Fun with MōVi

[Sinh Tran]

I think the Movi is overrated. When they first announced it, it was cool because there was nothing else on the market. Now there are at least two quality companies making an alternative version for much much less not to mention a bunch of smaller guys making their own. I was waiting to see the Movi in action from an owner because I thought with a $15k price tag, it would blow every other 3 axis gimbal out of the water. This is not the case in this video. No disrespect to Christopher since this is only his first time with it but with all the electronics aiding the operator, it should have been way easier to operate and get the hang of. You guys can't compare this to a steadicam, they are different tools. What you should compare is the price and quality with other brands. I have on order a DEFY G5 and it is capable of holding a little over 6lbs. I thought for sure the MOVI would "run circles" around but I don't think so now. I paid $3200 for the G5 and they are coming out with a G10 to hold heavier cameras such as the epic etc. I'm guessing from a business stand point that it will not be more than $5000.

EDIT: Btw, I see a easyrig as a necessity so add the cost of that to your bundle

check this video of the DEFY G2 (this is not even slow motion either. Once you slomo, it aids with shakiness)

another and this is windy as heck

Not saying these are super great but heck for a fraction of the cost of the MOVI...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

But Jeff, you're not a Steadicam operator who practices several times a week - you do many other things. My wife (who is) runs circles around the shots I see in this Movi film, and can respond much faster to unforeseen changes in actors walking speed and so on, AND can do 6-8 hours of shooting a day without breaking a sweat - try holding a Movi for 8 hours.

People here focus too much on which tools to get to enable great shots, and not enough on which people to hire - they often cost less than gear, and contribute their own knowledge, energy and creativity to the process.

All true, Rob. I was just saying that some of the same results can be achieved with Movi with much less of a learning curve. Movi is simply a tool and I see a lot of uses for it that a steadicam just can't do and perhaps it can serve in a steadicam capacity for some tasks. I'm itching to run some cable-cam and zipline rigs with the Movi to see what it does. I'm not about to say it's overrated, that remains to be seen. But I think there is far too much emphasis placed on it being a steadicam alternative. My post surely didn't help with that either. As with many new tools that come into our industry, they're often misunderstood at first or placed on the wrong pedestal.

And yes, also around here, far too much emphasis placed on tools over people. Many seem to think that having the latest tools will get you work or will compensate for lack of experience or talent.

 

[Wendell Adkins]

When you start reaching the top of a performance curve for just about anything, you hit diminishing returns and small gains come at exponentially higher cost and difficulty. But at the same time, mastering these small details is what separates a true artist from the wannsbees and for those artists, the costs are justified because they can extract the value from those tiny differences.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Travis,

Just got our pay balance notice mid last week with preorder number 96 if that really means anything.

It's not really fair (or sensible) to compare veteran steadicam footage to novice Movi footage. To make the playing field level regarding fatigue the Movi could be suspended from an Easyrig with no big deal.

Also this is just the first few steps in a different direction. Who knows what this will evolve/morph into.

The Movi is a huge leap forward if you want both ground and RC heli shots on the same dime.

The thing is Steadicam is based on direct, physical control, not "auto-smoothing" and stabilizes camera position as well = the Movi is a hand-hed rig that only stabilizes camera orientation, not position.

Direct, physical control will always be more rapidly responsive to shifts in actor position than anything automatic, or operated by a second person, who would have to be a highly experienced and skilled techno head operator to keep up with erratic hand-held movements, and even then - one person moving and framing is always more efficient and less error-prone than two people who could surprise each other during the shot in a bad way.

"Majestic mode" always looks rather robotic, and always pans at more or less the same speed. Sometimes that's what you want, but 95% of the time the look a very good Steadicam Op is preferable.

So the conclusion is: For the trouble, set-time and expense of a Movi, a good Steadicam Op will get you better results, for less money, in less time, 95% of the time. It's like auto-focus vs a very good assistant camera, pulling focus by hand.

All this to say, it's often a better idea to hire the right people for the shots you want rather than trying to replace them with gear. The best people will pretty much always be better value.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

When you start reaching the top of a performance curve for just about anything, you hit diminishing returns and small gains come at exponentially higher cost and difficulty. But at the same time, mastering these small details is what separates a true artist from the wannsbees and for those artists, the costs are justified because they can extract the value from those tiny differences.

AWESOME!!!! Very well said.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

All true, Rob. I was just saying that some of the same results can be achieved with Movi with much less of a learning curve. Movi is simply a tool and I see a lot of uses for it that a steadicam just can't do and perhaps it can serve in a steadicam capacity for some tasks. I'm itching to run some cable-cam and zipline rigs with the Movi to see what it does. I'm not about to say it's overrated, that remains to be seen. But I think there is far too much emphasis placed on it being a steadicam alternative. My post surely didn't help with that either. As with many new tools that come into our industry, they're often misunderstood at first or placed on the wrong pedestal.

And yes, also around here, far too much emphasis placed on tools over people. Many seem to think that having the latest tools will get you work or will compensate for lack of experience or talent.

Highly agree with everything you say here. Movi has its place. Just not as a Steadicam replacement, but rather to enable new kinds of shots in new ways. Cable Cam would be an excellent app for this tech, as well as at the end of a Russian Arm.

 

[oliver imfeld]

not posting a lot on the forum, but for once i have to agree totally, good point RR.
cheers
o

 

[Brett Harrison]

Looks like the stiffness settings are too low, getting a bit of movement in the roll axis for example.

Regarding the defy gimbal comparison: with good balance and therefore high stiffness settings those shots you posted from defy would have been vibration free IMO (there's not just operator movement there; there's also motor vibes)

Compare for example that running footage with the running footage from MoVI the movie from Laforet.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Robert I just shot a 3.5 minute one-shot music vid. I think there's some truth to what you're saying but there's also a lot of expressiveness to be had through majestic mode. For one, you can control the pan speed by increasing the speed of rotation of the rig. You have pan smoothness, pan window, tilt smoothness, tilt window, to fine tune (even during shot).

Synths are a good analogy: you get a lot of artistry out of them even though they are operating on algorithms. Even a Steadicam is operating on the laws of physics which are kinds of algorithms if you will.

The thing is Steadicam is based on direct, physical control, not "auto-smoothing" and stabilizes camera position as well = the Movi is a hand-hed rig that only stabilizes camera orientation, not position.

Direct, physical control will always be more rapidly responsive to shifts in actor position than anything automatic, or operated by a second person, who would have to be a highly experienced and skilled techno head operator to keep up with erratic hand-held movements, and even then - one person moving and framing is always more efficient and less error-prone than two people who could surprise each other during the shot in a bad way.

"Majestic mode" always looks rather robotic, and always pans at more or less the same speed. Sometimes that's what you want, but 95% of the time the look a very good Steadicam Op is preferable.

So the conclusion is: For the trouble, set-time and expense of a Movi, a good Steadicam Op will get you better results, for less money, in less time, 95% of the time. It's like auto-focus vs a very good assistant camera, pulling focus by hand.

All this to say, it's often a better idea to hire the right people for the shots you want rather than trying to replace them with gear. The best people will pretty much always be better value.

 

[Alec Morris]

Of course an experienced steadicam operator is going to be better than the people using this brand new technology. That's like having a great DP shoot with a red one and an amateur shoot with the dragon and arguing that this somehow makes the red one the superior camera.

This is a superior technology in it's infancy. Imagine what version two of the Movi will be like, especially with all the money freefly has now to put into R&D. They adapted this from their drone technology, which is why the pan/tilt is remote. Everyone is going to request a significantly improved majestic mode, and that's what they'll start improving.

Yes, skill is important. In fact, I'll bet you anything the best Movi operators will have extensive steadicam backgrounds.

To be stubborn and dismiss it would be foolish. Camera's have gotten smaller. This is the first major response in support technology. Will it entirely replace steadicams within the next five years? Probably not. In ten? I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'll bet Tiffen is testing their own version of the movi right now.

We're gonna buy a Movi and I see it pretty much replacing all of our steadicam shots. But who are we gonna hire to learn it and operate it? Our steadicam guy of course.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Yep, the best gimbal operators will certainly be Steadicam operators.

 

[Carey Lee Coffey]

Of course an experienced steadicam operator is going to be better than the people using this brand new technology. That's like having a great DP shoot with a red one and an amateur shoot with the dragon and arguing that this somehow makes the red one the superior camera.

This is a superior technology in it's infancy. Imagine what version two of the Movi will be like, especially with all the money freefly has now to put into R&D. They adapted this from their drone technology, which is why the pan/tilt is remote. Everyone is going to request a significantly improved majestic mode, and that's what they'll start improving.

Yes, skill is important. In fact, I'll bet you anything the best Movi operators will have extensive steadicam backgrounds.

To be stubborn and dismiss it would be foolish. Camera's have gotten smaller. This is the first major response in support technology. Will it entirely replace steadicams within the next five years? Probably not. In ten? I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'll bet Tiffen is testing their own version of the movi right now.

We're gonna buy a Movi and I see it pretty much replacing all of our steadicam shots. But who are we gonna hire to learn it and operate it? Our steadicam guy of course.

Agreed.