Steadicam & such

[Puget Sound Cinema Society]

Kathi & alia,

While this is "true", and it is certainly better to support the weight 
of a camera with a vest attachment, this doesn't begin to touch the 
functional issue of a steadicam. Your big assumption here, and it is 
quite incorrect, is that the camera unit is stationary. No one holds a 
steadicam in one fixed place, arm extended. That is the purpose of a 
shoulder brace, and not a steadicam (and hand-held shots, by the way, 
should always be taken with the arms *not* extended, but rather tucked 
into the body as closely as possible). The very principle of a 
steadicam set-up is that the camera will be *moving* in a predetermined 
path, and it is this simple fact that is the reason Steadicams were 
made in the first place. The purpose of the gimbal device in steadicams 
is not to "hold the picture steady"; rather, it is to stabilize a 
picture already in motion. It is, in effect, a small shock absorber, 
and while shock absorbers on cars do not by any means hold the car 
steady, they certainly make for a more fluid ride by softening the 
smaller and slightly larger shocks to the vehicle. So it is with the 
gimbal. The gimbal absorbs the shocks that would make a tracking shot 
flutter distractingly, and smooths out the actual lateral and vertical 
motion of the tracking. It doesn't stop such motion, nor does it need 
to, any more than a shock absorber stops a car from moving. The point 
is minimization of unnecessary movement, rather than cessation of all 
movement. Too, remember that Steadicams were devised for 20-30 lb 35mm 
cameras, not the 2-5 pound MiniDV cameras which move indiscreetly far 
more than cinema cameras because of their lighter weight. Inertia and 
all that.

Furthermore, the average length of a take in any independent film I 
have seen is nowhere near the length of time I can hold an unmounted 
steadicam or a camera on a shoulder mount. In fact, the average length 
of a shot in american cinema is closer to 4.3 seconds, so I don't 
honestly think anyone is really worried about duration. The number of 
Steadicam shots compared to hand-held or tripod shots is minuscule. 
Steadicams are for very few shots in the long run of a feature, and 
there is plenty of time throughout the process of shooting a feature to 
recover from the 15 minutes of steadicam work in the much longer 
process of shooting tripod shots. And a moving steadicam wears less on 
the muscles than a non-moving one, by far.

There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what a Steadicam really 
does, or is used for. I think many people believe that "steadicam" is 
simply a system for stabilizing a hand-held shot, and that just isn't 
true. A shoulder mount would serve much better for most people's needs 
in simple hand-held photography. Steadicams and Glidecams are very 
specialized stabilizers. You can remind your folks at Birns & Sawyer of 
that point for me--please. The very point of most homemade stabilizers 
is simply to keep from bankrupting a poor indie filmmaker who only 
needs a certain type of handheld travelling shot once in awhile for 
his/her imaginative cinematography. Or you can spend $5,000 for an 
official (Birns & Sawyer approved, I'm sure) Steadicam mini setup, at 
which point you've already wasted your half your lifetime film budget 
as an indie filmmaker. Or buy a $300 shoulder mount from Birns & 
Sawyer, rather than building your own for the $25 that mine cost. Or a 
Steadicam Jr. for $500 from somewhere else.

Take anything that a business person tells you with a grain of salt, 
especially when it comes to products in which that person has a vested 
(sorry, couldn't resist a pun) interest.



Omar Willey (not a member of SOA)

On Sunday, Mar 7, 2004, at 05:30 US/Pacific, Macintosh Digital Video 
List wrote:

>
> Patrick and Rob,
>
> I just took a class to learn all about my new toy (a Panasonic 
> DVX-100A 24p
> camera) from Birns & Sawyer and they talked a lot about the different
> Steadycams on the market (including the ones you "make at home") and he
> pointed out a very interesting fact -- unless your body is supporting 
> the
> weight of the camera (and the counter weight) it isn't going to be that
> steady!  If you end up having to support all the weight of the camera 
> (and
> counter weight) on your forearm ... Well you get the picture!  (And a 
> shaky
> picture it is!)  How long can you hold something, even something 
> relatively
> lightweight, extended at the end of your arm when your arm is extended 
> from
> your body and hold it steady?  If you want to know the answer to that
> question, just take a 5 lb. Barbell and hold it out from your body the 
> way
> you would hold your camera.  Now stay there.  And hold it steady.  
> Hold it
> with two hands if you want.  And hold it steady.  How long can you do 
> it?
> Maybe a couple of minutes?  Not really long enough for any shot you 
> want.
>
> Now, I realize that your scene may be short and you're a guy so you 
> can hold
> it longer than I can, but most of your actors will need at least 4-5 
> takes,
> which means you'd better be really good friends with a chiropractor if
> you're going to try and muscle through this.
>
> Kathi
-----------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Cinema Society
http://www.scn.org/pscs
Film. Food. Fun. Free.
-----------------------------------------------