with too many, but I have a Varizoom Flowpod under one of my GL2's and I am very happy with it. The monopod side is used about 90% of the time, but its great to have the flowpod on demand (it only takes about 5-10 seconds to switch) when you need it instead of switch cameras.

I also use a DV Rig Pro, but this probably isnt what your going for. By the way, this thing works wonders as a shoulder mount, but dont plan on moving around with it!

patrick

Anyone here using some sort of steadicam or monopods ? If so, what are your experiences, and which ones do you like ?

I use both. I use my monopod for steadying the zoomed shots from across the room and high moving camera shots. The glidecam is good for long tracking shots. I find I use the monopod more often than the glidecam, however both have their uses.

"I also use a DV Rig Pro, but this probably isnt what your going for. By the way, this thing works wonders as a shoulder mount, but dont plan on moving around with it!"

Patrick, why not. The footprint doesn't take up much more space than a monopod would.
I use all tripod for lockdown shots, monopod when needed (for me usually during processionals for weddings), and DVRigPro for everything else as I get very stable handheld footage for filming plays and receptions.

Patrick, why not. The footprint doesn't take up much more space than a monopod would.
I use all tripod for lockdown shots, monopod when needed (for me usually during processionals for weddings), and DVRigPro for everything else as I get very stable handheld footage for filming plays and receptions.

Michael-
Let me be more specific. Dont plan on getting the glidecam style footage with it. The system is not designed to be used while walking in the way that a glidecam or my flowpod is.

That being said, the DV Rig Pro is perfect for run and gun situations. You can quickly (as quickly as you can get there) get stable footage. I wouldnt want to think about filming a wedding without this.

Patrick, your point is noted and you are definitely right in that you won't get steadycam type footage. I have gotten decent flowing footage from it, but actually i get better flow like footage by shortening my Bogen monopod and using it like a steadicam. While not as good as a stadicam, with practice I have been able to get very good footage.
But as you said with a flowpod, you get the best of both worlds, a monpod and a glidecam.
I haven't been able to try a flowpod yet. I have hard that it's triring on the arms because of the wieght, is this true? How do you generally use it, in combination with tripod, or do you use it for alot of run and gun stuff as well, using teh monopod portion mostly?

Michael

I worked with somebody else to make a flowpod like product, it is similar to a glidecam, except the post is a heavy duty boegn monopod. There are a couple other features as well. For the past couple weddings, I have shot completely with this unit, handheld and a tripod. I left my other stabilizers alone, and these two tools did everything I needed. I haven't used a flowpod so I cannot comment on how good the moving footage is, but with practice and this unit, I have gotten some ver good results (plus the costis half of a flowpod).

Anyone using this thing specifically?
http://www.glidecam.com/product-2000-pro.php

I used the steadicam flyer on location at a wedding after party a couple weeks ago. A few things to consider before you buy.


The bad....

1.) Learning curve...... It took me about ten weeks of SOLID practice before I could make shots like you see in the movies. Learning to feel for the steadicams multiple sweet spots isn't easy. It reminds me of learning to ride a bike in a way.

2.) Set up time..... Weddings are run an gun and unpredictable, so there will be times you won't be able to set it up fast enough.

3.) Obtrusiveness.... Yes people stare...some good, some bad. Expect all reactions.

4.) To much contrast......The steadicam has to much color contrast making it stand out in public.(grey, black, red).....Im in the process of blacking out my rig as best I can(black pads, black gimble handle/ stage knobs, sand down and repaint arm beams black)


5.) Sled sucks........ It needs more mass and rails. DV cams are light....... watch out for that breeze around the corner. Operating outside on a windy day is very hard, so extra wieght is a must.


6.) One chance to get the shot......weddings are non repeatable events. Shots MUST be planned out to some extent.


Now the good stuff.....


1.) Fluid...... Talk about silk...there is no pogoing in ANY of the photography(unlike the steadicam mini). Float the rig up and down stairs, for example, with precision.

2.) Boom range...... 30 inches of dolly destroying precision. Subjects can be tracked with more accuracy than a dolly.

3.) Pro apearance........ People loved it at an alltel convention I did. It fit right in with that type of job.

4.) Steadicam customer service...... The best.... Many thanks to Kyle Young.

5.) Portable........... Everything fits in one bag

6.) Built like a tank............ Indestructible

7.) Light........ I only weigh 180 and can use it for hours








Good luck


John

As for the monopod.........good for a dynamic vignette, but not for the bread and butter of the main video. I would think a light weight, fast leveling, blacked out tripod with a seperate set of baby legs would be better and the best of both worlds.


John

I use both. Actually I use the steadycam (home brew) and my assistant uses the monopod, but we have and use both on a typical wedding. I use the stabilizer a lot like a dolly in places where I couldn't lay track.

I invested in the Fig Rig and it's done as well as any other stabilizer. And just like others it takes time to learn.

Cons- Difficult to hold and also operate your camera settings. Most situations require us to run the camera in auto while on the rig.

Pros- the learning curve is less than other rigs

it's very user friendly

the camera can slide off the rig and mount right onto a bogen tripod head

you can get great on the go footage with it

it's very versatile and dutch rolls, booms, etc. are very managable

It's just like other rigs and if you plan your shots and take time with setting them up they'll look great. I prefer the fig rig over others however because it's much more usable for unplanned shots and times when you have to stay with the subject in on the move situations.

The value for the cost was extremely good in my opinion.

Ben Lynn

Manfrotto Monopod seems to be working just fine for me here!

I invested in the Fig Rig and it's done as well as any other stabilizer. And just like others it takes time to learn.

Cons- Difficult to hold and also operate your camera settings. Most situations require us to run the camera in auto while on the rig.

Pros- the learning curve is less than other rigs

it's very user friendly

the camera can slide off the rig and mount right onto a bogen tripod head

you can get great on the go footage with it

it's very versatile and dutch rolls, booms, etc. are very managable

It's just like other rigs and if you plan your shots and take time with setting them up they'll look great. I prefer the fig rig over others however because it's much more usable for unplanned shots and times when you have to stay with the subject in on the move situations.

The value for the cost was extremely good in my opinion.

Ben Lynn

I built two little contraptions and I actually prefer these now to using steadyishcams or monopods as mentioned above (for weddings). It's a |___| shaped thing with handles on either side (spaced about 15-16 inches apart) and the camera in the middle. Shotgun mic and shock is mounted at the top of one handle. Extra batteries are clipped on (I use big amp direct DC plug batteries). Cables are tucked and routed (designed it so there's room for them). It also mounts on a tripod (just leave the quick attach plate on it). When loaded it's quite hefty so it's much more stable than handheld, and as it's hefty you can easily 1-hand it to adjust settings (better than the figrig I'd imagine).

http://twodogfilms.com/temp/Image3.jpg

Me revolving around the couple as they dance (un-processed image low rez image (saved it before I really figured out how to export stills from Vegas properly) - not CC'd or anything, but gives you the idea).

Definitely something different, but works quite well for my style.

Pretty good frame grab. The primary subjects are stationary enough I can tell it's an Army Medical Corps Captain just back from OIF or OEF, while the background is blurred indicating motion. His wife won't be pleased with the frame grab, but the color and composition look very nice.

I invested in the Fig Rig and it's done as well as any other stabilizer. And just like others it takes time to learn.

Cons- Difficult to hold and also operate your camera settings. Most situations require us to run the camera in auto while on the rig.

.....
Ben Lynn


Hey Ben, would a remote for the camera help in this situation, I remember seeing a demo of the Fig Rig and he had a remote control mounted. I have a remote for my cam. I need to work on my run and gun and was thinking that the Fig Rig might work good. I've not really used anything other than hand held at this point for running.

Yes, the Bogen remotes help considerably. The problem is that they don't have a controller to support iris control. So as you work with the rig it's tough to use the manual iris setting. The answer is to run it on auto iris which works well for 85% of the situations you encounter. The rest of the time you have to work to adjust the iris and just to what you can.

Overall it's an amazing rig that really adds a lot of value to a production. It's a very good investment and a great tool. You won't regret investing in it because it's very versatile. Just the fact that it adds some many mounting options for your mics and wireless systems makes it worth the money. Couple that with the fact that it allows you to get great handheld shots and it's well worth it.

Ben

I love the monopod. Very underappreciated tool. They're for close up work only though. We have a Steadicam JR too, and I'd say it's much easier to get a steady telephoto shot with it in the shoulder mount position. Monopods are also really good for getting shots in awkard angles and situations where there isn't a lot of room. On our last shoot i was able to get a really cool close up of an actor lying on his back on the floor with one. I put the foot of the monopod under his armpit and was able to zoom in right on his face. It was a fairly long take and I think it would have been impossible to get the shot handheld or with a tripod. Monopods are great for low angle shots too.

I am currently looking at either a Monopod or the SteadyStick. Anyone have any experience with the SteadyStick?

The steadystick looks quite expensive considering it is missing the one thing that makes shots more stable.

There is only one thing that makes shots stable. That thing is INERTIA.

"But, how about this thing with gimbals?" No. The gimbals don't make the camera stable. They only help prevent transmission of shock from the operator's body.

"There is this one with titanium bearings that...." No.

"...a counterweighted arm..." No.

"...hypereutectic pistons..." No.

"...distributorless ignition..." No.

There is only one...INERTIA.

"To support that much weight, I need a rig that..." No.

I am a couch potato and I can use my "rig" all day because it distributes the weight to the perfect position - to the GROUND.


The answer to this amazing device is:

First, I should explain how a stabilizer works. A stabilizer has three points of mass which are supported in the center. That's it. No. Don't go any further. That's all there is. Nobody believes me. If you make three points of mass seperated by distance and support it in the center, the object will remain stable. There is nothing more to a stabilizer than that.

Three points of weight separated by distance and supported in the middle is all that any stabilizer does. There is no room for deviation. That is all that any mechanical system does. The only stabilizer with gyroscopes is a million-dollar rig that is mounted to a helicopter.

So, what is my MIRACLE DEVICE?

I use a monopod with counterweights.

It is stable and can put all the weight of the rig to the ground. It is simple to construct. It is easy to learn. It does not require wearing a big vest that is hotter than a expletive-described hot thing on a hot Texas summer day.

What are the downsides?

It takes a few tries to remember not to kick the monopod during travelling shots.

It is inexpensive. What? Inexpensive is a downside? Yes, because nobody will believe me that a counterweighted monopod can achieve stabile shots and can also be used on a day-long shoot without bursting the vertebrae of the operator.

There is a more complicated explanation, but it is unnecessary. Imagine a way to make three points of mass on a monopod separated by distance. Hold the monopod in the center of the mass while moving and it is a stabilizer. Put the monopod up in the air and you get a stabilized high-angle shot. Retract the lower sections and you have a stabilized rig that you can run with.

Any questions? Most people wouldn't even read past the statement that gimbals aren't necessary.

If this is something you constructed, can you post a picture of your monopod? If you purchased it, what is it called?

I don't have a web site set up yet, I know...I know...

Actually, I also don't want to post a picture because there are mistakes that I made and want to correct. I am going to rebuild my setup once I get my 35mm lens adapter with 8" LCD setup working.

Here is what I did:

I bought a bogen monopod with a quick-release plate. I duct-taped a lead scuba weight (about 2 pounds) to the bottom of the first section on the monopod. This worked for one dimension. The camera would stay upright and glide along without tipping and vibrations from my hand were reasonably dampened. The camera was one point of mass and the weight the other. I held the monopod at the center of these two masses. The problem with this setup was that the camera was not stabilized horizontally and would wag side-to-side like a dog's tail while I was moving at all. Actually, the image wagged and the monopod rotated in response to vibrations/movements.

To fix this problem, I turned the one weight on the bottom of the monopod shaft into a crossbar with weights on the end. I made it about 24" long out of wood and it clamps onto the monopod with bolts that tighten a groove cut in the wood. The groove grips the monopod. If you can't picture it yet, picture a big "t" shape with the cross of the "t" being about 18" below the camera. I have been shooting like this for years and it works. Regardless, there is a fundamental problem with the design. It is too easy to bump the stabilizer bar and it takes patience to learn how to shoot around the annoyance.

Here is how to get the three points of mass:

Get a monopod and a rod support system or a flat piece of aluminum with the right holes drilled to hold it to the quick-release plate and the camera. This gives you a camera "sled" that can mount to the monopod. Now, using batteries, a monitor, microphones, steel weights, etc. - put a weight at the front of the camera and one at the rear. The further these points of mass are from each other - the better the stabilization. If the camera battery is heavy enough, it may serve as a point of weight. A camera sled/support with weight on both ends will stabilize in one axis.

For the other axis, the camera system is one side and a weight on the bottom of the first section of the monopod is the second. I plan to use a 12V battery that will power my LCD.

The system I plan to use is this:

35mm lens and LCD as the forward mass point, camera, then battery mounted behind the camera. This makes two points of mass. A lead-acid battery attached to the bottom of the top monopod section (just below the grip) will act as the third point of mass that takes care of the second axis. I also plan to put a shoulder pad on the "sled" so I can remove the monopod and work as a shoulder-mount camera. This way, I have a shoulder-cam and a stabilized monopod that doesn't have a crossbar to get in the way.

Any questions?

It is really quite simple, and it works. Anyone can figure it out if they accept the fact that all stabilizers only use three points of mass to dampen movements.

I'll post my 2cents here. I am a true steadicam operator whom films alot of weddings, primarily weddings.

(check our demo footage www.visualmasterpiece.com )

I use the Aviator rig from varizoom with 7" LCD (www.varizoom.com); this is an awesome set up, there's nothing better. I use it in all of the weddings that we do and it gives us an amazing cinematic look to our wedding films.

This past weekend I was filming a catholic wedding and I was wearing the rig on-stage for the entire ceremony walking back and forth getting all kinds of shots including extreme close-ups thanks to the varizoom lanc remote that I have mounted to the gimble/handle of my rig.

There are (in my opinion) more benifits to owning this rig than there are (drawbacks - and there are some); Obviously some drawbacks are set-up time and the ability to be totally spontaious in the moment with different shots. And with this rig I have several things to unmount off of my body before I can get in the car and drive away to the reception. But the stable shots I can get are unreal, I can use it 8-9hrs straight without any strain on my body. It works just as good as a solid tripod even when zoomed in (no floating/shaking shots), and basically I can sprint up and down stairs, walk for blocks and the footage is awesome.

This is a serious tool and worth every penny. Check it out.

Michael, first I would like to say that I would love to have a guy with this rig at any of my shoots. I believe your advise, so I am not arguing with you.

But, I don't see how you can say that wearing that rig for 8-9 hours is not taxing. Just the heat alone could put someone down in the summer. Wearing a vest like that, as I recall, is like having a winter coat on. Also, the weight is distributed, but it is still weight.

There is another matter and that is the cost. $4500 is a lot of money for a wedding videographer. The Hawaii market is very competetive and it can be difficult for some to justify that sort of cost for $1500 weddings. Your site does not seem to include your prices. Perhaps your market can bear higher rates?

If there is one thing the monopod can do that I could never do without, it would be the ability to go high-angle in less than a second. I can't count how many times a tall person has gotten into my shot. I once did a wedding with 12 bridesmaids and groomsmen on each side. It was in a small church. The church, and therefore the bridal party, was primarily of Samoan ethnicity. Samoan men are not known for their slight stature. The groom was a former football player and the groomsmen were his former teammates. They were crammed in shoulder-to-shoulder. I needed to shoot past them to see the bride's face. Without the ability to go high-angle quickly, I would have no shot except for the back of a bunch of Samoan football players heads. Without the monopod, I would have panicked.

Most of the time, I shoot from the monopod planted. With it stationary, I have both hands free. I suspect you have both hands free all the time and that would be a real benefit. I have thought of putting a lanc controller at the center of gravity of my monopod for that reason. I still don't know if I could hold the weight and use the controller simultaneously.

If I was using anything other than an XL2, rather if I were using a smaller, lighter camera there would really be no need for this type of rig. It all depends I guess on the type of camera. If I were using say a GL2 or PD170, I would absolutly buy a FlowPod (also varizoom) for each camera. Our cameras with batteries, lenses, wide-angle adapters and all weigh in at 12.5 lbs. That's just too heavy for steadicam handheald shots no matter how you look at it. So If I am using these cameras (or other compaired shoulder cams), and I want to get these types of shots, I can justify the cost (and everything else that comes with it) in order to get the creative shots that I want. And no our market is no different than yours, I just want to stand out from the crowd and target a higher market.

I hear what you say about weight. I still think I would use a monopod with the XL2. Regardless, I am going to try to make a belt-mounted support that I can use to put the monopod foot in while I am moving around or getting high-angle shots. Holding up 10-15 pounds of weight over one's head would be tiresome after only a minute or two. Sometimes, I need to shoot high-angle for 10-20 minutes.

I looked at the flowpod, and it is missing a critical piece. It has no crossbar to put weight out perpendicular to the support shaft. The camera at the top of the shaft is one point of weight and the bottom of the pod seems to be another. This only covers one axis of movement. Something needs to go perpendicular to this to provide stabilization in the other axis.

I hear what you say about weight. I still think I would use a monopod with the XL2. Regardless, I am going to try to make a belt-mounted support that I can use to put the monopod foot in while I am moving around or getting high-angle shots. Holding up 10-15 pounds of weight over one's head would be tiresome after only a minute or two. Sometimes, I need to shoot high-angle for 10-20 minutes.

It sounds like a job for the SkyPod!

Could you update us as to what you finally went with (and an update on your monopod mods). The picture referrenced in your earlier post no longer works...

Thanks.

We've used the glidecam 2000 quite a bit with our videos, if you're going to do any hand-held work you just can't do without one of these! I hate watching those videos where you can see every step the camera man took, but don't plan on using it alone during a ceremony as your forearm will kill you!

Eric Hansen
www.ehansenproductions.com

I worked with somebody else to make a flowpod like product, it is similar to a glidecam, except the post is a heavy duty boegn monopod. There are a couple other features as well. .

So, did this ever turn into a publicly available product? Please update us!

Update: Did this turn into the "Plume Handi-Pod Stabilizing System with Telescoping Monopod - Supports up to 1.1 lbs"?

Marcus:

Perhaps it would be best if you didn't surround your comments with such definitive statements that purport to quell any disagreement, since some of them are not quite accurately stated.


There is only one thing that makes shots stable. That thing is INERTIA.

To actually make a shot, the rig must be "ordered" to move in whatever direction is desired with a minimum of interference in unwanted axes which will appear as instability in the shot; so to this statement I would add ISOLATION as another critical factor.


"But, how about this thing with gimbals?" No. The gimbals don't make the camera stable. They only help prevent transmission of shock from the operator's body.

The gimbal serves to isolate the operator's angular influence on the rig, and have little or nothing to do with transmission of shock (that is left up to the arm, whether the mechanical one in a body-mounted system or the operator's actual arm in a handheld system). So in fact the gimbal IS what stabilizes the camera in the three angular axes (as opposed to the spatial axes).


First, I should explain how a stabilizer works. A stabilizer has three points of mass which are supported in the center. That's it. No. Don't go any further. That's all there is. Nobody believes me. If you make three points of mass seperated by distance and support it in the center, the object will remain stable. There is nothing more to a stabilizer than that.

Three points of weight separated by distance and supported in the middle is all that any stabilizer does. There is no room for deviation. That is all that any mechanical system does.

Essentially correct, although the insistence of three points of mass is not an absolute . Imagine a weighted handheld monopod, wherein the bottom weight is, say, 50 lbs--obviously the rig would be exceptionally bottom heavy and impractical, but it would be quite stable, and that with only two points of mass. And a system that spreads the mass out in more than three points (imagine the counterweight at the bottom as extending outwards side to side as well as fore-and-aft) will increase the inertia of the system.

But in real life, where weight is a concern, the counterweight is actually less than the camera and the difference is made up with the principal of leverage by placing it further from the center of gravity. And since the rig is thus in delicate balance, a gimbal is necessary to properly isolate the three angular axes.

The only stabilizer with gyroscopes is a million-dollar rig that is mounted to a helicopter.

Not true. There are many remote heads that use motion sensors and/or gyros to produce stabilized shots, including the Libra Head, the Lev Head, the Stab-C etc, which are generally mounted to cranes, vehicles, boats, etc. And the helicopter gyro heads are not generally that expensive. Finally, Steadicams can be used in conjunction with gyros for added stability in situations such as wind.

Any questions? Most people wouldn't even read past the statement that gimbals aren't necessary.

I suppose this gets into a subjective discussion, but I believe that it is simply not possible to deliver the exact results of a gimbal-based system with a non-gimbal system (weighted monopod). In some situations they can be approximated, but not duplicated with the same precision.

Now, in the arena of low-end stabilizers, casual users and relatively undemanding attention to the results, there is a good chance that you can substitute one for the other (not to say that wedding photographers can or should be "sloppy", but it's a different ball of wax when you are operating on a large studio feature) But since your statements were aimed at an empirical discussion of all stabilizers, I thought it appropriate to chime in on this.

Marcus,

Although it's cool that you've developed your own device, I think you're being a bit unreasonable. There's a vast difference between what a monopod (with or without weights) can do and what a true stabilizer can do.

Now, before you get defensive, please understand that me and my associates use monopods at our weddings, not stabilizers. I would rather have the versatility of the monopod system over the steadiness of the stabilizer system. But I am also willing to appreciate the differences.

The weight on your monopod will certainly help your stability, but it can't compensate for movement in your wrist and arm like a gimbal can, especially the gimbal handles that can also move up and down.

So be proud of your home-made device, and feel free to tell us all about it, but don't be so hard on true stabilizer systems. Just recognize that both have their advantages and disadvantages.

This is an older thread of which I haven't been keeping abreast. I really don't want it to start a flame war, but you may have detected that my frustration with overly complex systems elevates my blood pressure a bit.

I will start by agreeing that I am wrong about gyro-stabilized systems. There is more than one and they can be mounted on more than just helicopters. Still, they are expensive and not easily man-portable. I don't really think they are something that can yet be considered by wedding videographers.

"To actually make a shot, the rig must be "ordered" to move in whatever direction is desired with a minimum of interference in unwanted axes which will appear as instability in the shot; so to this statement I would add ISOLATION as another critical factor."

I stand by the fact that inertia is the only factor that stabilizes the rig. It is the inertia that isolates the camera from the operator's actions. I also re-iterate from my explanation that "A stabilizer has three points of mass which are supported in the center. That's it." It must be supported from near the center and less than three "points" and the rig will rotate easily around one axis. More than three points is excess and will add equipment that can get in the way of operating the rig. Three points of mass is correct in the same way that three legs are the best way to support a camera. A camera quadropod would work, but that extra leg would be unnecessary and get in the way.

"Imagine a weighted handheld monopod, wherein the bottom weight is, say, 50 lbs--obviously the rig would be exceptionally bottom heavy and impractical, but it would be quite stable, and that with only two points of mass."

I must strongly disagree. A two-point system would rotate around the central axis easily, even with a 50 pound point of weight. I tried a rig with just a camera, monopod, and heavy weight at the bottom. The rotation around the central columm results in the camera lens jolting left-to-right frequently. A heavy bottom weight will also make it difficult to support the mass near the middle which is the second of my two criteria for a stabilizer.

"And since the rig is thus in delicate balance, a gimbal is necessary to properly isolate the three angular axes."

There is no better powered gimbal in the known universe than the human hand. The drawback to a monopod is that one hand is taken away from camera operation during motion shots.

As you said, the separation of the mass points increases their effectiveness due to leverage. I find that about two feet is practical since more would cause the weights to bump things. More distance would be more stable, and I could make my shots just as stable in all dimensions with a large crossbar as a very expensive system, but there are the other significant benefits from portability that can not be duplicated by ANY other system. My ability to go high-angle and low-angle in seconds is unsurpassed. NOTHING else can perform the range of motions that I can with my stabilized monopod. I will also argue that I can get better quality since I can do it all in one take. If you took the ability to practice a shot and do multiple takes away from a major motion picture steadycam operator, his shots would look no better than most of mine (I'll back that up with a clip some day) and I can go to angles impossible with a conventional system. I can also switch to a tripod in about 10 seconds for telephoto shots from the back balcony of the church. There are few instances where I need a tripod, but it is easy to switch when the time is right.

With any rig, the quality of the shot really comes down to the operator. The operator MUST practice and gain experience until they are comfortable with their rig. I am an expert with my rig because is is my rig that I created through trial-and-error and became versed in the details of stabilization through direct experience. There is no substitute for training your brain to take better shots.

If it really were possible to get BETTER shots with a monopod with some weights versus a 24k stabilizer system, I'm pretty sure Hollywood would be using the monopod system. There's no way they would be spending thousands of extra dollars for a system that wasn't worth it.

If I'm wrong, and your system really is better, then I suggest you patent it and get it on the market for 24k a piece.

I'm glad I learned a new word today, 'gimble.'

I'm glad I learned a new word today, 'gimble.'

Didn't you ever see Apollo 13? :D Just kidding of course. I've actually been weighing in on this issue myself. I have a Flowpod (my cousin's actually, but I use it more than he does) and I've found that it works rather decently. The nice thing about it is that you can use it as a monopod for those steadier shots and then pull up the monopod and use it for steadicam-style work.

The thing I have been debating is which is better: the Flowpod or a Glidecam 2000/4000? The Glidecam seems to have an edge in that it can move on a vertical basis if needs be. The Flowpod can move in all horizontal directions, but there's no room for vertical movement. It certainly moves smoothly, don't get me wrong, but I'm wondering if the Glidecam might be better. I'm sure one day my cousin will want his Flowpod back so I'm just trying to decide what will be the best. Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

Didn't you ever see Apollo 13?
Ironically, I don't watch many movies after 1980, but that would have been one I did see.

I know what gimble ment, but I was trying to make a joke out of my purchasing frustration on what to buy for run and gun at weddings.

I was just teasing you as I know very little about gimbles aside from the point that gimble lock is a bad thing. =) Wish I knew more, but this thread has at least given me a better understanding of the different systems and their advantages/disadvantages.

Marcus, I'm glad that you have a system that works well for you, but I can't agree with your interpretation of physics (although we do agree on some issues). That's OK though, like I said, if it works for you, stick with it--the important thing is that you are making shots that you are satisfied with.

If you took the ability to practice a shot and do multiple takes away from a major motion picture steadycam operator, his shots would look no better than most of mine (I'll back that up with a clip some day)

Boy, that's quite a bold statement. And considering that you are having a conversation with someone who fits that description, I'd have to call foul on that one. We have devices like weighted monopods in the film industry (Pogocam was the classic one, now the best known system is Doggiecam) and while they certainly have their place, I have never heard anyone claim they can duplicate the subtlety of a Steadicam, regardless of the number of takes involved.

Please do post some clips--I'd be very interested in seeing them!

For some reason, a tune Mac Davis did years ago comes to mind.

"Oh Lord it's hard to be humble..."

Robert, what's with your obsession with Mac Davis? You're posting all over the place talking about him. :) Seeing as my humility is in question, I will iterate that I have so little ego as for it to approach zero. A person can not have less ego than myself and still function.

The word for the day is "gimbal", not "gimble". Gimbles are a type of dry dogfood. "Give me my gimbles and bits!"

Charles, please be fair to me and read the entire intention of my sentence that you quote:

"If you took the ability to practice a shot and do multiple takes away from a major motion picture steadycam operator, his shots would look no better than most of mine (I'll back that up with a clip some day) and I can go to angles impossible with a conventional system."

I used the word "most". I did not denigrate steadycam operators by saying thall "all" of my shots are better than theirs. To the contrary, I said that theirs, in the same conditions, would be no better than most of mine. That statement acknowledges that my shots would be equal to most of theirs and some of mine would be inferior. I simply state that they are not the right solution for wedding videographers since a monopod with stabilizer adds such valuable options. Would I like to have a guy with a steadycam at my disposal? Of course, but I would take the stabilized monopod first. For some similar shots like walking down the aisle backwards tracking the couple as they exit the church, I have no stability issues at all. This makes those shots exactly equal to a steadycam.

I went and looked at Doggicam, but could only find a description of the Pogocam. They sound identical, but I will only discuss the Doggicam. It does not have the third distinct point of mass, so it will not be as stable as my monopod. It looks like a fine system for taking low-angle shots, but it does not have enough "leverage" on it's mass to prevent the main column from rotating. It will keep the column from spinning like a baton, but the camera can move side-to-side too easily without mass perpendicular to the main column.

Concerning the gimbal vs. mass. If you remove the gimbal from the system, the stabilizer will still work handheld (assuming you can lift that weight). If you remove the mass from the camera sled and keep the gimbal, the system is useless.

I am only aware of one clip online at this time that has one of my tracking shots using a stabilizer. Unfortunately, it is a high-angle tracking shot so it doesn't show the absolute best steadyness of my system. The site also seems to be down at this time. I don't have a firewire card in my computer at this time, so the best I could do would be to offer to send you a tape of test footage. My conditions would be that you would have to give a fair critique of my footage and post a clip online.

Ironically, I don't watch many movies after 1980.

Why? I'm curious about that.

Why? I'm curious about that.

Hehe, you asked.

Culturally speaking, (in my opinion) the US society took a hard shift to becoming less defined and more a reactionary society which only becomes moral when they themselves lose value of something. I.e. More media value was placed on the Twin Towers falling than the people who just landed in the field. Why? Because we place a higher value on the money link of the trade towers.

Gone are the movies that present a solid value based on something other than the actors self induced and self based belief system. Gone is the 'I fight for truth, justice and the American way.' Now it's 'I'm a leech a sponge, i fight for what ever I can get.' Not all movies are like this obviously. But a lot of what movies draw on is what society lusts for. This is the reason movies like the Chronicles of Narnia draw so much attention, because of thier 'other' focused premise, that there's something more than just lusting after what you can get at all costs. And the Chronicles was one of only 2 movies I saw last year in the theatre.

I wrote a lengthy paper in college about what I abreviated in this post, you can find it here http://stevenandsusan.com/page2.html It is on the upper right.

So I find little value in watching movies that do little service to 'other' service.


That's the short of it. Social theory is a passion of mine.

Sorry gents, I'm out.

Charles...A LOT of guys on here will argue and argue and argue some more with you because they know no better nor will they ever........and they could care less that the info comes from a S.O.C. camera Op/SteadyCam Op....

Charles is one of the few and VERY talented PROFESSIONAL Steadycam Op's to post on these boards, Charles is the real McCoy.....and you should be honored that you have opportunitites to pick his brain about camera stuff in general.



Marcus, I'm glad that you have a system that works well for you, but I can't agree with your interpretation of physics (although we do agree on some issues). That's OK though, like I said, if it works for you, stick with it--the important thing is that you are making shots that you are satisfied with.



Boy, that's quite a bold statement. And considering that you are having a conversation with someone who fits that description, I'd have to call foul on that one. We have devices like weighted monopods in the film industry (Pogocam was the classic one, now the best known system is Doggiecam) and while they certainly have their place, I have never heard anyone claim they can duplicate the subtlety of a Steadicam, regardless of the number of takes involved.

Please do post some clips--I'd be very interested in seeing them!

Joe, I only asked that people be fair to my statements. I specifically stated that I don't want to start a flame war and that my ego has nothing to do with my opinions. I also did nothing to imply that I am better than anybody else. I only stand by the technique as I feel it is better for wedding videographers to have flexibility first. There is nothing that I do that can not be done by others. That is the point. If I can get this kind of footage with a stabilized monopod, anybody can. It is a matter of two parts practice and one part technology. I would also like to point out that I offered (on condition) to send Charles a tape. Offering to show someone my work is not what I would consider arguing. If I didn't have interest in someone's opinion, would I go to that effort? I don't have editing facilities at this time, so a clip is difficult.

***********************

I had a wedding this weekend where I was the mobile cam. The priest had everyone stand at one point, so I moved into the aisle from the balcony thinking he was going to announce the marriage and tell them to kiss. Instead, he had someone go do another reading. I would have missed that reading if I couldn't go high-angle instantly. Since people were standing, a tripod or steadycam would not be able to get over the audience. I was able to get a decent frame with the couple on one side and the speaker on the other. The congregation was the foreground.

Next, he stood out in front of the couple and briefly addressed the congregation. He was blocking the aisle-view of the couple. He announced the kiss and barely got out of frame in time for people on the aisle to see the kiss. Since I was in the aisle, I had to again go high-angle to get over the priest. I may have missed the kiss if I wasn't high. When I say high, I mean over 7 feet.

Finally, the couple walked down the aisle and I tracked them exit the church with all their family watching and cheering. This type of shot is irreplaceable. If I was not able to operate in the aisle with lots of flexibility, I would have missed either this shot, or I would have missed the earlier shots.

I didn’t read every post, but personally speaking…….I use a the steadicam flyer for weddings. It only takes five-ten minutes to set up w/ a PD-170, RF, Functional VU meter, Low mode, ect. While I agree that basic hand held shots can look very good, some shots are just way too advanced to attempt without a steadicam (compound shots, loooong tracking shots, low shots, shots that require precise framing/footing, shots over rough terrain, ect). Footage shot w/ a steadicam has a distinct look.

I respect Charles a lot, and it’s truly amazing how much weight professionals like Charles can fly under insane amounts of pressure (director, crew, talent all watching). The steadicam customer service manager, who operates $80k steadicams on real Hollywood sets, knows Charles and actually refers to him as a “perfectionist”. We are very lucky to have him on DVINFONET.


-John

To discuss support devices in the abstract is like discussing lighting. Of course a full light set-up and a $5K body mount stabilizer are going to give better images in the technical sense. But I think full lighting set-ups and steadicams are inappropriate at most weddings, they are both way too obtrusive. Don't ask other videographers, ask regular folks. Dress up in your steadirig before the shoot and see how many b&gs still want you to wear it for their wedding.

Doug-

I only shoot about 20-30 mins of steadicam at each wedding (more than enough). From that 20-30mins, only one or two shots are live.

I could only see a steadicam being obtrusive if it was used during the cerimony, or in the b&g's face most of the day.

The idea is to offer SC as an option, and after seeing actual steadicam footage, most of my clients dont mind me using it for 20-30 mins. I suppose it depends on the person.

-John

Doug-

I could only see a steadicam being obtrusive if it was used during the cerimony, or in the b&g's face most of the day.

-John

John,

What would your opinion astetically speaking be of running around with a fig rig? Would I 1) Look more like a guy with style using unique cutting edge equiptment or 2) Look more like a guy running around with a stearing wheel with a camera on it?

Forget function, I'm just wondering how goofy it would look. I have contacted Marc on this forum, but I would really value an opinion from someon else like me who does weddings.

Steven,

I think videographers worry to much about what other people think.....use common sense and you should be fine. If I saw a videographer at a wedding with a fig rig, I would think he was simply doing his job with the tools he had available....nothing more.

I honestly don't think the fig rig is any better than advanced hand held techniques. Learning to cradle the camera, or support it by its C.G for example may be better and faster than the fig rig. I would never use a lanc zoom on a hand held stabilizer like the fig rig.....always zoom with your feet because shake is increased the more you zoom.

That said, the fig rig would only be valuable for quick static shots w/no zoom(useful for shorts, vignettes, ect)......no better than cradling the camera.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlist&sku=153902

-John