DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Stabilizers (Steadicam etc.) (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/stabilizers-steadicam-etc/)
-   -   Video shot by my stablizer[2] (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/stabilizers-steadicam-etc/31873-video-shot-my-stablizer-2-a.html)

Michael Stevenson January 17th, 2006 10:17 PM

Leigh,

Not when the passages you are refering to are on the same page. You are effectively doubling this thread without presenting any new information. :-) Trust and believe CNC machines and perfecting manufacturing processes is anything but simple or cheap. You will need the assistance of a very skilled and knowledgable CNC wizard to get you up and running. And that level of expertise can't be found in any book or trade school.

Aight? Peace!

Michael

Terry Thompson January 18th, 2006 10:55 PM

Leigh and Michael,

Here is a picture of our machinest with the CNC machine. He's making one of our gimbals I believe.

http://www.indicam.com/index.php?opt...d=10&Itemid=48

Michael is correct in that not only do you have to buy the CNC machine but you also have to make jigs for holding the billet aluminum. Then you have to be literate at computers and layout because this machine reads the .DWG format (anyone want to learn Autocad?).

It's been fun though learning the whole process from our point of view.

Tery

Michael Stevenson January 22nd, 2006 07:16 AM

Terry,

CNC machines do not read .DWG files. A .DWG file is Autocad's format for CAD (Blueprint) data. CNC's read a standard code format known as RS-274D. It's the standard for numerically controlled machines developed by the Electronic Industry Association (EIA) in the early 1960's. This RS-274D coding is also known as "G-code."

Michael

.

Terry Thompson January 22nd, 2006 08:49 PM

Michael,

Thanks for the info. I only know that I had to deliver the specs for my sled in the .DWG format. I suppose the machinest/computer operator converted it to the correct format for his machine. The next time I see him I'll ask.

Either way, it turned out very well.

Tery

Michael Stevenson January 24th, 2006 01:48 AM

Terry,

Cool. It's fairly easy to load a .DWG file into a CAM system and create the toolpaths necessary to make a part which is then converted to the final "g-code" program that runs the CNC. It does require a few different steps and creating some new geometry though. I am impressed with your website. Keep up the good work.

Best of luck,

Michael

Terry Thompson January 24th, 2006 11:02 AM

Michael,

Thanks for the great information. There is a lot we have learned in making a stabilizer and there is still a lot more we want and need to learn.

Our first Indicam Pilot sled is on ebay at the present time. We're selling it with no reserve to see what the market thinks it is worth. We know how much we need to make in order to continue making them but we thought the first one should be a promotion.

Thanks for the comments on our website. We do apprecitate the input. If you see that anything's messed up please let us know.

Leigh,

Hey, where's that video with complex moves we were hoping to see.

Tery

Leigh Wanstead February 5th, 2006 06:39 PM

Another video to share.

Click here

Mikko Wilson February 5th, 2006 06:53 PM

200MB .. for 4 mintues?

You have got to be kidding Leigh.

Sorry, but that's just way too big for me to download.

- Mikko

Terry Thompson February 5th, 2006 07:35 PM

"And in this corner we have weighing in at... I love the Mikko-Leigh thing.

Mikko,

Maybe if it was a good as one of the Super Bowl comercials we could handle the 200 MB. Incidently, did any see the Steadicams in use on the field (Endzone) and during the halftime show?

I can appreciate that Leigh loves quality and his pictures do have a good composition to them mostly but you CAN judge the steadycam shots without the huge MB hit.

Leigh,

Can you condense this to a shorter and less bandwidth grabbing file? I would like to see your progress.

We are in the process of planning out our trip to NZ and places downunder.

Tery

Leigh Wanstead February 5th, 2006 08:47 PM

Hi Mikko,

If you revisit the same link, you will see two more download links for your comments. The smaller video is around 20mb. I am just busy compressing and uploading the videos.

200MB .. for 4 mintues is just standard mpeg2 size which is quite reasonable. BTW, I don't own hvx200, so just relax. I won't put hd video on the net for now. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikko Wilson
200MB .. for 4 mintues?

You have got to be kidding Leigh.

Sorry, but that's just way too big for me to download.

- Mikko


Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 02:18 AM

More video

Click here

Mikko Wilson February 6th, 2006 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leigh Wanstead
I don't own hvx200, so just relax. I won't put hd video on the net for now. ;-)

LOL!
Thank god! :)


Thanks for the smaller file, it's downloading now...

Ok, just watched it...
That's MUCH better Leigh. Composition, headroom and horizon where all good for most of the shot. You lost the headroom around the middle there a bit though where you gut him off at the neck, other than that, good.
Does your rig have a gimble? If it does, you are gripping the post too hard, if it doesn't, then it's looking good. There is still a lot of little shake - especially "panning shake". looking much better though.


Terry,
Yes I did get a few looks at the rig (they only had one there). The station here ran an uncut (no commericals) international verson of the feed on one of the digital channels, so I got to see all the bits durign the commericals too. Interesting stuff, expecially the annoucers yapping on seemingly oblivious to their hot mics! I really would like to see the commercials though. I guess I'll have to track them down later.

I have no idea what rig it was to be honest. Nothing that I recognized right off the top of my head. Of course I never really got a good looks at it (silly game getting in the way and what not).

Did you guys see Skycam hovering around the field too? That thing is so cool!

- Mikko

Terry Thompson February 6th, 2006 11:47 AM

Mikko,

I always point out to my family when a steadycam (generic name) shot happens. They're starting to say "yea, yea, we know" so I guess I'll have to keep it to myself from now on.



Leigh,

NZ looks inviting.

Hey, not to be a downer but I think I've seen you father walk enough now. How about some action shots?!

The first "walking" shot had no variety to it. Actually both shots were pretty much the same except the second was better. Remember the rule of thirds...I draw lines on my side mounted monitor dividing it into thirds both vertically and horizontally then try to put my focus on one of the four crossing lines. Most of time the eyes should be on the first line down. You might know this already but "just in case".

Action, action, action-we want action...

Tery

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 12:01 PM

Hi Mikko,

My rig has a gimble.

Thanks for your suggestion. I will try not to hold hard.

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikko Wilson
LOL!
Ok, just watched it...
That's MUCH better Leigh. Composition, headroom and horizon where all good for most of the shot. You lost the headroom around the middle there a bit though where you gut him off at the neck, other than that, good.
Does your rig have a gimble? If it does, you are gripping the post too hard, if it doesn't, then it's looking good. There is still a lot of little shake - especially "panning shake". looking much better though.

- Mikko


Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 12:05 PM

Hi Terry,

Thanks for watching the video.

I would rather slow walking perfect than doing some action shots in the first stage.

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Thompson
Mikko,

Leigh,

NZ looks inviting.

Hey, not to be a downer but I think I've seen you father walk enough now. How about some action shots?!

The first "walking" shot had no variety to it. Actually both shots were pretty much the same except the second was better. Remember the rule of thirds...I draw lines on my side mounted monitor dividing it into thirds both vertically and horizontally then try to put my focus on one of the four crossing lines. Most of time the eyes should be on the first line down. You might know this already but "just in case".

Action, action, action-we want action...

Tery


Mikko Wilson February 6th, 2006 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Thompson
I always point out to my family when a steadycam (generic name) shot happens. They're starting to say "yea, yea, we know" so I guess I'll have to keep it to myself from now on.

It took me about a year to train myself not to do it at *every* shot.

...I still get a dirty look every time during a movie I open my mouth and say "Ohh, tha.." "SHUT UP!, WE KNOW!" :-D

- Mikko

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 12:09 PM

This kind of mistake only will happen to shoot some actor/actress. It is really difficult to notice that while I practise alone. But my dad can't be always with me all time. So I can't practise that. Do you have some suggestion to overcome this problem?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikko Wilson
You lost the headroom around the middle there a bit though where you gut him off at the neck


Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 12:17 PM

I also made a mistake in my previous videos. I forgot to put sunshade on. The footage demos the reflection of the sun light which is not I want to show.

Regards
Leigh

Charles Papert February 6th, 2006 01:48 PM

Hi boys:

I caught a quick glance of the rig on the sidelines at the Super Bowl and it looked like a Provid, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 03:11 PM

Is there anyway to watch that on the net for free?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert
Hi boys:

I caught a quick glance of the rig on the sidelines at the Super Bowl and it looked like a Provid, but I wouldn't put money on it.


Mikko Wilson February 6th, 2006 03:18 PM

Charles, I thought it was an ProVid at first too. it looked like it. But the sled base was built out of rods and not a single peice like the provid.

It almost looked like a D-box at the bottom of the post, with the monitor on 2 rods, and then the battery on another 2 rods, at an angle down from the back. - Not straight back like most modular rigs.
Same shape as an Archer/ProVid-2 sled, but with dual rods supporting each side instead of one solid peice. I couldn't quite nail what rig it was.

- Mikko

Charles Papert February 6th, 2006 03:18 PM

Leigh:

The most beneficial way to do it is to find someone else in your area who shares your interest in learning to operate a stabilizer; the two of you take turns acting and operating, then sit down and watch/critique the results together.

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 03:48 PM

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the tip. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Charles Papert February 6th, 2006 03:51 PM

Was sitting on telephone hold for 20 minutes just now so I watched your latest video Leigh--I still recommend that you concentrate on backing up, not just following. I'm guessing you don't like it as much because I don't see it in the videos.

I see that you are also a still photographer. Consider that making videos are like taking still photos 24 (or 30 or 60) times a second, and that the care you take in composing a single image is absolutely the same care you need to take in composing moving images. When your father goes up the ramp and you are tracking him, you have him dead center in the frame; this is a choice, but is it a conscious choice? Would you do the same if it was a still photo? The "standard" composition when someone is in profile or close to it is to give them "look room"--i.e. more space in front of them, in the direction they are facing. Or you might create tension by "short-siding" them by giving them more room behind, or even do what you did ("center-punching"). But the important thing is that EVERY frame is a choice and a single composition, and when you park the playhead on a given frame it should be an intentional and pleasing image.

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 04:03 PM

Hi Charles,

Thanks for taking time to watch my videos and giving help.

I felt that backing up is less challenge than following. As people used to moving forward and face forward. It is very easy to spot any shakeness by moving forward at eye level. But backing up is unusal for normal people. I guess no one move backward daily. ;-) So it is very hard for people to judge the shakeness of the video while camera face back ward.

Here is the video I shot backing up.

Click here

Actually I love to do Don Juan mode for normal height and low mode. It is easy too. The angle of the view is so dramatic and fun.

I have no assistant, so I don't dare to face actor and move backward. It is not an option for me to practise now.

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert
Was sitting on telephone hold for 20 minutes just now so I watched your latest video Leigh--I still recommend that you concentrate on backing up, not just following. I'm guessing you don't like it as much because I don't see it in the videos.


Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 04:08 PM

Hi Charles,

You are right.

But stabilizer shot is a motion shot. Any force put on the post will effect the camera. I am bit worried about controling the post cause hand shaking even if I realize that I made bad composite frame real time. Maybe I should instantly control the post once.

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert
I see that you are also a still photographer. Consider that making videos are like taking still photos 24 (or 30 or 60) times a second, and that the care you take in composing a single image is absolutely the same care you need to take in composing moving images. When your father goes up the ramp and you are tracking him, you have him dead center in the frame; this is a choice, but is it a conscious choice? Would you do the same if it was a still photo? The "standard" composition when someone is in profile or close to it is to give them "look room"--i.e. more space in front of them, in the direction they are facing. Or you might create tension by "short-siding" them by giving them more room behind, or even do what you did ("center-punching"). But the important thing is that EVERY frame is a choice and a single composition, and when you park the playhead on a given frame it should be an intentional and pleasing image.


Terry Thompson February 6th, 2006 04:34 PM

Leigh,

I like the Don Juan video the best so far. It was smooth and mostly framed well. Maybe you're just a "Don Juan" kind of guy.

Do you have to fight the women off? Ha Ha.

Tery

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 04:54 PM

Hi Tery,

Glad that you like it. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Thompson
Leigh,

I like the Don Juan video the best so far. It was smooth and mostly framed well. Maybe you're just a "Don Juan" kind of guy.

Tery


Charles Papert February 6th, 2006 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leigh Wanstead
Hi Charles,

You are right.

But stabilizer shot is a motion shot. Any force put on the post will effect the camera. I am bit worried about controling the post cause hand shaking even if I realize that I made bad composite frame real time. Maybe I should instantly control the post once.

Regards
Leigh

Leigh, operating a stabilizer is all about control, all the time. Sometimes this requires more force than other times (coming out of a whip pan, for instance) but you should never feel like you must compromise your compositions because you don't want to touch the rig.

The trick with all of this is to apply the lightest force necessary to control the rig, and to virtually let go as much of the time as possible. I say "virtually" because it doesn't mean remove your hand and hang it by your side. It's a process of fingertips making subtle adjustments here and there around the post, and backing off to hover just above the surface of the post when the rig doesn't require correction (when in a straightaway, for instance). This is why it's so important for the rig to be perfectly balanced and trimmed for a given shot, otherwise you are trying to maintain consistent force on the post and that will affect the shot negatively.

In the big scheme of things, consider this: a idea of a stabilizer is to smooth out bumps and shakes, but it must also allow the operator complete control over the framing. Whether or not a given operator can make the moves he needs to without misframing or adding wobble to a shot is a measure of his ability; if the stabilizer itself is adding instability or friction then it is an engineering issue.

It continues to be complicated to know how to advise you on your videos, because I know you are mostly interested in whether a shot appears steady enough to help you sell your rig once it is on the market. I personally don't see any vibration or "unshakiness" in your footage so on that level it is successful (although I'd like to see some running shots because those are more of a challenge to the integrity of a stabilizer). By the way, as far as "people" being able to judge stability in forward looking shots vs backwards looking, I can't say as I agree with that, at least for myself--a horizon is a horizon, jitter is jitter, doesn't matter which direction the lens is pointing.

Sigh. I have to tell you, Leigh--I keep frustrating myself by commenting on your videos, because I don't really know what aspects of operating you really want feedback on, and what you hope to get out of it. If it's "here's my video--does it look steady"?, the answer is "yes". But steadiness is just one part of the puzzle that makes a good Steadicam shot, really, one of the most rudimentary.

Leigh Wanstead February 6th, 2006 06:40 PM

Hi Charles,

I plan to make a living by making stabilizer for people who wish to use inexpensive stabilizer which you may already know about that. I am not exactly sure if someone will hire me to shoot hollywood movies. I wish that I have that opportunity. But in reality it seems hard. I think that I will be the first customer to hire myself to do commerical videos.

My first priority is to shoot perfect smooth video which I am working on that. My second priority is make art which includes making motion picture, still photo which is a long term goal. That includes I need to read photograhpy books, watching movies. I manage to watch two hours video a day on average for the last 20 months. ;-) And I manage to using my own stabilizer to practise for an hour everyday.

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert
Sigh. I have to tell you, Leigh--I keep frustrating myself by commenting on your videos, because I don't really know what aspects of operating you really want feedback on, and what you hope to get out of it. If it's "here's my video--does it look steady"?, the answer is "yes". But steadiness is just one part of the puzzle that makes a good Steadicam shot, really, one of the most rudimentary.


Leigh Wanstead February 7th, 2006 01:47 AM

The video shot same day.

Click here

Leigh Wanstead February 9th, 2006 12:34 AM

Some more

Click here

Leigh Wanstead February 9th, 2006 01:57 AM

Some more Don Juan mode

Click here

Terry Thompson February 9th, 2006 10:54 AM

Leigh,

Like I say...You are the Don Juan. Very good start. Only one small problem that I could see...the horizon was off a bit from the brick background. No biggie but I have to have something to comment on.

Tery

How about a missionary to a Don Juan?

Leigh Wanstead February 9th, 2006 12:09 PM

Hi Tery,

I agree with you. There are lots of things to be improved.

I spent some time practising each shot. So it takes lots of time to get a new shot. Charles mentioned that shoot ratio can reach to 50:1 even big budget movie. I only got 2:1. So it is not too bad. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Thompson
Leigh,

Like I say...You are the Don Juan. Very good start. Only one small problem that I could see...the horizon was off a bit from the brick background. No biggie but I have to have something to comment on.

Tery

How about a missionary to a Don Juan?


Terry Thompson February 9th, 2006 03:41 PM

Leigh,

I just talked to a guy who just bought one of my Indicam Pilot sleds. He watched the Information and Operations Video which came with it said he didn't realize that when I said "Practice, practice, practice" I wasn't just saying it for fun.

It looks like you have been doing your practice and I commend you for it.

I just realized something...I might be the first person to actually see your rig when I come there on vacation at the end of this year. I'll have one of mine with me so we can go out where there's something interesting to video.

Smooth Shooting,

Tery
www.indicam.com

Mikko Wilson February 9th, 2006 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Thompson
I just realized something...I might be the first person to actually see your rig when I come there on vacation at the end of this year. I'll have one of mine with me so we can go out where there's something interesting to video.

You will be bringing us back some pics, won't you Terry? ;-)

- Mikko

Leigh Wanstead February 9th, 2006 03:57 PM

Hi Mikko,

Relax

You are on my vip list to see my product first. ;-)

Regards
Leigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikko Wilson
You will be bringing us back some pics, won't you Terry? ;-)

- Mikko


Terry Thompson February 9th, 2006 04:01 PM

Mikko,

Surely you jest!

Actually I will if Leigh OKs it but he hasn't been forthcoming yet. Wouldn't it be funny if he was using a Flyer and just messing with us.

I'm joking Leigh but we all would like to see what your rig looks like. If it's under a patent pending like some of my system is then it's OK to show it.

Tery

Mikko Wilson February 9th, 2006 04:27 PM

Jest? Me? Never!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:11 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network