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 :)

Q About Gimbal Stabilizers in General

Carey Lee Coffey said:
Because of their incredible versatility, I predict these MōVI competitor, low-cost gimbals will definitely replace steadicam w/pro op. on every ultra-low and micro budget production.
Click to expand...

And then those productions will look even crappier than they did before, as well as be even further behind their unrealistic schedules.
 
Marc Berger said:
Very interesting thread, Terry.
I don´t think at all that those new gimbals have anything to do with a steadicam. It´s a new tool.
In my opinion a steadicam is not only a camera stabilizer, it is "full body driven eye". Every slight change of position, moving the hips, leaning forward or backward...every movement of the body translates to the camera. And this is the art of steadicam, it is like a painters brush on the canvas. This immediate ability to react to the smallest impression makes every operator unique. A good operator is more like a DP for the unpredictable slight changes in movements and arrangements. And this have nothing to do with a 2 men crew. Just have a look at the work of great operators, like Larry Macconkey "Good Felllas"..or Jörg Widmer in "Tree of life". The whole choreography is designed by them. Jörg Widmers work in "Tree of Life" is just full of understanding what´s going on around him and he reacts with the camera like a poet would do with words. Garrett Brown loved the hand camera of the nouvelle vague, but he wanted to have it more stable and smooth. Then he invented the steadicam. And the side effect of the steadicam is the stabilizing of the shot, but its not the "heart"of the steadicam. He wanted to move the camera, not only to stabilize it. The first long shot in "Bound for glory" was not only a great shot because it was stabilized. It was the more then that, like a " spirit of the movement" down from the crane into the scene. All the excitement and compassion for what´s before and around Garrett Brown is in it. Now imagine the same shot with a supertechno. It is another world, would be another movie.
One of the very big advantages of the digital filming is that the capture part can be isolated from the rest of the camera. I think because of this we will soon see a kind of stabilizing the picture (in the Movi/ Gimbal way) by the separation of the sensor/lens part from the rest of the camera. BTW you find this technic already in smaller Sony cams. Until then I think this newly developed gimbals will serve well, but not to replace the steadicam.

Maybe one day the steadicam will be obsolete, I don´t know, but until then I´m a bit afraid this new gimbals will flood us with long and meaningless shots with amazing movements...but hey, that´s fashion and the show must go on.

Marc
Click to expand...

Very nicely and articulately said. Great post!
 
Alec Morris said:
What I'm saying is they both produce a stabilized image. The exact same shots can be accomplished.

Obviously they aren't technically the same thing. But on screen it makes no difference.
Click to expand...

I think you reveal a lack of knowledge of both tools in your post, as well as a lack of knowledge of the finer points of filmmaking and camera movement. Do you also think a Steadicam replaces a dolly? Have you never seen a set with both? What you say is like saying "high ISO cameras are the same as having lighting - so we don't need lights anymore".
 
PC Greene said:
Very much agree...

We questioned our Steadicam purchase for some time after MoVI announcement & while initially thought easyrig would be the way to go, have since settled on mounting gimbal to steadicam not only for stability but to give the op some support for long shoots.

we should have some tests done soon & are curious to see if others are mounting gimbal directly to arm, or attaching to sled / post assembly & how each method affects resulting shots.

PCG
Click to expand...

The problem even there is the immediacy of a Steadicam op is lost. As beautiful Steadicam shot is not just smooth, it combines quick pans and tilts with smoothness and in this way very much replicates what it feels like to walk through a real space. Getting that same "humanity" using joysticks controlled by a second person who does not know what your next move will be, exactly, or the very robo-ish "majestic mode" - good luck.

WHat I see is two camps from this:

1 - Very low end directors/producers with little to no education in film think all they need is a Movi. Since these people have little training or specialized knowledge themselves, they tend to undervalue other people's specialized knowledge and abilities (wether they be Steadicam Ops or DPs) and assume it can easily be replaced by some gadget. This makes psychological sense, because whereas it would take them a long time to develop knowledge and expertise, if all you need to be a good filmmaker or member of a team is to buy the right gadgets then they stand a chance, in their minds, of being valued members of the production community after purchase of such gadgets. I call that "hiding behind your gear". We've all been guilty of it on occasion, but the less talent or knowledge you deep down know you have, the more you need that crutch at all times.

2 - Higher end directors with experience, training, education and some culture/refinement see it as a specialized tool that opens up new possibilities but does not replace nor better dollies, Steadicam and cranes in any way, except in very particular situations.

Have a glance at who is posting which claims about Movi (or any new "game changing" tech) - you'll see that the world is divided rather neatly into "1" and "2".
 
Last edited:
dalemccready said:
Hey thinking about it... Why doesn't someone make a roll axis only stabiliser to interface with a normal steadicam that can then take larger cameras? Wouldn't this be MUCH easier to do these days with all this gimbal stuff flying around? Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? Just an active rocker plate of some sort.
Click to expand...

I own the patent on this app.
 
For educational purposes only.

Alien inventor

The Patent #: 5,963,749
Issued: Oct. 5, 1999
Inventor: Lynn Nicholson

http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=201&page=1

apart of this, and MK-Vs patents , I think you will understand why something like this cannot happen on a steadicam sled.

Best regards
 
Björn Benckert said:
I hope this will be my last post on this subject.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that a gimbal is not dampened for Y or X movement. It only controls the interest point of the camera So a gimbal carried around by an operator is not smother in position than any other carried camera, read hand held, shoulder rig or you name it. A steady cam differ in that regard, due to the fact that it's held by a dampening arm that if working properly pretty much mute all Y shakes... If you think a movi operator can learn some special skills to dampening his cameras position in space better than without the rig, well then you think wrong. As (again) all the gimbal does is stabilizing the interest point of the camera it does not help the camera position to be stable. On the conterary the rig itself probably make things worse as it's quite heavy to hold etc.

So interest point and position is two completely different things.


And also learn that paralax change is only, and by nothing else, depending on camera position. What lens is used has nothing to do with it what so ever and will never have.
Click to expand...

Hey Bjorn you don't need a steadicam arm, all you need is to learn how to do this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6pomaq30Gg
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
The problem even there is the immediacy of a Steadicam op is lost. As beautiful Steadicam shot is not just smooth, it combines quick pans and tilts with smoothness and in this way very much replicates what it feels like to walk through a real space. Getting that same "humanity" using joysticks controlled by a second person who does not know what your next move will be, exactly, or the very robo-ish "majestic mode" - good luck.

WHat I see is two camps from this:

1 - Very low end directors/producers with little to no education in film think all they need is a Movi. Since these people have little training or specialized knowledge themselves, they tend to undervalue other people's specialized knowledge and abilities (wether they be Steadicam Ops or DPs) and assume it can easily be replaced by some gadget. This makes psychological sense, because whereas it would take them a long time to develop knowledge and expertise, if all you need to be a good filmmaker or member of a team is to buy the right gadgets then they stand a chance, in their minds, of being valued members of the production community after purchase of such gadgets. I call that "hiding behind your gear". We've all been guilty of it on occasion, but the less talent or knowledge you deep down know you have, the more you need that crutch at all times.

2 - Higher end directors with experience, training, education and some culture/refinement see it as a specialized tool that opens up new possibilities but does not replace nor better dollies, Steadicam and cranes in any way, except in very particular situations.

Have a glance at who is posting which claims about Movi (or any new "game changing" tech) - you'll see that the world is divided rather neatly into "1" and "2".
Click to expand...

Your two camp theory is pretty arrogant. I think some people are excited about new gear, and you gotta admit that gimbals open up new types of shots. RED cams were pretty game changing, and I'd say most posters here probably got excited about the possibilities when they first heard about the RED One. Are you saying that these people were all "Low end" with "no education", that "hide behind their gear"?
 
If you look back historically, the ability of the human to predict the future is worse than pathetic. It's so bad I struggle to find a fitting descriptor. When I come across people trying to be prescient, it usually comes from a touch of arrogance. Fact is, nobody knows how this technology will ultimately matter. NOBODY!
 
I really don't think it's very much of a replace Steadicam issue at all. I've been looking at these Movi solutions a lot recently - to replace my very talented Steadicam operator friend? Absolutely not! As people have pointed out in a lot of the videos, there still is camera shake during running etc... You still have to use the right tool for the job - that is/has always been the case. But some jobs might have a more convenient tool available now. There have been many times I have had to rent dollies and track, rent a bigger vehicle, spend time to set it up... If I can pack this thing up and take with me on a plane to accomplish similar shots, I think it could find a useful niche.
 
movi devises

movi devises

Me thinks this tool wont be replacing steadicams anytime soon, but will find a niche in its own arenas, like cars and boats and bikes and horses, and skate boards, and places that are not ideal for steadicam. The "pass off" maneuver will itself offer some cool possibilities that couldn't really be done without extremely elaborate break away sets and such.
 
Wendell Adkins said:
If you look back historically, the ability of the human to predict the future is worse than pathetic. It's so bad I struggle to find a fitting descriptor. When I come across people trying to be prescient, it usually comes from a touch of arrogance. Fact is, nobody knows how this technology will ultimately matter. NOBODY!
Click to expand...

History is filled with embarrassing denunciations of technology, not with embarrassing overestimations. (though they exist, like the Segway).

We don't need to worry about 'ultimately', we already see what it does and its potential. It's small, programmable, requires a shallow learning curve, and is still in its infancy as a film tool.

People had plenty to say about how Garrett Brown's invention wouldn't be viable on a Hollywood set. It seems the knee-jerk reaction is always negative, which is just fine in my book. The irony is that humans tend to be conservative while technology continues to shape us.
 
To clarify some issues which have been raised in this thread: the motion of a rigid body in three dimensional (Euclidean) space involves 6 degrees of freedom. One may express the degrees of freedom as three translations plus three rotations. The gimbals are meant to compensate undesired rotations while a steady cam compensates for the translations (that is displacements) especially in the vertical direction.

If one is shooting very close to the ground level, such as the steady cam operators in football/soccer matches, rather small translations especially in the vertical direction tend to create big changes in the camera view, and this is why compensation of the vertical translations is critical. In the same manner if one shot something located very close to the lens, then elimination of the horizontal displacements became also important. In case of aerials, the small changes in height have a smaller effect compared to small changes in rotations, and consequently, compensation of rotations become the main emphasis. So there is a clear need for both steady cams and three axis gimbals.

A system that compensated for all six degrees of freedom is an interesting thought, although not that trivial to implement. Especially so motion is always relative to something else. This meant the user should be able to communicate the desired motion to the system to prevent the system from compensating for the desired translations and rotations.
 
Lauri Kettunen said:
To clarify some issues which have been raised in this thread: the motion of a rigid body in three dimensional (Euclidean) space involves 6 degrees of freedom. One may express the degrees of freedom as three translations plus three rotations. The gimbals are meant to compensate undesired rotations while a steady cam compensates for the translations (that is displacements) especially in the vertical direction.

If one is shooting very close to the ground level, such as the steady cam operators in football/soccer matches, rather small translations especially in the vertical direction tend to create big changes in the camera view, and this is why compensation of the vertical translations is critical. In the same manner if one shot something located very close to the lens, then elimination of the horizontal displacements became also important. In case of aerials, the small changes in height have a smaller effect compared to small changes in rotations, and consequently, compensation of rotations become the main emphasis. So there is a clear need for both steady cams and three axis gimbals.

A system that compensated for all six degrees of freedom is an interesting thought, although not that trivial to implement. Especially so motion is always relative to something else. This meant the user should be able to communicate the desired motion to the system to prevent the system from compensating for the desired translations and rotations.
Click to expand...

This is all very well written.

The steadicam type arm, based on his dual spring absorbent on the vertical axis, as well as the free float joints that allow you to compensate for X,Y errors, in a mechanical way, what's needed to be added, on any gimbal , mechanical, or electronic.

The problem is that steadicam has been improved over the years so it connects with the operator and works directly with your physical control, and that is the most direct control.

Joystick control is used in many cranes jibs, and remote tools, and though its very good, it can never have the direct connection to the human hand. It needs a lot of practice and to pull longer lenses you need to have many additional adjustments on the controls.

many people mention encoder wheels, to be quite honest wheels demand a great degree of practice and learning curve to be used and its really 10 times harder, if you are trying to control this way, a gimbal that is mounted on somebody else's body, looking at a monitor.

Tripod style is easier, but what you don't really see, is the fact that this is not an A to B movement, like you would do on a dolly, or even a crane even if you have more axis to deal with.
The space on this type of tools is defined, and the extra operator is learning to work in that space, and its easier to deal with.

But if you have a person running away from you 30-50 meters , doing turns following a subject , changing direction , while the second operator is physically standing still, trying to follow the action, the connection in between the operator and the runner is totally lost.

So people here coming saying that the 2 operators is a good choice, using wheels, tripod style encoder pan bars, in those complex and far shots, is going to be a hell to compose and nail.


Shots from body mounts are a one man operation, and a secondary focus puller. The more people involved the more complex and difficult the move will be , no matter how well the 2 people are working together.

Steadicam shots are not only shots that follow a person or 2, they also include detailed shots, they require very dynamic moves, and many other stuff that directors have in their mind.

Also I hear a lot critiques from people here, saying that some moves from the gimbals are still with minors errors, and so on.

What I will say , being a steadicam operator for dozen years +, is that sure there are minor errors, they are bad shots good shots, and better shots, made with those gimbals, but on the other hand I can show you more than 20 reels from steadicam operators that also have many errors including walking up and down errors produces from slow walking, as well as running errors.

Bottom line is guys, you have to understand that there is always a use for a new tool, somewhere inside a story, and a gimbal, steadicam, crane, dolly, flycam, CAN OR CANNOT be the correct tool to be used, for a certain shoot.
and its also down to the operators ability to do this well, or even better.

the wrong thing is that you are looking for a non brainer tool, that you will just hold and run, and it will do the rest, and you try to cancel other tools, making comparisons, like this is a race, and a who is best tool.

Cinematography was always about inspiration, creativity, and innovation, it was never a race of what is the best tool that will erase all the rest of the tools.

Cinematographers need to use every possibility available to make the best possible shot, NOT to use the easiest tool that can do the job MORE OR LESS so they can save money, on a steadicam operators day fee, or a dolly.

That doesn't happen in serious productions guys its a crying loud voice from those who want to do everything on their own .

In any way, tools are tools, and they are all useful in some case or another, its the way they are used that can make them look bad good or ultimate.

Best regards
 
Both of the last posts are excellent insights. I draw a lot of parallels between this discussion (brushless gimbals/steadicams) and single rotor/multirotor RC helicopters. Multirotor helis have become very popular for filming becuase they are easier to make vibration free, have less rotating mass and require less skill to fly. All great things. The single rotor helis remain more versatile however and handle winds better, can manuever more aggresively at high speeds without getting a frame appendage in the shot and are easier to maintain visual orientation with.

These brushless gimbals were first a solution to obtaining steadier images from RC rigs and that is where they are likely to have the most significant impact going forward. I bought the Movi mainly for this purpose but at the same time am intrigued by the creative possibilities closer to the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top