Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Custom Steadicam for REDusers <1800USD - Post your ideas

Just wanted to add that I also feel a Junction box with D-Tap, USB, and 5v converter would be great, even if it is optional. There are a few accessories that run off those connectors.
 
Ya I'd love a system approved by REDusers for 1,800...Not really sure what changes I'd prefer so I'll just leave that up to everyone else and purchase mine after :D
 
One of the things I'm curious about is the 15kg/33lb payload claim, and how the system would handle a heavier camera like the Red One or a built up Scarlet/Epic with a heavier lens.... For the owners/testers of this system, I'd love to hear any experiences that you may had have with it when pushing it to its weight limits... In other words, I'd just like to confirm the 33lb claim, and if its not quite there, offer suggestions/requests to make the this setup able to fly heavier rigs (stronger arms/springs....??)

I realize this claim is for the total weight of the sled, so I'm just looking into what might be the max weight for the cam on top (excluding monitor/batteries mounted on the lower part of the sled...)

One other thought would just be adding more bearings to the arm itself to make for smoother movement (looks like the elbow already has some, so maybe theres no need to put it in the arm....?):
bearings.jpg


And before some people start barking or trolling.. these uninformed suggestions are coming from my limited experience and I'm simply thinking out loud here and fulfilling the original request of this thread :)
 
Noel R. said:
Just wanted to add that I also feel a Junction box with D-Tap, USB, and 5v converter would be great, even if it is optional. There are a few accessories that run off those connectors.
Click to expand...

Quentin Devillers said:
Dear David,
yes I really would like D-tap on my sled, I don't know why so many people doesn't like this connector because for me it has always worked just fine and it is easier to fix yourself than a so tiny Lemo...
I don't think two D-tap out will be a pain in the ass to ad and it will be more proper than a flying junction box...
Like every suggestion, let's have a vote to know if the majority is agree or against...
But I don't think it will bother you to have two D-tap that you don't use on your Sled, but it will be maybe helpful one day for you and will be lifesaver for many others right know...isn't it ?

cheers ;-)
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested a small extra junction box. 3x D-Tap takes a lot of space, so there would be any left for LEMO. Since there are flying wires included, you could just add D-Tap plugs to them (takes 2min). D-Tap is extremely inexpensive, in contrast to LEMO which are expansive if you buy them in small margins. For me it makes much more sense to have a solid system built in on which you can add stuff.

Sergio Perez said:
You know, Martin Stevens, Glidecam founder and active Reduser forum member, could have simply reported this and it would be locked, i think, but this just proves what a stand-up and great reduser he is. I would really like for him to shime in and have his say on a rivalling product or a custom Red user system. I would buy from him like I did my Glidecam 4000 plus smooth shooter. My Epic is just on its limits there and I need an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Peter Majtan said:
The irony part is in the title (and the subject of this thread) - the "cheap knock off of a stedicam(tm)"...
On one hand we support Jim in his fight against companies who are infringing on RED's copyright - which also has direct ramification on us - the owners of RED gear...
Yet on the other hand we are rallying together for a group buy of a stabilization system that infringes on other esteemed companies...
At the very least - the copyrighted name of "Stedicam(tm)" should not be in the title of any of these threads...

Also note that one of the REDUSER sponsors is GLIDECAM - another official manufacturer of stabilization systems.
Thanks to these sponsors we can enjoy this forum and the wealth of resourceful information on it...

Not only is GLIDECAM a US-based manufacturer (for those who care), but also they were the first to introduce a reasonably priced stabilization systems.
I am sure if we have actually engaged GLIDECAM in this discussion / idea - they would be able to make something for us at price not-to-far-off of this Chinese knock off...
Especially if we could guarantee GLIDECAM the 100+ units purchased...
Click to expand...

As far as I know there are no copyright infringments. The main steadicam patents have expired some years ago.

I contacted Glidecam for an offer. I hope that they can make us an interesting deal. But I guess it will be similar if not more expansive than Flaotcam or eemov.

One more thing:

TROLLS! PLEASE STOP POLLUTING THIS THREAD WITH OFF-TOPIC DISCUSSION. THERE'S THE ORIGINAL THREAD FOR THAT. I OPENED THIS ONE FOR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO MODIFY THIS RIG TO FIT OUR NEEDS!

Thanks:yesnod:
 
nickmilo said:
One other thought would just be adding more bearings to the arm itself to make for smoother movement (looks like the elbow already has some, so maybe theres no need to put it in the arm....?)
Click to expand...

You want better (not pressed) bearings? Sorry if I didn't understand you correctly. My experiences with steadicams are quite limited.
 
What? A Chinese company listening to customer feedback? About to build us a custom rig? OMG we're all doomed! lol Actually it's more of a miracle.

But getting back on topic, quality bubble levels (head and sled) are a great idea, good ones of a visible size/brightness, and won't dry out in a year. Some even have a switched back-light but that's pushing it (As an option?). Self evident, but should still be mentioned, needs to be unobstructed while fully loaded.

This next suggestion is a stretch, but I figured I'd ask anyway, can they incorporate some type of ball or roller bearing, of a common size (so we can find replacements), for all the critical joints in the support arm? They're pretty inexpensive (Every kid's rollerblades has 16 of em), increases smoothness exponentially and would really separate this arm from the others. It would mean additional time on the mill, and some extra labor, but it shouldn't increase the price of manufacture too much (Let's see how serious they are about a redesign). Ahh, I see Nick already mentioned it!

Ability to mount 2 bricks either as a dual mount or additional bracket/post clamp as a modular option.

Both 3/8 inch and 1/4" camera mount.

No real need for any generic printed text or labels like "Camera Stabilizer", "Hotwheel?" etc.

Getting back to the "Complete Redesign" line of thinking, a larger diameter carbon fiber post, would allow additional cable options, but will necessitate new head mount/adapter, gimbal, clamps, sled mount etc. So if it's cost prohibitive, that's understandable.

Here's the OCD side of me talking, can the vest either have a lining or removable pads for washing, but still retain its strength?

That's all I can think of, thanks again David for spearheading this group sale-turned-custom stabilizer brainstorm! Can't wait to see what we end up with!
 
As far as I know there are no copyright infringments. The main steadicam patents have expired some years ago.
Click to expand...

Not quite, the design shown is a patent infringement...the G type arm (Flyer, G50, G70 etc) which is what this copy is based on was filed in 2006 by Garret brown and is still very valid

http://www.google.com/patents/US7618016?pg=PA23&dq=garrett+brown+steadicam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pvIlUfjnI4qr4AS_koGQAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=garrett%20brown%20steadicam&f=false

Glidecam, sachtler and GPI-pro all uses a variation of the original arm patent from '76 which has expired back in the '90.

Not that it matters in China anyways...:-)
 
Michael Ou said:
What? A Chinese company listening to customer feedback? About to build us a custom rig? OMG we're all doomed! lol Actually it's more of a miracle.

But getting back on topic, quality bubble levels (head and sled) are a great idea, good ones of a visible size/brightness, and won't dry out in a year. Some even have a switched back-light but that's pushing it (As an option?). Self evident, but should still be mentioned, needs to be unobstructed while fully loaded.

This next suggestion is a stretch, but I figured I'd ask anyway, can they incorporate some type of ball or roller bearing, of a common size (so we can find replacements), for all the critical joints in the support arm? They're pretty inexpensive (Every kid's rollerblades has 16 of em), increases smoothness exponentially and would really separate this arm from the others. It would mean additional time on the mill, and some extra labor, but it shouldn't increase the price of manufacture too much (Let's see how serious they are about a redesign). Ahh, I see Nick already mentioned it!

Ability to mount 2 bricks either as a dual mount or additional bracket/post clamp as a modular option.

Both 3/8 inch and 1/4" camera mount.

No real need for any generic printed text or labels like "Camera Stabilizer", "Hotwheel?" etc.

Getting back to the "Complete Redesign" line of thinking, a larger diameter carbon fiber post, would allow additional cable options, but will necessitate new head mount/adapter, gimbal, clamps, sled mount etc. So if it's cost prohibitive, that's understandable.

Here's the OCD side of me talking, can the vest either have a lining or removable pads for washing, but still retain its strength?

That's all I can think of, thanks again David for spearheading this group sale-turned-custom stabilizer brainstorm! Can't wait to see what we end up with!
Click to expand...

Great ideas! Will collect all of them together with the comments based on Sunday's review and will send them to the manufacturer.

AFAIK the added already a double camera plate. Which diameter for the pole would you recommend? And could you maybe find a link to some good bearings I could forward to the manufacturer?
 
Anders Holck said:
Not quite, the design shown is a patent infringement...the G type arm (Flyer, G50, G70 etc) which is what this copy is based on was filed in 2006 by Garret brown and is still very valid

http://www.google.com/patents/US7618016?pg=PA23&dq=garrett+brown+steadicam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pvIlUfjnI4qr4AS_koGQAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=garrett%20brown%20steadicam&f=false

Glidecam, sachtler and GPI-pro all uses a variation of the original arm patent from '76 which has expired back in the '90.

Not that it matters in China anyways...:-)
Click to expand...

Still good to know. Just out of curiosity... what is the difference between the concepts (G-type patent vs. old patent)?
 
Dear David,

Ok I get your point about the D-tap... I can't disagree !
When you'are talking about junction box, what have you in mind ?
In my mind I see a electrical box that hangs... but if it's something like a solid and fixed add-on that would be good for me...
Like a second box over the lemo box that you can add with some screw...

Maybe it wil not be such a pain for the constructor to add some lemo in a proper way on 30 of the 100 ordered stabilizers... (if 30 people are interested...)
 
As far as a specific diameter of pole, this is probably a change that will significantly effect price (because so many additional components must be completely replaced), but they did mention they are interested in redesigning, so we can test the waters. I'm just curious what their cost estimates will be for something within the 50-65mm range (1.96-2.55"), the existing diameter is currently O.D. 1.21" or 30.8mm (I.D. 27mm or 1.06") . I went with metric because I believe that is their standard, and it might be easier to give a range because there may be other factors such as off-the-shelf components for gimbal bearings, clamps etc. But of course, if this increases the price dramatically then we should determine if its worth it. Perhaps we should first ask them if they can introduce a larger diameter carbon fiber poles at a reasonable cost as part of the new design?

As for bearings, I'm guessing simple sealed bearings designed for radial loads should work. I'm not aware of any alternative "brand" stabilizer arms that have them. And since loads/rpms are relatively light, there is much lattitude. Here is an example of a simple skate bearing wholesale 1000pc:
http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/mercha...de=Kit964&Category_Code=SkateBearingWholesale

Here's some sealed bearings of various sizes (retail)
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/CTGY/ShieldedBearing

Probably all made in China

Realistically, if they can't do it for a reasonable cost, I'll be fine with whatever we end up with. If I had to choose, I would say bearings before tube upgrade. But of course this is a group buy so cost is key.
 
Quentin Devillers said:
When you'are talking about junction box, what have you in mind ?
In my mind I see a electrical box that hangs... but if it's something like a solid and fixed add-on that would be good for me...
Like a second box over the lemo box that you can add with some screw...
Click to expand...

I think adding a 1/4" thread and a rod clamp to the junction box enables to to either add it to the pole or to the camera easily. What do you think?

Glidecam is considering an offer for us. I'll keep you posted.
 
David Kellermann said:
Still good to know. Just out of curiosity... what is the difference between the concepts (G-type patent vs. old patent)?
Click to expand...

Old patent CP Arm geomitry is fixed, eg. the single spring (or springs as many ars are threee springs connected with wires and folded into each section) are attached at a fixed position at both ends of the paralellogram. You adjust the arm by changing the spring tension. The feel of the arm will change as you ad weight and compensate by tightning the springs: From very bouncy, over middle seeking to very even fluid lift.

When the original patent expired he PRO arm changed this a bit by using compression springs in different canisters that could be exchanged. You could then pics the springs matched to the basic load and fine tune by adjusting the tension. By doing this you could keep the arm performing optimal at all weight ranges, but the downside is that you have to swap the canisters from a light to a heavy load to get the Arm to perform optimally, and you still use a tool to fine tune and with four canisters you need to adjust at four points. The Pro arm is very nicely designed and bettery smooth with very little drag. There are one or two canisters in each arm section and no pullyes or wires, geomitry is fixed.

The Master series arm improved on the original arm. It still retained the three springs and pullys, but changed the fine adjustment to one finger adjusted knob per section. It was pattened in '96 I believe. Like the Pro arm the feel was very even over the whole range, but it was plauged by drag and could lock up in the outer positions. CP marketed this new feel as "ISO- Elastic"

In mid 2000 Tiffen (which took over CP and the license of the Trademark and pattents) launced the G series arms. In its simplest form its a rethinking of the arm, with a single spring per section. There is no tension adjustment, but instead a finger knob moving for the lower attachment point of the spring inside the paralellogram. No pullys, no tools and very simple. no drag or friction On the larger arms there is also a ride knob, that will adjust the porportionally feel while you boom up and down to adjust the feel from "smooth to jumpy" or from ISO-Elastic to middle seeking.

The model in the picture in this thread looks like its basically a Flyer/Zephyr arm copy. Single spring with geometry change lift control.

I never relly liked closely guarded patents. Garret Brown is a great guy who uses every possible chance to innovate and improve . I feel that going againt his revenue stream is wrong. Same with George Paddock who pattened the PRO arm design, also copied by the chineese manufaturers like movcam. GPI-PRO is also top quality.
 
Replaceable bearings would probably be the best addition although I wonder if a redesign with these and the added complexity won't make the system more prone to defects ?

I also vote for HDMI since that's probably what I'll use. And USB.

Battery cables with time remaining information would be also nice.

I also would like to know if the weight of a RED one with a heavy lens is not too much ? Has anyone used the CAME system with a Red One ?
 
Anders just a quick drop to correct a few things . Movcam has not copied the Pro arm, they have copied or tried to copy anyway the G series arm , exept of their promax and avant series,
they just use some of the G series methods like the knob that just for the record you cannot really turn by fingers, at least that was the case for many years.
Also just to correct a few things here, 50mm or even 60mm isnt exactly the best for everyone and 60mm post is certainly not usefull unless you are HULK, as do not forget that the gimbal
grip will increase this. The bearings estimation is also very wrong, specially if you are to use them for the gimbal, to get a gimbal that is almost frictionless and precise, you need
the tidest tolerancies you can get out of the parts according to the design, and a special tolerance fit with the gimbal bearings, as well as some small tricks on how to make the bearings
roll better and the kind of grade and make.
Steadicam did make their own design bearings for this in the older days.
There is many manu methods that hae to be used to make a great system, and thuis is just 1/100 of them.
eventually you get to know them after trials and trials by experience since they cant exactly be calculated by numbers and other engineering application examples.
good luck
and btw many seem to dont really care about patents and people who were creative and briliant minds which I find really sad.
Just for the record Garret Brown is a great guy with great respect about peoples inventions, and very helpfull and responsive, and always keen to congratsulate people who use their mind to make exiting gear for this industry rather than COPIERS who dont give a damn about intelectual property.

regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top