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.

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

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/cont...ist&sku=153902

-John

Thanks John.

John, interesting tape but very few details at B&H. Can you give us a better idea of what it covers and who it is aimed at?
also any thoughts on support devices like the DV caddie?

The principals behind the tape apply to all video cameras. It’s aimed at anyone who wants to improve hand held shots.

The most valuable points to a wedding videographer and handycams, would be camera balance, form, and alternative ways to hold the camera.

This goes without saying, but practice is also a factor.

-John

As for the dv caddie....I have a varizoom vz-lsp. Again, you can’t walk without transferring shake, so it's only good for quick static shots in tight places.

I dont use the varizoom anymore because the Bogen 542 ART I use for weddings is incredibly fast/stable......as for tight spaces, that is simply your ability to direct people.

-John