Q About Gimbal Stabilizers in General

[Björn Benckert]

The thing that no one is commenting on, is is it actually a decent head? Can you put it on a dolly, and operate it remotely with the same results as any industry standard hot head. Is it as good as hot gears? Is it as good as a jimmy jib? Is it as bad as an alexmos board? That really is going to dictate how it is adopted on big sets. No operator is going to go, "Oh good, the big car stunt is coming up. Lets put up the shitty little head that is hard to control." If all it does is sloppy wide, it is of limited utility. I'd love to hear that it's ultra precise. If any professional operators get to operate the gimbal (not just run around and point it at stuff) I would be very interested in hearing their opinions.

Nick

Nope, it's built first hand for low weight and to be carried hanging from your hands. If you would fixate it on a crane then the inertia from rapid speed changes and high frequency shakes and such would show that those new little heads will start to "sway" quite a bit, they are simply not sturdy enough for those kind of jobs (no matter if a lot of people here really seam to think that they will solve any type of gimbal work). But the interesting part to me is not only these new ultra light (easy to brake) gimbals. I find the tech behind them far more interesting. The gyros and boards that controls the rig is rapidly getting better and the prices are just bomb dropping. So building more sturdy heads with bigger motors etc that can take a 20kg camera and keep free of inertia vibrations and such when stuck to a camera car on bumpy roads will soon come at very much lower prices than before.

It's the same as for the drones... first comes the small wacky ones then a bit better but still toy stuff, then after a while there is things like the black armour drone, thats showed here in another thread... It's no doubt that these hand held gimbals will go trough a similar development as the drones. At least thats what I think, so I do not pull the trigger just yet.... done that mistake on to many toys in the past

 

[Paul Russell]

I can carry my steadicam around all day. Not sure I could do that with a Movi and 10lbs of Epic/Lens/Battery

so I do not pull the trigger just yet.... done that mistake on to many toys in the past

me too.

 

[Joe Minuni]

I'm excited about the possibilities but what nags me is with the currently released handheld gimbals like the movi, is the weight limit, it essentially seems that I cannot run a mattebox+filter pack when using it, no? You'd have to make sure to use small light lenses on the things. A compromise that may be worth it, but I'd like to see some heavier duty gimbals you can mount on a steadi arm to support the weight. Then Take off for handheld when you have weightlifter on your crew

 

[Björn Benckert]

I can carry my steadicam around all day. Not sure I could do that with a Movi and 10lbs of Epic/Lens/Battery me too.

It probably true with some setups, and with some... not so true.

At least this beast had a very strong urge to go towards center earth before the day was over... But on a mövi I think it would have done so within seconds

 

[dalemccready]

As a professional operator I have to say I was impressed when I was using it how I was able to compose the shot I wanted, not just point it vaguely. This is massively important of course because I don't want to take the selection of the composition away and just hand it to a machine randomly.

I think where this would really replace the steadicam in my book is Low Mode. It seems designed to work very well and quickly at shoe level, something that really is difficult and uncomfortable on a steadicam. Factor in that this rig could be standing by in this mode and maybe a steadicam could stay built in high mode (where it stays most of the time) and that's a faster on set option.

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

I'm excited about the possibilities but what nags me is with the currently released handheld gimbals like the movi, is the weight limit, it essentially seems that I cannot run a mattebox+filter pack when using it, no? You'd have to make sure to use small light lenses on the things. A compromise that may be worth it, but I'd like to see some heavier duty gimbals you can mount on a steadi arm to support the weight. Then Take off for handheld when you have weightlifter on your crew

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flowcine-gravity-one-camera-stabilizer

www.flowcine.com

For cameras up to 17kg for manual version, and 15kg for the electronic gyrostabilised version, so you can add any of your accessories with out prob.
though the G1E gyrostabilised version is still being developed, you can add any of the needed number of axis later, or even use Kenyon 4x4 gyros with it.

best regards

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Nope, it's built first hand for low weight and to be carried hanging from your hands. If you would fixate it on a crane then the inertia from rapid speed changes and high frequency shakes and such would show that those new little heads will start to "sway" quite a bit, they are simply not sturdy enough for those kind of jobs (no matter if a lot of people here really seam to think that they will solve any type of gimbal work). But the interesting part to me is not only these new ultra light (easy to brake) gimbals. I find the tech behind them far more interesting. The gyros and boards that controls the rig is rapidly getting better and the prices are just bomb dropping. So building more sturdy heads with bigger motors etc that can take a 20kg camera and keep free of inertia vibrations and such when stuck to a camera car on bumpy roads will soon come at very much lower prices than before.

It's the same as for the drones... first comes the small wacky ones then a bit better but still toy stuff, then after a while there is things like the black armour drone, thats showed here in another thread... It's no doubt that these hand held gimbals will go trough a similar development as the drones. At least thats what I think, so I do not pull the trigger just yet.... done that mistake on to many toys in the past

We have no problem doing that with our design, and once the G1E is out you will be able to mount on a crane, cable cam, and any other vehicle mount.
For steadicam we are doing a much more sophisticated approach, so its not just an uncomfortable thing mounted on a steadi arm and with the possibility to go from high to low mode,
This is not as easy as you think to work well , and that's why we are taking a long process in designing this to work as it should

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flowcine-gravity-one-camera-stabilizer

www.flowcine.com
best regards

 

[Craig Lees]

This has probably been answered already but how much weight can the MoVI take now and how much do you think into the future? Would love to get our massively stripped down 3D rig on this thing (combined weight of 3 x epics)

Craig Lees
UK
Red & 3D Stuff
www.3dstories.co.uk

 

[Brett Harrison]

5.4 kilos, or 12 pounds in the old country

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1185701_586642411373002_114761679_n.jpg

This rig was 5.3 and it shot the above music vid I posted. It handled it with no complaint under low battery with sudden changes of camera translation. FreeFly are very conservative about their target weight. They're completely above board.

This has probably been answered already but how much weight can the MoVI take now and how much do you think into the future? Would love to get our massively stripped down 3D rig on this thing (combined weight of 3 x epics)

Craig Lees
UK
Red & 3D Stuff
www.3dstories.co.uk

 

[Craig Lees]

Ace, thanks Brett!

Craig Lees
UK
Red & 3D Stuff
www.3dstories.co.uk

 

[Alex Kornreich]

There are many issues with these stabilizers (ie limited camera payload, long balancing times, operator fatigue, vertical stabilization, many parts prone for failure, etc). All of those are fixable in the future.

In my mind, theres 3 fundamental, and more important, issues, that relate to the actual shot composition, that will be way harder to fix in the future.

First, single operator mode will never be as accurate as actually placing a well trained hand on a steadicam gimbal. No matter how trained you are with the movi, it will never be as accurate and precise as physically touching the camera.

Second, having 2 operators will never be as in sync as having a single operator who is much better able to anticipate camera and actor movements. Even with an open walkie, as used on crane setups, it still will never come close to having a single operator next to the action.

Third, having the second op using a joystic as opposed to gears will not be as accurate. And gears can't be used due to backpanning issues, similar to why joystics are used on ultimate arms and helis.

I think the movi and tools simlar will be heavily used in low/no budget scenarios. However for regularly budgeted productions, there is a better tool out there for just about everything a movi can do. Also every movi shot ive seen is on a wide lens, which is a little suspect.

 

[Steve Das]

...Also every movi shot ive seen is on a wide lens, which is a little suspect....

Here is a 100mm Canon on a BlackMagic camera.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Ken Olsen was a pretty qualified dude but he was wrong about home computers. Predicting the future of technology is difficult but it's best to err on the side of wild optimism. My car or my phone have many parts prone to failure but they've never stopped working in the years I've owned them.

This isn't an either-or scenario. There are limitations with a Steadicam in comparison to an electronic gimbal.

But one point I will raise is that 'majestic mode' or single operator mode is already amazingly good and accurate and it's only the 1.0 version. To predict that it won't mature is wrong-headed IMO.

There are many issues with these stabilizers (ie limited camera payload, long balancing times, operator fatigue, vertical stabilization, many parts prone for failure, etc). All of those are fixable in the future.

In my mind, theres 3 fundamental, and more important, issues, that relate to the actual shot composition, that will be way harder to fix in the future.

First, single operator mode will never be as accurate as actually placing a well trained hand on a steadicam gimbal. No matter how trained you are with the movi, it will never be as accurate and precise as physically touching the camera.

Second, having 2 operators will never be as in sync as having a single operator who is much better able to anticipate camera and actor movements. Even with an open walkie, as used on crane setups, it still will never come close to having a single operator next to the action.

Third, having the second op using a joystic as opposed to gears will not be as accurate. And gears can't be used due to backpanning issues, similar to why joystics are used on ultimate arms and helis.

I think the movi and tools simlar will be heavily used in low/no budget scenarios. However for regularly budgeted productions, there is a better tool out there for just about everything a movi can do. Also every movi shot ive seen is on a wide lens, which is a little suspect.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I don't have any doubt it can stabilize long lenses, this has been shown, and is shown in this video. The question is can you frame anything accurately and precisely, which this video suggests you can't.

Nick

 

[Brett Harrison]

I don't have any doubt it can stabilize long lenses, this has been shown, and is shown in this video. The question is can you frame anything accurately and precisely, which this video suggests you can't.

Nick

Edit:some of this is the multi rotor doing the framing.

Challenge accepted! I will have a go with a long lens on Majestic. What would be a good and reasonable test in terms of blocking and movement?

 

[Steve Das]

I don't have any doubt it can stabilize long lenses, this has been shown, and is shown in this video. The question is can you frame anything accurately and precisely, which this video suggests you can't.

Nick

If there were 2 or more actors in the video I'd have a better idea of intended framing but since it's just one person walking through a forest and alot of shots in the forest with no people...well it's hard to say. The guy who shot this might say it's exactly how he wanted it. Not sure. The Burton one is one of the few clips that had intentional blocking so will have to watch that one again.

Now the shot that circles around the shed..well clearly that looks awkward... like an uneven speed of movement to the shot. But isn't that mostly just the drone/helicopter fault.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I don't have any doubt it can stabilize long lenses, this has been shown, and is shown in this video. The question is can you frame anything accurately and precisely, which this video suggests you can't.

Nick

Hmm, Try run around with a 100mm on a BM sitting on a steady and frame something Remember thats about as difficult as having a 200mm lens on you epic. I'm actually quite surprised how steady it actually is on such a long lens. Still I see the gyros gitter a bit but still usefull for a lot of things.

I might actually need one of these rigs for a project that is to be shoot in Moscow 7th of november. Need to do some quite tricky quick camera moves in between people in a fast food resurant and pause on closeups of the beverages cups. My idea is to use the phantom flex or 4k and do several precision takes going into macro on the mugs and so on. Then we later stitch together and time ramp the shots together in post. Think the Mövi will do the trick as it can be so small and it can also lean in over the tables in a way the steady just can not do.

If any one has one of these, and would see them fit for the job please send me a PM.

Here is a reference for the kind of camera moves wanted, not jumping up the window etc but the fluid feel but still strict and stable.... even though this ref does lack some of just that, it was mad long ago.. lol.

 

[Nick Gardner]

200mm shots on steadicam are not unheard of, and I have done them. They are actually easier than wide lenses because 99% of the time the horizon is totally out of focus ;-)

Challenge accepted! I will have a go with a long lens on Majestic. What would be a good and reasonable test in terms of blocking and movement?

I'd like to see a nice close up on an 85mm of say a person walking down a hall, turning a corner, and walking into a room. Leading not following obviously. That's a fairly common shot in any movie or TV show, and easily done on steadicam. Things I would be looking for would be maintaining headroom and composition consistently. Even doing it on a 50mm would be ok if there geography of the place forced you to be right on top of the subject.

Another interesting one would be the old roundy round where you circle a person in CU at a fair clip. Those always make me dizzy and I have to have a grip to lean on when I'm done ;-)

Nick

 

[Alex Kornreich]

Ken Olsen was a pretty qualified dude but he was wrong about home computers. Predicting the future of technology is difficult but it's best to err on the side of wild optimism. My car or my phone have many parts prone to failure but they've never stopped working in the years I've owned them.

This isn't an either-or scenario. There are limitations with a Steadicam in comparison to an electronic gimbal.

But one point I will raise is that 'majestic mode' or single operator mode is already amazingly good and accurate and it's only the 1.0 version. To predict that it won't mature is wrong-headed IMO.

Who said it wasn't going to mature?

The fundamental issue is majestic mode trying to interpret what your brain wants for framing, while still providing stabilization. It is physically impossible to have a movi in majestic mode respond to framing as quickly as a physical connection to the camera on a steadicam.

There's no question the movi will be great for low/no budget stabilization, but there are existing tools available that can do pretty much anything a movi can do as long as there's a proper budget. So that either makes it a great low budget stabilizer or remote head, or a niche item on bigger budget shoots used for very specific shots (ie passing cameras through car windows while on rollerblades...)

A good example is the BTS of macklemore's latest shoot that Red posted on reduser. There weren't any shots that I can remember that wouldn't have been better accomplished on technos, jibs, remote heads, dollies and steadicam. Having worked with macklemore on their "can't hold us" video this year, they like to be run n gun, and try to do big things on a very small budget. Movi's are cool, but they are NOT capable of the precision framing that can be accomplished with the other camera support gear listed above.

 

[Brett Harrison]

When it matures you might find that your set of 'cannots' is erased, is all I am saying. There's the possibility to use hand controls on the control bar and also sensors to evolve the use of single operator mode. Never say never.

Who said it wasn't going to mature?

The fundamental issue is majestic mode trying to interpret what your brain wants for framing, while still providing stabilization. It is physically impossible to have a movi in majestic mode respond to framing as quickly as a physical connection to the camera on a steadicam.

There's no question the movi will be great for low/no budget stabilization, but there are existing tools available that can do pretty much anything a movi can do as long as there's a proper budget. So that either makes it a great low budget stabilizer or remote head, or a niche item on bigger budget shoots used for very specific shots (ie passing cameras through car windows while on rollerblades...)

A good example is the BTS of macklemore's latest shoot that Red posted on reduser. There weren't any shots that I can remember that wouldn't have been better accomplished on technos, jibs, remote heads, dollies and steadicam. Having worked with macklemore on their "can't hold us" video this year, they like to be run n gun, and try to do big things on a very small budget. Movi's are cool, but they are NOT capable of the precision framing that can be accomplished with the other camera support gear listed above.