U-Flycam from India

Mikko Wilson · August 14th, 2007, 06:03 PM

You can't really "infringe" on anything glidecam (except perhaps the name). Glidecam is just another Steadicam knock-off, just a more well known one.

The fact is that "Steadicam" is a registerd trademark of The Tiffen Company. These guys using to sell/refer to their product it is technically illigal.

- Mikko

Russ Holland · August 17th, 2007, 01:23 PM

I can understand that - calling something Steadycam would infringe copyright even if it is spelt with the Y not an I, but someone else's design, be it Glidecam, Flycam, to the $14 DIY from China; build something, change something...improvement over concept, affordability for those who cannot afford to buy Garrett Brown's genuine article. You will get what you pay for.

Eric Shepherd · August 17th, 2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Holland

build something, change something...improvement over concept, affordability for those who cannot afford to buy Garrett Brown's genuine article. You will get what you pay for.

Improvement over concept is a negative thing?

Mikko Wilson · August 17th, 2007, 02:11 PM

Your making the assumption that these guys are working to improve the concept and not to just sell a product to make money.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

- Mikko

Russ Holland · August 25th, 2007, 07:14 AM

I agree with Mikko; these guy's are just knocking something out for the hell of it, whether it works well or not - they say "balance is perfect" so far it really isn't but I'm still playing.

And, no - improvement over concept is the whole point of design and is in no way a negative thing, sorry if I sounded a bit "change is bad" but improvement over concept is completely different from take someones idea, fiddle with the aesthetics and call it your own.

Laurence Kingston · September 4th, 2007, 10:12 PM

Well, my "U-Flycam" pretty much sucks. It seems to suffer more on the execution than the idea. Two of the biggest problems"

1/ The removable plate that attaches to the camera is low quality flexible plastic. When you screw it tight it deforms and the camera points off a slight angle, making any kind of balancing pretty much impossible.

2/ The gimbal seems to be deformed as well and if you stand perfectly still with the setup, the camera seems to want to spin to the side to find the lowpoint on whatever ball joint they used.

The actual design doesn't look that bad and if they used a bit better parts, it probably actually would be servicable.

Paul Mailath · September 6th, 2007, 06:43 AM

I've been playing with a mate's Flycam 5000 and it's a pain to set up - the 8 screws you have to play with to adjust are fiddly. You have to remember to lock and unlock on a diagonal so you don't bump the adjustment - fine changes are difficult.

I'll be using the rig on Saturday to film a rugby league match (that's like grid iron without any padding or rules) so fingers crossed.

After playing with it a couple of times now I can see the value in the Merlin

Mark Sasahara · September 12th, 2007, 04:23 PM

Ya gets what ya pays for.

Laurence Kingston · September 12th, 2007, 11:29 PM

No not always. I love my Spiderbrace and that was dirt cheap. The Tiffen Steadystick is another low priced gem. Cheap doesn't always mean bad.

Lalo Alvidrez · September 21st, 2007, 05:06 PM

I as well have the flycam and really don't care for all the screws you have to tighten after mounting the camera to the plate. Would be nice to have a quick release in case you would have to switch over to a tripod.

Charles King · September 22nd, 2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalo Alvidrez

I as well have the flycam and really don't care for all the screws you have to tighten after mounting the camera to the plate. Would be nice to have a quick release in case you would have to switch over to a tripod.

Just buy the dual fine tuned adjustable plates from manfrotto and you'll be set.

Tim Sargent · October 8th, 2007, 04:28 AM

Regarding products from CineCity - I would order with caution.

I bought the 'U Fly Steadycam' which came to around 45 including shipping from India. It arrvied within 3 days which was good. After setting up the thing, I could not get the weights to balance correctly on the rig and equal the weight of my FX1 - therefore it was useless. Furthermore (and here's the worst part), the plate and holder for the FX1 on the rig is plastic, and my FX1 FELL OUT of the rig. Thankfully only a couple of feet from a soft landing. I was refunded 100%, but would be weary of ordering products from them again.

Guess it comes down to the old saying 'you get what you pay for'.

Shaun R Walker · May 27th, 2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Mailath

I've been playing with a mate's Flycam 5000 and it's a pain to set up - the 8 screws you have to play with to adjust are fiddly. You have to remember to lock and unlock on a diagonal so you don't bump the adjustment - fine changes are difficult.

I'll be using the rig on Saturday to film a rugby league match (that's like grid iron without any padding or rules) so fingers crossed.

After playing with it a couple of times now I can see the value in the Merlin

Hey Paul

I got given a Flycam 5000 today! Let's get together and compare. I will email you also

Paul Mailath · May 27th, 2008, 05:05 AM

no probs - I've now got a merlin & arm/vest

Bob Hart · May 27th, 2008, 05:45 AM

You might be able to try adjustable trim weights under the camera itself something like this ( only partially successful attempt at airborne stabilisation ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaKc6i3i9-0

August 14th, 2007, 06:03 PM	#16
Mikko Wilson Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Juneau, Alaska, USA Posts: 624	You can't really "infringe" on anything glidecam (except perhaps the name). Glidecam is just another Steadicam knock-off, just a more well known one. The fact is that "Steadicam" is a registerd trademark of The Tiffen Company. These guys using to sell/refer to their product it is technically illigal. - Mikko __________________ Mikko Wilson - Steadicam Owner / Operator - Juneau, Alaska, USA +1 (907) 321-8387 - mikkowilson@hotmail.com - www.mikkowilson.com

August 17th, 2007, 02:11 PM	#19
Mikko Wilson Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Juneau, Alaska, USA Posts: 624	Your making the assumption that these guys are working to improve the concept and not to just sell a product to make money. That would be an incorrect assumption. - Mikko __________________ Mikko Wilson - Steadicam Owner / Operator - Juneau, Alaska, USA +1 (907) 321-8387 - mikkowilson@hotmail.com - www.mikkowilson.com

September 6th, 2007, 06:43 AM	#22
Paul Mailath Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Coast - NSW, Australia Posts: 1,606	I've been playing with a mate's Flycam 5000 and it's a pain to set up - the 8 screws you have to play with to adjust are fiddly. You have to remember to lock and unlock on a diagonal so you don't bump the adjustment - fine changes are difficult. I'll be using the rig on Saturday to film a rugby league match (that's like grid iron without any padding or rules) so fingers crossed. After playing with it a couple of times now I can see the value in the Merlin __________________ Cheers - Paul M. www.perbenyik.com

September 12th, 2007, 04:23 PM	#23
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	Ya gets what ya pays for. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

May 27th, 2008, 05:05 AM	#29
Paul Mailath Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Coast - NSW, Australia Posts: 1,606	no probs - I've now got a merlin & arm/vest __________________ Cheers - Paul M. www.perbenyik.com

August 17th, 2007, 01:23 PM	#17
Russ Holland Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Burton on Trent, UK Posts: 193	I can understand that - calling something Steadycam would infringe copyright even if it is spelt with the Y not an I, but someone else's design, be it Glidecam, Flycam, to the $14 DIY from China; build something, change something...improvement over concept, affordability for those who cannot afford to buy Garrett Brown's genuine article. You will get what you pay for.

August 25th, 2007, 07:14 AM	#20
Russ Holland Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Burton on Trent, UK Posts: 193	I agree with Mikko; these guy's are just knocking something out for the hell of it, whether it works well or not - they say "balance is perfect" so far it really isn't but I'm still playing. And, no - improvement over concept is the whole point of design and is in no way a negative thing, sorry if I sounded a bit "change is bad" but improvement over concept is completely different from take someones idea, fiddle with the aesthetics and call it your own.

September 4th, 2007, 10:12 PM	#21
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Well, my "U-Flycam" pretty much sucks. It seems to suffer more on the execution than the idea. Two of the biggest problems" 1/ The removable plate that attaches to the camera is low quality flexible plastic. When you screw it tight it deforms and the camera points off a slight angle, making any kind of balancing pretty much impossible. 2/ The gimbal seems to be deformed as well and if you stand perfectly still with the setup, the camera seems to want to spin to the side to find the lowpoint on whatever ball joint they used. The actual design doesn't look that bad and if they used a bit better parts, it probably actually would be servicable.

September 12th, 2007, 11:29 PM	#24
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	No not always. I love my Spiderbrace and that was dirt cheap. The Tiffen Steadystick is another low priced gem. Cheap doesn't always mean bad.

September 21st, 2007, 05:06 PM	#25
Lalo Alvidrez Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Longview, Tx. Posts: 227	I as well have the flycam and really don't care for all the screws you have to tighten after mounting the camera to the plate. Would be nice to have a quick release in case you would have to switch over to a tripod.

October 8th, 2007, 04:28 AM	#27
Tim Sargent Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sunny Shropshire, England Posts: 145	Regarding products from CineCity - I would order with caution. I bought the 'U Fly Steadycam' which came to around 45 including shipping from India. It arrvied within 3 days which was good. After setting up the thing, I could not get the weights to balance correctly on the rig and equal the weight of my FX1 - therefore it was useless. Furthermore (and here's the worst part), the plate and holder for the FX1 on the rig is plastic, and my FX1 FELL OUT of the rig. Thankfully only a couple of feet from a soft landing. I was refunded 100%, but would be weary of ordering products from them again. Guess it comes down to the old saying 'you get what you pay for'.

May 27th, 2008, 05:45 AM	#30
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	You might be able to try adjustable trim weights under the camera itself something like this ( only partially successful attempt at airborne stabilisation ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaKc6i3i9-0