Andrew,

You're probably right. I just wasn't sure about the mounting options for an alternative monitor OR if the HD and SD version of the Zephyr have the same wiring? There are very few monitor otpions out there suitable for bright daylight use AND with HD-SDI+HDMI+component (or composite) input, without spending an arm and a leg buying it, of course. The Marshall monitor is an acceptable compromise, I guess. :-)

Best,
-terje

From the Steadicam Zephyr web page section on the sled base:

"- Standard HD BNC video connector and interchangeable monitor harness."

Considering that other features and options have been changed without Tiffen changing their website, we can't be sure that this is true and accurate information.

I will have more to contribute next week after I bring my Zephyr home.

There are very few monitor otpions out there suitable for bright daylight use AND with HD-SDI+HDMI+component (or composite) input, without spending an arm and a leg buying it, of course.
Why do you want HD? With the size of a steadicam monitor and the typical distance from your eyes, I don't think it will make much difference.

And what about wireless video? HD wireless costs a fortune. So if the camera doesn't offer a composite output, you'll still need an HD to SD downconverter box to run wireless video for the director and DP.

Dave,

I don't neccessarily want a HD monitor on the Steadicam. It all started when I saw the price difference between the Zephyr SD and HD version. I rather buy the SD version and have the option to upgrade the monitor to one that'll do a better job, that can be used with ALL of my cameras (HD-SDI/HMDI/component/composite) during ANY work scenario. As long as this goal is in reach, I'm happy. I haven't even started evaluating the monitor needs on the Steadicam itself, which I believe your response was all about?


Best,
-terje

I must say Terje, I'm much the same. I think few of us here are planning to be just Stabilizer Operators, for me its another tool in the kit. As the world changes and we all take on multi-roles I want to be able to mix and match my equipment as well. For instance I was hoping to use this for occasional playback to Clients on a shoot and even being able to mount it on my jib when need be. It's quick and easy to do, so why not?
I agree with Dave that we don't need a HD monitor on the stabilizer, but I think we should at least be getting top quality SD, I find it off-putting to see a lousy, VHS-ey, (dare I say) NTSC-ey image when my whole camera career has been trying to achieve the opposite in my viewfinder/monitor.

I know, I know, it's only for framing and I'll get used to it, but why do I keep feeling this cheap Chinese monitor that according to the website specs doesn't even reach NTSC SD line standard, let alone PAL, is a disappointment.

Many operators still subscribe to the "monitor is strictly for framing so SD is fine" idea. That works fine if you are working high-end, with a focus-puller, or working low-end with a wide angle lens and tons of depth of field. But if you aspire to work in live TV, for instance, where (in the US anyway) you are expected to set your own focus, I see the value for an HD monitor. Or even in situations where playback may be done on the sled from time to time.

As reasonably-priced HD monitors become more available, more and more ops will get the "the more resolution the better" religion, I predict.

Agree Mark, but I'm afraid the old timezone thing has got me again so off to bed. Actually I should be able to give you a very good idea of a retail price on what these Zephyr monitors actually cost in the morning, of course to Tiffen they would be a lot cheaper. Like to hazard a guess on the retail?

I rather buy the SD version and have the option to upgrade the monitor to one that'll do a better job, that can be used with ALL of my cameras (HD-SDI/HMDI/component/composite) during ANY work scenario.
The cheapest and most straight forward way of getting all the different camera outputs to work with a steadicam is with an HD to SD down converter box, like this:
Redbyte Decimator 2 Miniature (3G/HD/SD)-SDI to HDMI w. De-embedded Analog Audio & NTSC/PAL Downconverted Outputs (http://www.abelcine.com/store/Decimator-2-Miniature-3G/HD/SD-SDI-to-HDMI-w-De-embedded-Analog-Audio-NTSC/PAL-Downconverted-Outputs/)

And for Steadicam, I find wireless video indispensible. When the director or DP can't see the shot, they're not happy. And you don't want to be bumping into the director because he's hovering around you. And running a wire to your rig is a real pain. So I looked around and found many inexpensive solutions for wireless video, provided you use SD composite. Specific products vary depending on where you live, but most countries seem to offer reasonably priced wireless SD video solutions. By contrast, HD wireless is very expensive. So my point before was that, if the camera doesn't have composite out, you'll need a down converter to run wireless video anyway, so you can use that signal for the Steadicam monitor as well.

I think few of us here are planning to be just Stabilizer Operators, for me its another tool in the kit. As the world changes and we all take on multi-roles I want to be able to mix and match my equipment as well. For instance I was hoping to use this for occasional playback to Clients on a shoot and even being able to mount it on my jib when need be. It's quick and easy to do, so why not?
The Marshall monitor that Andrew mentions is close to $2000, and it's only 6.5", and that's 4x3 aspect, so it would be even smaller widescreen.
Marshall Electronics V-LCD651STX-3GSDI-AB (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&sku=702619&is=REG)
For non-steadicam HD monitoring, I would want a larger screen. Most larger LCDs don't work well in direct sunlight, but with sticks, dolly, jib, etc, you can use a hood and angle the monitor as necessary, so it doesn't have to work in direct sunlight.

In other words, it may be better to buy 2 monitors, one for steadicam that's optimized for sunlight, and another larger HD monitor for non-steadicam. Depending on what you buy, 2 monitors may actually be less expensive.

But if you aspire to work in live TV, for instance, where (in the US anyway) you are expected to set your own focus, I see the value for an HD monitor.
I'm confused. Are you pulling your own focus during the shot, or do you just set it at the beginning?

If it's just at the beginning, aren't there ways to achieve HD focus using an SD monitor? Also, if the focus is that critical, how does that work when you're moving aound? It's rare that I do a move exactly the same way twice. Even when it's blocked out with marks, it seems to vary a few inches each time.

If you're pulling your own focus during the shot, how do you do it? I find it takes all my concentration just to keep the right frame steady. Keeping the exact frame is easy if you don't worry about stability, and keeping it stable is easy if you're not too concerned with framing, but consistently getting both at the same time - that's what seems to take years of practice.

Lots of things to respond to here.

The monitor issue. First off, if anyone is going to be buying a monitor I would hold off until NAB is over. Each year Marshall has new offerings and with the huge upsurge in the DSLR market and the AF-100 roll out there are bound to be manufacturers coming out with some attractive monitors in terms of an increase pixel resolution, both HDMI & SDI inputs. There could be a couple of Steadicam oriented monitors coming out. Last year Marshall came out with the one mentioned and Nebtek came out with one that caused competition for the high end Steadicam monitors. We may see some downward pricing pressure on some units come NAB.

For non Steadicam use I would have a serious look at the TV Logic 6.5" monitor. It has scope software built into it along with a bunch of other features. Presently, I am using an SD monitor with a Decimator as much of the work I do it live work where I am shooting wide or medium shots on an EX3 or similar cameras but that is all going to change in a month or two.

The reason why I have plugged the 2,000 dollar Marshall is... this unit is the cheapest truly daylight viewable monitor out there. A couple of years ago Charles Papert had a monitor shootout and a few monitors came to the top. A Marshall was up there, the Nebtek, the Transvideo and a couple of greenscreen monitors. I'm not even sure if the Marshall mentioned above was in the shootout but in any event during the fallout from the shootout, this monitor was recognized by a fair number in the Steadicam Community as the go to deal of the year monitor.

There was a thread on the Steadicamforum about the optimal monitor size for Steadicam operating. Most agreed that 8" was too big and that scanning the eyes back and forth across the monitor was required at that size. 6.5 to 7 inch monitors were seen by many as the preferred operating monitor size. It was also pointed out that the macula, the portion of the eye that sees detail, accounts for about 2 percent of your field of view, so there was some fact to back up the notion that one has to scan back and forth if the monitor gets too big.

BTW, like Dave, I use a Decimator. It is a fantastic little box. Don't leave home without it.

Dave what is your wireless solution?

Andrew,

It's a good point to wait until after NAB. It's a long trip, but I'm really happy to go this year. I'll definitly check out the monitor options for sure :-)

Best,
-terje

Dave what is your wireless solution?
RangeVideo!, Wireless video solutions. (http://www.rangevideo.com/)

I use the same system (900mhz version) but i replaced the antennas with proper, longer antennas (which reduce heat and improve range). Also added a heatsink.

I had a long post about monitors but somehow lost it. Tomorrow...bedtime now. :-)

I've been doing some research on the Zephyr monitor, but despite the manufacturer promising to send me the wholesale price, it is yet to arrive by email.

Below, I've made a list, not as serious suggestions but just to give us a sense of how low-end the zephyr monitor is and ball park figures on similar products. It would appear that these monitors could not be costing Tiffen more than $100 each and could well be as low as $50. Again the one at the end is not a specific suggestion but indicates that an SD touchscreen, a far more clever (less fiddly) option for a steadicam, could probably be sourced for just $120 each.

7 Desk-top Car LCD Monitor Black for sale at Gadgettown.com (http://www.gadgettown.com/7-desk-top-car-player-e02427.html?ref=cj)

7 Widescreen TFT LCD Monitor with Built-in Speaker for sale at Gadgettown.com (http://www.gadgettown.com/7-widescreen-tft-lcd-monitor-built-in-speaker-q00768.html?ref=cj)

7 TFT Color Car LCD Monitor for Sale at GadgetTown.com (http://www.gadgettown.com/7-TFT-Color-Car-LCD-Monitor-Q00774.html)

7 TFT Color Car LCD Monitor Black for Sale at GadgetTown.com (http://www.gadgettown.com/7-inch-car-tft-lcd-monitor.html?ref=cj)

8 Inch Touchscreen LCD Monitor (PC, POS, Media Remote) (http://www.chinavasion.com/product_info.php/pName/8-inch-touchscreen-lcd-monitor-pc-pos-media-remote/)

Lilliput makes some 450nit 640x480 monitors with composite and HDMI for around 200 US. I have one that I use for my small jib and its bright and sharp when fed HDMI. Disappointing scaler when fed SD composite.

Tiffen generally adds antireflective coatings, which will add some cost.

I don't mind a cheap monitor on the Zephyr if it's got a reasonable nit rating (at least 500 but I was hoping for 700 like the Archer). I would like at least a true SD resolution, like you.

At least they provide a standard power connector and composite connector, unlike the Flyer, so it is not a big deal to swap it out with something better. A range of SD and HD options at different price points and performance levels, to suit my operating markets and preferences.

If they cheap out somewhere I'd rather it's the monitor and not the arm. :-)

It is unfortunate that the smaller stabilizers (and really, the whole Tiffen line) are not modular units--you have to buy the whole enchilada. Compare this with the high end offerings from manufacturers like GPI (Pro), XCS, Mark V and others--the rigs are really components that are all bought individually and many are interchangeable. It's the reason I ended up with a sled (http://web.me.com/chupap/gearsale/steadicam.html) that was a composite of four manufacturers and custom parts; I started with a stock rig and over the years upgraded as I saw fit.

Yes, it's a bummer that you spend x amount on a rig like the Zephyr if you don't happen to like the included monitor. But then there is nothing stopping you from moving to a monitor you like and having parts machined as needed to make it work. I've seen very few serious mods to a smaller Tiffen sled and it's discouraging in a sense--the spirit of customization hasn't seem to trickle down into that world the way it has been for 30 years in the full-size rig community. The Flyer, for instance, was a decent overall rig that was, in my mind, severely hampered by the design of the lower spar. It would be a pretty simple task to design a dual 15mm rod conversion for that base, with the monitor and battery riding on the same rods (and the rods able to drive fore and aft; you could make use of the many options of mounting bracketry now available for many manufacturers such as Redrock. Some four years ago I briefly considered making such a conversion kit and selling it to Flyer owners, but ultimately assumed that by the time the venture was up and running it might be at the end of that rig's shelf life. Who knew it would last as long as it did.

The Zephyr has a much better lower spar design with both monitor and batteries able to migrate individually; even though I haven't spent any serious time with it, it looks good on paper. I would personally mod either the supplied or a replacement monitor with a yoke mount so that it can be tilted without any affect on balance, since all LCD's still suffer from limited vertical viewing angle and need to be adjusted throughout the day for maximum image quality. By using spring washers or similar, you can tension the tilt adjustment so that it can be done with one finger but still stays where you leave it, so you could conceivably adjust the tilt during a shot if required!

Took delivery of my new Zephyr from Showcase Atlanta yesterday. Will post observations, opinions, and experiences as I have time over the next few days. So far, so good.

The vest is a major upgrade from the Flyer vest. Rachet buckles, beefier vertical spar (borrowed from the LX, I believe), more adjustment points, thicker padding. The arm looks like a slightly scaled-up Flyer arm. The sled is an elegant, clever design with a tools-free, beefy-looking gimbal. As Charles points out, the bottom stage is a much-improved design that incorporates two of the aluminum tubes seen in the Pilot design. In theory, much easier to tune dynamic balance as well as tweak inertia to your liking.

Tiffen has postponed or cancelled their announced plan for a second battery mount option (though it's still on their Zephyr webpage). This creates challenges for using heavier cameras without being forced to extend the post. Also no hot-swap without buying a 3rd party bracket or stackable batteries. Nothing insurmountable, but a pain.

In the year since they announced the Zephyr and finally got it into production, many specs have changed. Most of the changes are improvements (new vest, new arm, increased payload).

I will try to generate some objective comparision data between the old Flyer monitor vs. the Zephyr monitor, to see whether it is a step forward or not.

The photos and specs on the Tiffen and dealer websites in many cases are outdated/inaccurate.

I'll have much more to contribute as time permits.

Mark,

I'm looking forward to hear more about your observations. I plan to order a Zephyr after I've checked it out at NAB 2011. In other words, your observations are really appreciated.

Best,
-terje

The photos and specs on the Tiffen and dealer websites in many cases are outdated/inaccurate.

I'll have much more to contribute as time permits.

Mark, based on some of the previous posts, I was left feeling doubtful about the accuracy of current info on Tiffen's website. Like yourself, at this point I would want to see the product in person before leaping into a purchase. I will be looking forward to your comments and observations, so thanks in advance for sharing your insights and experiences. Cheers!

Haven't yet had time to do measurements, weights, load testing, etc. Here are some photos in the meantime.

more Zephyr photos...

yet more Zephyr pictures....

Last batch of photos...

Mark,

Great pictures! Thank you for sharing. I'm looking forward to hear how you experience the balancing of the rig.

Best,
-terje

Before 4 days i participated in a bronze steadicam workshop and we worked with pilot, scout and zephyr models.
It was very easy to balance the Zephyr. It took about 3 minutes maximum for a newby like me. It was helpful the new "no tools" post and gimbal. It have an amazing vest. The SD monitor is a minus for the rig. Indoors is very good but outdoors is totaly useless. We try to put a Hoodman to monitor but it was helpless. They told us that monitor is the same with the SD for scout model. We also tried the HD monitor for zephyr and it was better but outdoors you must play with the setting close to limits to take frame. For me the zephyr is better than the other 2 models and i am trying to gather money to buy it but i also have in my mind to buy a marshall monitor if i want to work in outdoors conditions.
The scout was good but the vest is not so good like zephyr's. The pilot was very sencitive and harder to balance it than the Zephyr but it has better monitor than the SD monitor of Zephyr and scouts in outdoor conditions.

Did some more measurements tonight, as well as putting a payload up on the sled and balancing on the stand. Unfortunately, my Sony QR plate was misbehaving, so I was unable to mount it up on the arm, for the sake of the safety of the gear. Borrowing another QR plate tomorrow.

Here's some observations:

1. A Panasonic HPX500 with Canon kit zoom, QR plate and dovetail and cables is 16lb 7oz. I set the gimbal slightly more than 1" below the topstage, and balanced with one Hytron 50 and A/B adapter plate (2lbs 6oz). Drop time 3 sec, post was extended to 22" (4 1/2 inches extension from the minimum of 17 1/2). Total weight of sled as configured: approx. 25lbs. Didn't use any Merlin weights and didn't fuss with dynamic balance, but it was fairly close. By the way, the first generation Flyer post is fixed at 17 1/2".

2. The overall outer dimensions of the arm are nearly identical to my first-generation Flyer arm, including the length and width of each of the bones. The only significant differences were A) the elbow is 1/2 inch wider (4" vs. 3 1/2") and the arm weighs a little more, due to the heavier springs, I suppose.

3. I only have my Flyer for a couple more days but I hope to be able to set up some objective tests to compare brightness and features with the new monitor. Hampered by lack of time. Tiffen has not yet provided any specs on the monitor. It does not appear to have image flip, but I can't be sure, due to a complete lack of documentation and no remote control.

Once I solve the problem of having a safe camera platform I will add weight until I reach the 24lb limit, and see what that does to post length, battery weight, ability to DB, and what the arm can lift. As I noted before, the math of 24lbs payload and 30lbs arm lift does not add up, since the sled is over 6lbs by itself, leaving no allowance for battery/counterweights.

More pictures of all this soon.

Check out the other Zephyr thread for a shot of me operating from the back of a camera car. Canon 5D with weight plate and a/b battery on top, about 15lbs of payload. Arm is hardmounted to a bazooka via a "Garfield mount (vehicle mount).

I’ve spent time with my new Zephyr monitor and run some tests and comparisons. Here are my results and conclusions. I shot some photos which I hope to upload after I resize and label them.

Summary:
The new Steadicam Zephyr is a big advance in many ways from the Flyer LE that it, along with the Scout, replaces. But the “new” SD monitor disappoints, even compared to the 5-year-old Flyer monitor it replaces. Brightness, resolution, and viewing angles all suffer compared to the old Flyer monitor, and there are no new features or other advances offered. A plethora of inexpensive LCD monitors from Lilliput and other OEM’s demonstrate that an improved monitor (higher resolution, improved brightness, underscan, etc.) need not be expensive, even though it may not have the features that are considered “must-have” on a big Steadicam rig. For some it’s a moot point, as any monitor that is a dedicated Steadicam offering by Transvideo, Marshall, TV Logic or Nebtek aren’t even worth considering. For others, particularly those for whom rigs like the Zephyr are targeted, some features can be sacrificed as long as brightness, viewing angles, and resolution meet a minimum threshold. The Flyer monitor was good enough to meet that threshold for many. The Zephyr monitor, not so much, in my opinion.

Introduction:

Late last year, the first production Zephyrs started coming off the factory line, with an “all-new” monitor (the prototype that Tiffen had been showing around had a Flyer monitor). LCD monitor technology has advanced dramatically in five years, with inexpensive higher-resolution panels, advancements in firmware, etc. The market is rich with choices in LCD monitors with price/performance ratios far exceeding those of just a few years ago. It would be natural to assume that Tiffen would tap into these new possibilities. Although I didn’t expect a monitor with big-rig performance and features, I was curious and hopeful that five years would have brought at least a few improvements to the SD monitor, or perhaps even a lower-cost HD monitor option. No such luck.

I had a brief time with an SD Zephyr rig at the Eastern Classic Workshop in December but no time to evaluate the monitor. I began asking for monitor specs in December. Continued in January, February. Was told “still no specs available.” Ordered my own SD Zephyr rig and received it in early March. When it arrived, there was no monitor documentation of any kind. With access to a Zephyr monitor, my old Flyer monitor, and a Lilliput 668GL-70NP/H/Y monitor (an inexpensive, 450nit LCD with a high-resolution screen), I noticed right away that the Zephyr monitor didn't seem as bright. I decided to try to quantify the differences between them.

Resolution and scaling:

Flyer screen is listed at 640x234 and shows the sub-SD look you would expect. No specs published for the Zephyr monitor, but it appears to be the same resolution. Even so, the Flyer monitor seems to have more “real” resolution, perhaps due to a better scaler. On the Flyer monitor, viewfinder readouts from the camera were crisper with less anti-aliasing “blurring”. Lilliput is an 800x480 screen. Composite input is not the sharpest that this monitor can deliver, but exceeds either the Zephyr or Flyer monitor. As expected, a 720P component signal fed to the Lilliput is sharper still, owing to what looks like a good scaler, and the fact that it’s component. Lilliput could not sync up a 480i component signal.

Crop:

Both the Zephyr and Flyer monitors overscan. However, the Zephyr monitor is cropped more severely at the top, cropping the time code readout and basically obscuring the 95% TV safe on top. It is not a bezel issue, as flipping the image puts the same behavior on the bottom of the screen.

Brightness

I don’t have the tools to measure the brightness of each monitor in nits, so I used the tools that I have to compare and rank the three monitors. I measured with a Sekonic L-398 meter with lumidisc. Measured in a dark room, 2” from screen surface, directly above the center of a screen displaying SMPTE color bars.

Based on my tests, the Flyer and Lilliput monitors perform consistent with their claimed brightness relative to each other (500nits for the Flyer, 450nits for the Lilliput.) Relatively speaking, I would expect the Zephyr monitor to have a brightness of only 250 to 300 nits, as it significantly lagged behind the other two monitors.

Because each monitor responds differently to the combination of contrast and brightness controls, I chose three subjective levels to test at.

"Default" is the setting out of the box for brightness and contrast. All three monitors displayed reasonable contrast and brightness on color bars.

"Max practical" is a setting I subjectively chose for each monitor to represent the combination of brightness and contrast settings for each monitor that was as bright as possible without seeingserious degradation of contrast, in other words, the picture was not washed out or lacking in detail, but still looked pretty “normal”.

"Max": Both contrast and brightness settings to their maximum settings, regardless of how much the picture was degraded. The Lilliput in particular was very washed out at that setting, which probably explains how it surpassed the Flyer at least “by the numbers”.

Zephyr Flyer Lilliput
Default 11 21 16
Max practical 16 27 24
Max 24 27 48

Default: Zephyr monitor B=50 C=50. Flyer B=0 C=0. Lilliput B=50 C=73
Max Practical: Zephyr B=50 C=90. Flyer B=0 C=+7 Lilliput B=60 C=73
Max:(all three monitors at maximum brightness and contrast settings).

Results, Default:

Brightest was the Flyer monitor, which showed 21FC. Lilliput measured 16FC and Zephyr came in at 11FC. The Flyer was about a full stop brighter than the Zephyr, and the Lilliput only 1/3 stop under the Flyer.

Results, Max Practical:

Brightest was the Flyer at 27FC. Then Lilliput at 24FC and Zephyr at 16FC. The Flyer was 2/3 stop brighter than the Zephyr and less than 1/3 of a stop brighter than the Lilliput.

Results, Max:

Lilliput at 48FC. Flyer at 27FC and Zephyr at 24FC. The Lilliput surpassed the others at full brightness/contrast but it should be emphasized that the picture was so washed out as to be unuseable. The Flyer was second, and was much more viewable (less washed out). It also was no brighter than it was on the “max practical” setting. The Zephyr monitor was just a little under the Flyer, but was also quite washed-out.

Viewing angle:

The Zephyr lagged behind both the Lilliput and Flyer monitors for off-axis brightness, especially in the vertical axis. At least the Zephyr LCD panel is oriented so that the picture stays bright when viewed from below the monitor (when looking “up” at it, such as when the arm is boomed up and tilted down). The Lilliput panel holds viewability when viewed from above and sacrifices viewability from below, which could be a problem. Subjectively, the Zephyr monitor seems to lack compared to the Flyer in side-to-side viewing angles, but I did not spend a lot of time with that.

Conclusion

Zephyr monitor is a very low-end LCD monitor that does not match, much less exceed, the Flyer monitor in any important way. It is dimmer by roughly an f-stop compared to the Flyer, a real step backward. It is a missed opportunity by Tiffen for improvement, but more importantly, in my opinion it falls below a minimum threshold for brightness, crop and off-axis viewability. It will disappoint those who rely on the seemingly inaccurate information on Tiffen’s website, which lists the Zephyr monitor at 500 nits. It is surprisingly under-spec’d for a rig as innovative and well-engineered as the Zephyr. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is unworthy of an otherwise excellent rig. Will it work okay if you don’t expect too much? Sure. Should you shell out an additional $3500 for the HD option? With no features or specs announced, that’s a lot of money without knowing what you are getting. If you’re in the market for a Zephyr, probably better to buy the SD version and budget for an upgraded monitor after the new 3rd party offerings are unveiled at NAB.

Thanks for this review Mark.

I think it's important to note as well that the Liliput monitor you are comparing these to can be had for *less than $200*. I'm not sure what the flyer or zephyr monitor sell for stand alone, but it is certainly a multiple of that. I shot with the Liliput out in the rain for 8 hours, with no protection, and it was fine - no issues with water intrusion, even though it was soaked, and it's continued to work flawlessly (and in multiple more shoots in the rain) since. It doesn't have accurate color reproduction, and as you noted, when pumped up, looks washed out. But it also runs on a $20 12 volt battery that for me, lasts more than 6 hours of continuous operation (I've actually never had it run out before I was done for the day, so I don't know how long it would go).

Anyway, if willing to overlook some things, there's a new dawn for low end LCD monitors.

Another thing to note about the Lilliputs are that I believe that the 17v or so that is delivered from the d-tap of a fully-charged 14.4V battery may possibly fry the Lilliput. I don't think its power input is very robust about overvoltages. A 12V nominal battery mounted to the monitor is probably the best way to go.

I've been using the Lilliput 669HB almost a year now with d-tap outputs from both IDX V-lock and Swit batteries for sony ex1 camera (also a 14.4V battery). It's not fryed (yet).

I have the model 668. Called Lilliput USA yesterday and was told that the max recommended voltage is 15V. That makes fully-charged 14.4 bricks too "hot". YMMV...

Comparative pics between Zephyr, Flyer, and Lilliput monitors

Mark:

Those are cool but can you do a version of same test in daylight? Many people will take this as gospel that the Lilliput is the best choice but there may be different results outside.

Ideally you would have multiple conditions: ambient/overcast, sun hitting face of screen, sun reflected in center of screen (this shows the type of AR coating and how effective it is).

I can fairly easily do tests with Zephyr vs. Lilliput. I have visitation rights with my old Flyer but not ready access. The Lilliput looks nearly as bright as the Flyer monitor indoors, as the 450nit vs. 500nit specs would suggest.

Your point is well-taken about the coating in outdoor conditions.

There's also viewing angle comparisons--both left to right and up and down.

Mark, not suggesting this responsibility lies on your head but I do want to point this out for those reading who may be taking everything as gospel. The demands of a Steadicam monitor are VERY different than other applications, in that your viewing orientation to the monitor is constantly changing which is a big challenge for LCD's. Just booming all the way up and down with some monitors causes the image to reverse out. Jibs are similar in this regard but you have more possibilities of coming to a stop and adjusting the tilt on the monitor in that instance, whereas with Steadicam, you can't do that during a shot.

Exteriors are the biggest pickles. The best you can hope for in a shade is one that has top and side flaps, but even that will be too restrictive for many moves. The popular wraparound shade is all but useless unless you are doing a shot that requires virtually no panning or booming. This is why daylight performance is so critical in a Steadicam monitor.

Understood and agreed on all counts.

I also did a few preliminary off-axis comparisons (indoors) when I did the other pics. I only tested at approximately 30 degrees. Here are Flyer vs. Zephyr (default brightness/contrast, same exposure as other pics):

Note that the Flyer is pretty good off-axis in all directions. The Zephyr is relatively good from "below", as in when you are boomed up and tilted down. The Zephyr is not nearly as good from "above", but in fairness I wager that's a less common Steadicam scenario. The Flyer monitor had plenty of "above" brightness as you can see. In fact, if I'd known that earlier I might have flipped my Flyer monitor to make use of that.

Though I don't have pics, the Flyer monitor was generally very viewable at very oblique angles in any direction.

Here's the Lilliput on the same tests....

Good straight on, mediocre side, plenty of "above" brightness and relatively poor "below" brightness.

A definite candidate for mounting upside down...but that creates a complication for the needed rigid, stable mount, since the Lilliput doesn't have a 1/4-20 screw hole on the top.

I need to point out that the 30 degrees off-axis is approximate, I didn't have the time or inclination to make it a fully scientific test, just a quick test to get a handle on the issues.

Any of you real geeks out there care to put these images in FCP's scopes or Photoshop's histogram?

Here's the latest situation with my zephyr "monitor". Before I take it any further I thought I'd better check with you guys as to whether I might be making some stupid mistake myself. I have tried to attach images of the issue but it's not working on either firefox or opera, so maybe there's some site problem at the moment. I'm not a real wiz on how LCD monitors work but in CRT terms I would say suddenly my monitor color guns have gone out of alignment. There are 3 very separated images as I pan from left to right. Red, green and presumably, but not obviously, blue. The camera signal is via BNC video out into the top stage video in. I really can't see how I could have it wrong but am open to suggestions!

Hmmm. My quick guess is that you have a bad cable or connector somewhere. Doesn't sound like the monitor.

If it was me I would start troubleshooting as follows:

1. Bypass the sled video, run composite directly from camera into the monitor via a cable and (if necessary) a bnc to rca adapter.

2. If still a problem, then try a different video source, different cables, different adapters.

3. Run video through the sled, but disconnect the monitor and connect it to a separate external monitor.


These tests should help you isolate pretty quickly. I'm not saying it can't be the monitor, but I've had similar symptoms with bad cables or connectors.

Thanks Mark, like your thinking.

An update on payload tests, I did some detailed testing about the lifting capacities of my Zephyr, both minimum and maximum. I found the minimum camera weight to be about 9 pounds and maximum to be 23-24 lbs.

The originally-published specs were 5-24lbs. I shared my results with Tiffen, wondering if my arm was somehow out of spec. They confirmed that my arm is working correctly. They have now revised their website to reflect a 9-23 lb "net camera capacity", which happens to be consistent with my results.

So, if you are looking to fly a DSLR with a Zephyr, you will have to add weight (accessories or a weight plate) to the top stage to increase the weight. The top end of the range will allow you to fly nearly any broadcast camera and many RED configurations, a breakthrough for a genuine Steadicam under $10k.

If you anticipate long stretches in the rig with a DSLR or lighter video camera (doc or live music or event shooting) then the new Scout's payload range (assuming it is accurately-stated) or the Pilot may be a better fit for your needs, allowing you to fly the lightest possible configurations.