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 :)

Freefly offer a list of features and statistics for the MoVI M10, asserts dominance

Clearly, these aren't going to replace Steadicam. They're two different animals. Anywhere a single, experienced Steadicam operator can do the job, it would be pointless using a two operator gimbal. But there are areas that the gimbal is better suited than a Steadicam. There's the obvious pass-through-a-window type shot, but also a gimbal can handle pitch-change shots - such as going from level to descending stairs and back - much better than a Steadicam. Also, a Steadicam is more vulnerable to accelerations in vehicles as it has to by definition be at least a little bit bottom-heavy, effectively making it a pendulum. The point of the gimbal is the camera is neutrally-balanced and the brushless motors maintain heading, pitch and roll while the cameraman/controller adds pitch and/or pan moves as the shot requires. Since the steadiness in all three axes is electronically controlled, a gimbal requires less experience to operate than a Steadicam. That is true. But the creativity of the shot is still down to the filmmakers, just like a Steadicam. Use it as a sort of Steadicam replacement, and you're missing the point.
 
Combination of the two should be very interesting...
 
Carey Lee Coffey said:
I definitely don't think of it as a Steadicam replacement, but I do see it being used as a Steadicam alternative for sure.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's definitely overlap. And there's nothing wrong with using it as and when an opportunity presents itself that a Steadicam could also do. But I want to see more creative stuff that a Steadicam would be pushed to handle, or maybe simply couldn't do at all. That's where the fun is.
 
Tabb Firchau said:
Unless their motor control changes substantially this is highly unlikely

Tabb
Click to expand...

Would love to learn more about this (without naming any competitor names). Does this mean they fail to respond quickly enough to sufficiently counter the motion, thus letting through undesired motion?
 
Mike Smith said:
Oh, there's definitely overlap. And there's nothing wrong with using it as and when an opportunity presents itself that a Steadicam could also do. But I want to see more creative stuff that a Steadicam would be pushed to handle, or maybe simply couldn't do at all. That's where the fun is.
Click to expand...

I'll try my brushless gimbal soon on the steadicam sled itself and in overslung mode (with the pan motor bellow the camera). This will be a good solution for using the camera at eye level for longer takes while also getting rid of the foodsteps. What I'm aiming for is a setup were you can change quickly between the handles or the steadicam bracket. This way you can use the handles and do those roller skate kind of movements and 5 minutes later you can have the setup ready for a precise tracking shot at eye level on the steadicam. You don't need to rebalance everything for the change between overslung and underslung mode, at least pan balance and tilt height will not change.

Also I plan to have the pan motor disconnectible with a lemo plug and that the pan axis can be fixed with a bracket to allow for whip pans on the steadicam or handheld.

There is a long but interesting discussion about brushless gimbals and steadicams on the steadicam forum: http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17972&page=16#entry92436

Andreas

www.portahead.de
 
Andreas Kielb said:
I'll try my brushless gimbal soon on the steadicam sled itself and in overslung mode (with the pan motor bellow the camera). This will be a good solution for using the camera at eye level for longer takes while also getting rid of the foodsteps. What I'm aiming for is a setup were you can change quickly between the handles or the steadicam bracket. This way you can use the handles and do those roller skate kind of movements and 5 minutes later you can have the setup ready for a precise tracking shot at eye level on the steadicam. You don't need to rebalance everything for the change between overslung and underslung mode, at least pan balance and tilt height will not change.

Also I plan to have the pan motor disconnectible with a lemo plug and that the pan axis can be fixed with a bracket to allow for whip pans on the steadicam or handheld.

There is a long but interesting discussion about brushless gimbals and steadicams on the steadicam forum: http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17972&page=16#entry92436

Andreas

www.portahead.de
Click to expand...

Those guys are a trip over there. A lot of steadicam bias IMO LOL...
 
ramble ahead:

I personally feel that this kind of device - in a hand held situation particularly - makes for a very new aesthetic. Especially when the person is running or jogging, and booming a lot - even with minor disturbances and gimbal 'artefacts', I like it (and it will only get better).

It feels more like a person moving through space. Our vision takes out the jolts of stepping, and our heads are always automatically orientating our vision to the horizion, as well as a bit of 'software' leveling due to our proprioception (our 'sixth sense' of a knowledge of our body's location in space) and peripheral vision (which is why wide angle is so cool).

So to me it's a good thing that the MoVI represents the human movement of legs, arms, torso twists etc - much more than a steadicam which is designed to dissociate the camera from the human movement. And the steadicam always has a very subtle (or not so) pendulous feeling, a slightly flotational, sea-saw aesthetic. Even when it's a master operator there's still at all times a 'trace amount' of this.

Now, Freefly have the 'shakycam' mode which can program some of this back in (though perhaps not in a pendulous manner (yet)), but this rigid adherence to a level has a very '3rd person narrator' feeling to it to my eye which we've seen before with dolly or jib for example, but not in combination with human movement. So I look forward to very new kinds of camera moves from this thing, and how programming will enable people to tune very subtle variations of movement. Giving camera movement over to software engineering is revolutionary.

So in short: yes there's some overlap but let's not focus on the concept of trying to replicate all that a steadicam does really well; let's tread new ground.
 
Brett Harrison said:
ramble ahead:

I personally feel that this kind of device - in a hand held situation particularly - makes for a very new aesthetic. Especially when the person is running or jogging, and booming a lot - even with minor disturbances and gimbal 'artefacts', I like it (and it will only get better).

It feels more like a person moving through space. Our vision takes out the jolts of stepping, and our heads are always automatically orientating our vision to the horizion, as well as a bit of 'software' leveling due to our proprioception (our 'sixth sense' of a knowledge of our body's location in space) and peripheral vision (which is why wide angle is so cool).

So to me it's a good thing that the MoVI represents the human movement of legs, arms, torso twists etc - much more than a steadicam which is designed to dissociate the camera from the human movement. And the steadicam always has a very subtle (or not so) pendulous feeling, a slightly flotational, sea-saw aesthetic. Even when it's a master operator there's still at all times a 'trace amount' of this.

Now, Freefly have the 'shakycam' mode which can program some of this back in (though perhaps not in a pendulous manner (yet)), but this rigid adherence to a level has a very '3rd person narrator' feeling to it to my eye which we've seen before with dolly or jib for example, but not in combination with human movement. So I look forward to very new kinds of camera moves from this thing, and how programming will enable people to tune very subtle variations of movement. Giving camera movement over to software engineering is revolutionary.

So in short: yes there's some overlap but let's not focus on the concept of trying to replicate all that a steadicam does really well; let's tread new ground.
Click to expand...

Well said Brett.
 
Hudson Tanimoto said:
[/LIST]

I think this will be the thing that sets the more expensive units apart from the cheaper ones... sensored motor control is the key to fine and smooth adjustments at low speed and very small degrees of movement.


[/B][/B]
[/LIST]
[/B]
Click to expand...

Position encoders at the motor shafts are one solution. Another possible solution is to put the IMU directly on the camera axis and that is what the alexmos boards or other systems do for the same purpose. The sensitive IMU acts as it's own feedback device and gives the motors their direction in order to hold or reach the desired position. This approach works extremly well in practice.

I'm not sure if there is a noticeable difference between the two approaches as I only know the second. But it's definitely not the smooth adjustments at low speed or small degrees of movement that are lacking. I made a video a while ago to show the smooth pan and tilt movements which are possible with the remote control, even with the 10x magnifier of the DSLR camera. This part is in the second half of the video (from 0:40 to 2:01 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te2O2bEkgTw

Eventually the fast speeds are where the a difference is, at least if I interpret Tabb's post correctly: "The MōVI can accelerate and slew a Red EPIC and ultra prime lens at 150 deg/sec...". That is a little more than what I think is possible with my alexmos boards but it still far from a whip pan or when fast reactions are necessary.

For these fast scenes I think it's better to give the pan control to the gimbal operator as I think a remote operator will be not able to cope mentally where pure reaction is required. That's why I think it makes more sense to make the pan motor disconnectable by a lemo plug and the axis fixable. I already used that setup handheld turning with dancers around a pole or doing a close up of an actor moving around a lot in the room. Then the gimbal is more like a handheld camera but with stabilized roll and tilt what makes a big difference visually. Adjusting the headroom with the stabilized tilt works well if you move the rig up and down in a correspondent way. We pre-adjusted the tilt with the remote and didn't even use it during the actual takes. Regardless if the actor stands up or sits down, it's possible to cover it with a move of the rig and without a distortion of the backround.


Andreas

www.portahead.de
 
Last edited:
In some cases I think this tech will be selected over a steadicam in productions that need steady ground and close range aerial shots. It can give more "bang for the buck" allowing a lower budget production to present a much "bigger" feel overall.
 
Brett Harrison said:
Evin would you care to provide some examples? You said it's generally unresponsive, that is hard to reconcile with the footage we've seen, which shows a variety of shot types. Regarding the notion of offsetting the performance: What would be the baseline? Which features a prototype model. Was this one a production model?
There are other ways to power the rig that involve putting a bit more weight on the handles using a full size battery - it's just a question of how much weight you want to deal with, then there's the ability to put it on an EasyRig or Steadicam arm. The possibilities are largely unexplored so far.
Click to expand...

It seemed despite an experienced (with MoVi) head operator and what I assumed was a production MOvi that the motors could not really keep up with the camera movement desired. The shot was not a whip pan but a hand off and drop down with a rope. This move could have been handled easily by any hot head including a Jimmy Jib but especially a proper Scorpio or other stabilized head. We got the shot but it required going slower and planning on post speed-ups to time the shot as the director wanted.

As far as power, I think a battery belt or top mounted AB plates would be a huge improvement.
 
Last edited:
Hi Evan,

I will post up BTS of this shot once it is cleared. It involved starting handheld on the top of the bridge, lowering the gimbal via a rope off a bridge and down to a ravine, and then continuing handhled. I fail to see how a hot head, jimmy jib, or scorpio could have accomplished this? In the BTS clip I was sent there were high fives around for getting the shot.


I will post the BTS clip when I am allowed and let forum members evaluate for themselves. I will say I have never seen a camera system prior to the MōVI produce stable footage when suspended from a single rope. If you have I would love to see it. The closest I have seen is the Klauscam.

Tabb
 
I'm shocked that the motors couldn't keep up with the camera movement desired. :scared:

All the people who played with it at NAB were blown away.

I need to get my hands on this thing so that I can judge for my self.
 
I had seen Vincent Laforet post in this blog about a fashion shoot lowering the MoVI using a rope. I am trying to recollect if he said whether he did couple of tries to nail the shot or something. The video clip that he had posted looked fine.

I am guessing that the MoVI due to its price tag will have more scrutiny than others. Any plans to give owners some kind of training to handle it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top