Blackmagic Forum

Although the category discription says "The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras" and my question is not about a Blackmagic product, I'm still posting this in here to assure that the right audience will see this post. Hopefully here are some DPs that wanna join the discussion.

I'm planing on expanding my entry level stabalizer setup to something more professional. Mostly DSLR work but also slightly bigger setups like the BMPCC 6K. I'm already about 60-70% up in the steadycam learning curve, so that shouldn't be a hindering factor for a larger steadycam setup but my question is:
Is steadycam nowadays still relevant enough in DP work to actually invest the money in such a system or will the more and more affordable gimbals cut out the steadycam systems. So is steadycam operator actually a future proof field to work in or will it be extinct in a few years from now?

Note: This discussion is not primarily about the differences (pros/cons) of the systems but about the validity of steadycam system as a stabilizing solution for motion picture work.

Totally.

The problem I have with gimbals is that I can always feel them working.

Steadicam has a much more natural feel that I've yet to see a gimbal or any form of internal IS.

I still hire an A camera / Styeadicam op on each show I do, and we still use it always as the first choice over a gimbal, though we carry them as well.

JB

KILL THE GIMBAL.
actually, let people use them. use them to death. and let them die on their own. haha!

i just don't like the mechanical movement from them.

I have seen the combination of steady-cam type arms and a gimble. They seem like a good combination.

Ricardo Marty

ricardo marty wrote:I have seen the combination of steady-cam type arms and a gimble. They seem like a good combination.

Ricardo Marty

Some are using arms to increase the endurance of gimbal operating.

Fundamentally though the feel is still gimbal when you use a gimbal.

JB

Do you have examples for these "mechanical movements"? I've watched some steadycam vs gimbal comparisons and fail to know what you mean by that. What I've seen so far looked pretty smooth and desirable.
And do you think that manufactures might solve this "mechanical movements" issue any time soon and thus get their systems rid of that one con.
Or is this "mechanical movement" issue just an issue among DPs with an experienced enough eye to actually tell the difference where a regular client with an unexperienced eyed won't be able to tell the difference and simply doesn't care.

If it would just be straight walking (side follow, front follow, and so on...) I would have no problems choosing the steadycam system, however I see clients more and more asking for more aloborate shots like vertex shots, ground to eye level reveals and so on and that's where steadycam quickly has a hard time keeping up with such demands.

I use my bmpcc 4k rig on a old glidecam V-8 system

i believe that 1917 is filmed with a Gimbal and it annoyed me a little to see the mechanical side to side shake during a tracking shot in the trailer.
But i have to trust Deakins!

Whenever someone is trying to sell you a gimbal, they will demonstrate the low to high example, going from the ground to above eye height in a single shot.

Great.

The thing is, that's not a common shot you want to actually do in narrative drama story telling.

Most common shots are leads and follows of a single person or two people talking. They don't need to go from low to high like that.

Gimbals are always trying to work out what's a vibration or shake to be counteracted and eliminated and what's intentional.

There is almost always a LAG with the operating where you can see the gimbal trying to work out what is deliberate operator input (framing and composition) and what's the environmental vibration to be removed.

Look at the behind the scenes of the launch video of the gimbal that started it all, the Movi M10.


The way her head is cut off at 32 seconds is typical of the gimbal not correcting the head room in time. You can see the shot eventually corrects to include her head (34 seconds), but that delay or lag is a typical feature of a gimbal move. Her head got cut off.

The feel of corrections to composition is usually when you notice the gimbal fighting the operator before eventually working out that you intended to frame that way.

Now for sure there are some shots that can only be done with a gimbal, but for general stabilising, the steadicam feels way way better and more natural.

Gimbals tend to have an odd mechanical feel. You'll also find a lot of gimbals are shot with really wide lenses.

As soon as you try and do a 50mm close up on someone, you really start to feel the lag and the gimbal fighting micro framing corrections.

JB

ThomasManz wrote:Do you have examples for these "mechanical movements"? I've watched some steadycam vs gimbal comparisons and fail to know what you mean by that. What I've seen so far looked pretty smooth and desirable.
And do you think that manufactures might solve this "mechanical movements" issue any time soon and thus get their systems rid of that one con.
Or is this "mechanical movement" issue just an issue among DPs with an experienced enough eye to actually tell the difference where a regular client with an unexperienced eyed won't be able to tell the difference and simply doesn't care.

If it would just be straight walking (side follow, front follow, and so on...) I would have no problems choosing the steadycam system, however I see clients more and more asking for more aloborate shots like vertex shots, ground to eye level reveals and so on and that's where steadycam quickly has a hard time keeping up with such demands.

Adam Langdon wrote:i believe that 1917 is filmed with a Gimbal and it annoyed me a little to see the mechanical side to side shake during a tracking shot in the trailer.
But i have to trust Deakins!

Actually I'm thinking it's more of a stabilized remote head most of the time, on a steadicam or hand carried.

https://www.arri.com/en/camera-systems/ ... ms/trinity

That's a bit different to a gimbal, typically the head is "operated" by another person.

JB

Not to veer off topic, but JB, you are perfectly describing the problems that I also have with auto focus... basically any of these automatic corrections via sensor stabilization or gimbals or auto focus is obvious to me in a narrative because there are clear situations where the operator and the robot are fighting each other.

I have tried using gimbals, af, and sensor stabilization in even small non-narrative projects (documentaries for example) and I can't say how much I hate having to fight robots...

Steadicam, shoulder rigs, easy rigs, and other less artificially intelligent gizmos are much preferred in my opinion for that kind of task, but I do much smaller projects. The only automatic gear that comes to mind that I like is motorized sliders and stuff like that for specific shots like time lapses, but you manually dial in the movement yourself so its not fully "AI".

Well that Trinity basically is a gimbal on a steadycam
Although it looks like "shut up and take my money", I think it's a little to excessive for my needs. There is no smaller version of that, I guess? Something midlevel, half way between "Uncle Harry's birthday party" video and Peter Jacksons "The Hobbit"

Anyway, I appreciate your insights and think that I will also stick to the steadycam approach for now and invest in that. I guess I have to agree to John that these fancy gimbal shots are not the bread and butter of steadycam work and if a client explicitly wants that I can still rent appropriate gear.

ThomasManz wrote:Well that Trinity basically is a gimbal on a steadycam

Not really.

It's a stablised head. It's most likely not being operated in "majestic" mode, it's operated by another operator that is framing the shots full time. That's a more common way to do these kinds of shots.

ThomasManz wrote:
Although it looks like "shut up and take my money", I think it's a little to excessive for my needs. There is no smaller version of that, I guess? Something midlevel, half way between "Uncle Harry's birthday party" video and Peter Jacksons "The Hobbit"

I've been suing a Ronin R2 with master wheels and though not exactly cheap, it gives you the same functionality for a lot less.

ThomasManz wrote:Anyway, I appreciate your insights and think that I will also stick to the steadycam approach for now and invest in that. I guess I have to agree to John that these fancy gimbal shots are not the bread and butter of steadycam work and if a client explicitly wants that I can still rent appropriate gear.

The steadicam approach can take some time learning and is really hard to do by yourself if you're running and gunning.

The Gimbal let's you cheat being a good steadicam operator, but it's a kind of dead end in terms of craft. You'll never become a good steadicam operator byt doing gimbal shots full time. But if I had a small crew or it was just me, the gimbal will be a more reliable way to work.

JB

Yes everything in film is still relevant. It all depends on what you’re going for. Steadicam has a human feel to it, while gimbals have more of a robotic feel to it. So, it all depends on the type of look you’re going for

Usually gimbal cause a different language than steadycam.
Gimbal react to movement and stabilize it, too often gimbal operator be a replicator of third people view of videogame, too smooth if he want to go around, but when you try to follow someone without a linear motion it fails in the 50% of work. Steadycam reduce bouncing, with arm but give more control.
I use gimbal from three years, I tried many different brain but never founded a good setup for steadycam replication, too often or gimbal correct too much or not enough or go where it want to point.
Anyway for me two different language two different motion. But... too much gimbal people are young, and don’t to their back, after twenty years of work with heavier cameras on shoulder or on arms you will understand why gimbal is good until 1kg setup, over is bad idea.
Steadycam also have its weight but you discharge weight to back and on your arms and your deltoids


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

The Ronin2 with DJI 3-axis remote Master Wheels:


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1461373-REG

Very nice solution to rent!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John Brawley wrote:

ricardo marty wrote:I have seen the combination of steady-cam type arms and a gimble. They seem like a good combination.

Ricardo Marty

Some are using arms to increase the endurance of gimbal operating.

Fundamentally though the feel is still gimbal when you use a gimbal.

JB

No, it's used to relieve weight from the operator's arm and shoulder transferring it to the waist.
It merges the best of both systems.


Ricardo Marty

ThomasManz wrote:Although the category discription says "The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras" and my question is not about a Blackmagic product, I'm still posting this in here to assure that the right audience will see this post. Hopefully here are some DPs that wanna join the discussion.


I'm planing on expanding my entry level stabalizer setup to something more professional. Mostly DSLR work but also slightly bigger setups like the BMPCC 6K. I'm already about 60-70% up in the steadycam learning curve, so that shouldn't be a hindering factor for a larger steadycam setup but my question is:
Is steadycam nowadays still relevant enough in DP work to actually invest the money in such a system or will the more and more affordable gimbals cut out the steadycam systems. So is steadycam operator actually a future proof field to work in or will it be extinct in a few years from now?

Note: This discussion is not primarily about the differences (pros/cons) of the systems but about the validity of steadycam system as a stabilizing solution for motion picture work.

Not perfect and not for every thing but a good solutuion.




Ricardo Marty

ricardo marty wrote:

John Brawley wrote:

ricardo marty wrote:I have seen the combination of steady-cam type arms and a gimble. They seem like a good combination.

Ricardo Marty

Some are using arms to increase the endurance of gimbal operating.

Fundamentally though the feel is still gimbal when you use a gimbal.

JB

No, it's used to relieve weight from the operator's arm and shoulder transferring it to the waist.
It merges the best of both systems.


Ricardo Marty

Errrr where I said you use an arm to increase endurance ??

That’s me saying you use a steadicam arm to take the weight and put it onto the steadicam vest.

The problem with most steadicam / gimbal rigs is that they don’t tilt. So you have to somehow man Iver your whole body. Or again, you have another operator driving the gimbal and somone is just carrying the gimbal. The arm takes out some of the footstep feel but actually rigs like the easyrig / serene do this better with a better range of up and down boom movement. The steadicam arm has only about a foot of vertical travel range... and no tilt without another operator or a remote on the rig.

JB

Some are using arms to increase the endurance of gimbal operating.

Fundamentally though the feel is still gimbal when you use a gimbal.

JB[/quote]

No, it's used to relieve weight from the operator's arm and shoulder transferring it to the waist.
It merges the best of both systems.




Ricardo Marty[/quote]


Errrr where I said you use an arm to increase endurance ??

That’s me saying you use a steadicam arm to take the weight and put it onto the steadicam vest.

The problem with most steadicam / gimbal rigs is that they don’t tilt. So you have to somehow man Iver your whole body. Or again, you have another operator driving the gimbal and somone is just carrying the gimbal. The arm takes out some of the footstep feel but actually rigs like the easyrig / serene do this better with a better range of up and down boom movement. The steadicam arm has only about a foot of vertical travel range... and no tilt without another operator or a remote on the rig.

JB[/quote]


What JB is saying is true. As well as what Marty said. I do use it for longer gimbal operating.
You are both right.

I'm going to wait and see if the weebill s offerings pan out, And if they do Ill consider a vest and arm to use the weebill s for certain projects. I'll have to find a way to make it heavier/


Ricardo Marty

Nice shot operating, Donnell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steadycam requires a lot of practice and it take. a long time to master it. I have a glide cam and I have concluded that they are not for me. A steady cam operator is a specific skill that I'm not cut for. I'll just hire a steady cam person if I need to have it shot using a SC.

However a gimbal that can take a a good camera and weight with a dual handle kit and possible one of those vest/arm combo shown previously or an easy rig will be a good alternative. I'm getting a Feiyu AK4500 with the dual handle for a P6K but will also try to use it with my G2. It might get heavy and I'll just have to see what will work. But the gimbal is much easier to get use to in much a shorter amount of time.

Here's a few gimbal video setup that works on a heavier cam rig.

Ellory Yu wrote:Steadycam requires a lot of practice and it take. a long time to master it. ... I'll just hire a steady cam person if I need to have it shot using a SC.

However a gimbal that can take a a good camera and weight with a dual handle kit and possible one of those vest/arm combo shown previously or an easy rig will be a good alternative. I'm getting a Feiyu AK4500 with the dual handle for a P6K but will also try to use it with my G2. It might get heavy and I'll just have to see what will work. But the gimbal is much easier to get use to in much a shorter amount of time.

So if I understand you right, you are getting yourself a gimbal system because it is something which is easier to handle, so you that even you, with no steadycam skill, can operate it, which ultimately makes it unnecessary for you to hire a skillful steadycam operator.
That brings me back to my intro question: Under these circumstances, how long is the craft of steadycam operation going to be demanded?
Every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy a gimbal system 1000-2000 €/$ and operate it on his own. Why hiring a steadycam operator for 1000 €/$ a day?

ThomasManz wrote:Every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy a gimbal system 1000-2000 €/$ and operate it on his own. Why hiring a steadycam operator for 1000 €/$ a day?

Because in most circumstances it looks much better than what Tom Dick and Harry can do with a gimbal.

Gimbals have their place for certain shots, but in my world, narrative long form drama, Steadicam always looks / feels better.

JB

ThomasManz wrote:So if I understand you right, you are getting yourself a gimbal system because it is something which is easier to handle, so you that even you, with no steadycam skill, can operate it, which ultimately makes it unnecessary for you to hire a skillful steadycam operator.
That brings me back to my intro question: Under these circumstances, how long is the craft of steadycam operation going to be demanded?
Every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy a gimbal system 1000-2000 €/$ and operate it on his own. Why hiring a steadycam operator for 1000 €/$ a day?

Yes and No - but that's not the right conclusion. I'm getting a gimbal system because I can use it in solo or small budget projects, or projects that I know it is a good enough solution. It does not mean it can replace a steadycam operator. That is a special skill that takes a good time to learn. The craft of a steadycam operator is still necessary in projects that demand following the subject or going around it. A good steadycam operator can shoot very smooth shots in long following shoots. In the same token, a stabilize gimble could do the same but it has that perfect but mechanical movement to the image. If you need the more humanly like smooth shots, then a seasoned steadycam op is my way to go. The craft is going to be demanded for this reason and in larger production because it has a proven track record too. But remember it is a specialize craft. Otherwise I think a well rig and quality gimbal can do the job. I will say that some of the younger folks who I have seen handle a gimbal can do smooth shots in a following shoot. The majority of the public will not notice whether it was shot on a steadycam or gimbal - but folks here in this forum, they probably will.

As someone who was trained on Steadicam in college I will always gravitate towards Steadicam first. I love the movement of a well choreographed Steadicam shot. And, as for operating I prefer a Steadicam over a gimbal.

I know the ARRI Trinity was mentioned earlier. It looks like the Trinity was used extensively with Steadicams, Cranes, and Gimbals for 1917:



I'm super excited for this one. Not just because it's one long shot, but because it's Roger Deakens doing it.

ThomasManz wrote:That brings me back to my intro question: Under these circumstances, how long is the craft of steadycam operation going to be demanded?
Every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy a gimbal system 1000-2000 €/$ and operate it on his own. Why hiring a steadycam operator for 1000 €/$ a day?

From my experience (I've steadicam op'ed a few times and have used a gimbal--currently own an AK4500), one does not replace the other.

I got my gimbal mostly for my business/commercial shoots. Situations where I need smooth B-roll, dolly-like shots, and the occasional "trick" shot. I sometimes work as a one man band and using a gimbal instead of my dana dolly or whatever is a lot easier. For my business/commercial work, at least. Or weddings, where the aesthetic is basically already predetermined and you're just getting smooth, pretty shots.

For narrative, where budget/time is a concern, I think it could replace some moves. But I found it's most useful on other shoots.

Until the firmware on gimbals gets better, I don't see them replacing steadicams, at all. I just don't think that digital translation of movement via a thumbstick/joystick is as smooth or organic as a steadicam. I personally like the feel of the mechanical arm's resistance when it comes to operating, as well. More than that, I think you can be a lot more precise controlling a steadicam with your hand/fingers vs a stick.

Have any gimbal manufacturers discussed basically adding ease in/out to their firmware? Camera operators build a lot of "easing" into their movements naturally. Easily what I dislike most about gimbals is the loss of fine control when entering/exiting movements. It feels and looks like the result of motors, as John said.

You do have a lot of control over these parameters in the firmware and I think it will get better, but I also think there are some steadicam movements and shots that simply can't be replaced by gimbals--right now.

I don't know if any of you caught it, but the new Dark Crystal series on Netflix was shot largely on steadicams and is gorgeous. Lots of camera movement, lots of twisting/tilting shots that go level, then Dutch, then level again, all while pushing in or pulling out quickly. All of it done just by pushing/pulling/twisting the post. Sometimes I feel more like I'm "fighting" my gimbal when I try to combine movement and fun moves.

I don't think we need to worry about gimbals replacing steadicam shots until they can quite literally reproduce 80% of the same shots, in an easier or more cost-effective way.

rick.lang wrote:Nice shot operating, Donnell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you my friend

Well said Travis.

I agree about the issue Travis pointed out with gimbals when it comes to entry/exit of the shot. I've encountered them too. So my work around is to roll early and roll longer so by the time 'action' and 'cut' are called the gimbal is more on the state I want it to be. Then just get rid of those extra shots in post.

BTW Travis, are you using the AK4500 with the dual arm ring? Also, have you tired it with the vest/arm combo that are out there for gimbals? I have heard they will help with the bounce and relieve the weight which makes sense but I have not tired it.

@ Donnell
Is that the Tiffen Steadicam arm or one from another manufacturer?

Robert Niessner wrote:@ Donnell
Is that the Tiffen Steadicam arm or one from another manufacturer?

Hey Robert that’s the Tilta Armor-man 2.0. It comes with the vest and arms

See it here: https://tilta.com/shop/armor-man-arm-t01/

Adam Langdon wrote:KILL THE GIMBAL.
actually, let people use them. use them to death. and let them die on their own. haha!

i just don't like the mechanical movement from them.

The thing is that the mechanical look of gimbal movements isn't usually due to the gimbals themselves... it's due to people thinking that once it's balanced, the work is done. Even when balanced, it still takes practice to develop good movements with a gimbal, and how to tune it and how it responds to your movements, and so on... in other words, it still takes work, but most gimbal users can't be bothered.

John Brawley wrote:Whenever someone is trying to sell you a gimbal, they will demonstrate the low to high example, going from the ground to above eye height in a single shot.

And on the off chance that you need it, you can use a jib and get a nicer version of it...

Now for sure there are some shots that can only be done with a gimbal, but for general stabilising, the steadicam feels way way better and more natural.

As much as I like gimbals, I still agree with that. Given a choice I'd choose the Steadicam over the gimbal, but we don't always have that option.

I like this Kessler Crane Pocket Jib for anything I might need (except long following shots). Although the non-Pro is much less expensive it may not take the weight I need.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1088123-REG



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a chance to use one of these on a shoot this summer. It was pretty nice; handled my Red without any trouble, though my rig is pretty minimalistic.

One of the setups was a bit of a challenge because the room were were setting it up in was so small.

I am planning to invest in a Steadycam.
Never used or rented so my experience is very poor, that's why I am asking your advices.

My camera setup will be up to 10kg. Which cheapest, affordable one will you suggest and let me know what will be that model advantages or disadvantages vs other models.
Budget from 2-5K.

Adam Langdon wrote:KILL THE GIMBAL.
actually, let people use them. use them to death. and let them die on their own. haha!

i just don't like the mechanical movement from them.

I hate gimbals as much as I do too shallow depth of field everywhere now. So commonplace are these things, particularly on YT, that ironically the last thing I think of now is, that looks like cinema. I'm old fashioned and so I like sticks, consistent realistic DOF throughout, and the organic feel of well held shoulder mounted camerawork, which still looks great in some classic old movies.

Having said that what Garret Brown achieved with the Steadicam was phenomenal and it is still the best and most powerful use of the constantly roving camera. Who can forget it's startling fabulous debut in The Shining, Marathon Man and the original Rocky. Used judicially that type of camera movement, well executed, is still incredibly powerful.

Here is a feature that you should look for in a camera stabilizer:

Arm connection module - Arms left and right fine adjustment nuts can adjust the lateral angle of the arm

M30F (SE10+FEATHER ARMOUR II+Q30) $1700+

http://www.szlaing.com/pd.jsp?mid=308&pid=50

Laing M30P X Stabilizer Review



Videographer wrote:

5 stars "...I've read the Steadicam book and this is why I think the Laing M30P knocks the competition out of the water: - It has a tilting stage so that you can trim the headroom in your shot to fit the scene and not have to wrestle to keep the desired framing (the cheapest steadicam with a tilting stage is the $10K Zephur) - The stage is a very solid plate that is easy to attach and detach, also, balancing the stage feels much faster than Glidecam 4000 HD or Steadicam scout. Probably because the M30P has fewer knobs to contend with. - The plate screw doesn't fall out of the plate. It may seem small, but it means you don't have to remember your center of balance is, and you never lose the screw.
- The post is convertible from handheld mode, to arm-and-vest mode with the included glidecam-style foam padded handle. - The kit includes a battery plate mount and monitor mount as well as dumb weights. That means you can get started right away balancing only with weights, then later on down the road, you can add a monitor and battery plate to your arsenal. ...The center post is hollow and has openings to pass cables through it. HDMI, Power, SDI, you name it! …My GH4 balances perfectly with the arm set to the minimum weight capacity. - The vest is very sturdy, easy to adjust and has great buckles. - It doesn't feel cheap (something I can't always say about glidecam and steadicam) - The stand bracket is solidly built (can't say the same for $3.2K steadicam scout) - The gimbal is adjustable up and down on the post and has an excellent tool free locking lever (Glidecam 4000 HD gimbals are not movable, and Steadicam pilot gimbals require a hex key) - Bearings are quite smooth Cons - The arm is not isoelastic - Has no way to add weight to the top of the stage"

Laing M30P Camera Shoulder Stabilizer Load Vest and Double Handle Arm for DSLR DV Camera

https://www.amazon.com/Camera-Shoulder- ... B00OTBACX6

dondidnod wrote:Laing M30P Camera Shoulder Stabilizer Load Vest and Double Handle Arm for DSLR DV Camera

All these products are Chinese copies that sail well too close to the Steadicam patents...I guess Garret Brown is too tired now to fight the impossible.

I got a Steadicam in 2020 and have been very happy with it. There's a recent gig I did for a short film that I can't wait to share when it's finished. A short musical, and I did some pretty nice Steadicam shots for a sequence of the film. Will share when it's released. Otherwise a number of Steadicam examples from me:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJJ3Z1Bg-wA ... _copy_link

https://www.instagram.com/p/CnuJssJLWTr ... _copy_link

Steve Fishwick wrote:

dondidnod wrote:Laing M30P Camera Shoulder Stabilizer Load Vest and Double Handle Arm for DSLR DV Camera

All these products are Chinese copies that sail well too close to the Steadicam patents...I guess Garret Brown is too tired now to fight the impossible.

Garret's Steadicam was used in THE SHINING in 1980. Just how long does his patent last?

Patents are typically 20 years.

It’s long expired.

JB

timbutt2 wrote:I got a Steadicam in 2020 and have been very happy with it.

Which model do you use?

John Brawley wrote:Patents are typically 20 years.

It’s long expired.

Yes, my bad - I was told I was no Patent lawyer here . Still I have seen some dreadful shody copies all about Amazon - The Tiffen/Brown products although very expensive are in a different league. It begs the question too, how Red are able to potentially extend or 'reconfigure' their patent?

By doing what pharma does.

Re-up your patent by making small inconsequential changes that patent examiners don’t know to throw out.

Like changing the dosage amount or delivery method of the same drug.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/28/busi ... ticleShare

RED recently just extended theirs…

JB

John Brawley wrote:Re-up your patent by making small inconsequential changes that patent examiners don’t know to throw out.

According to the other article you referenced that particular type of 'loophole', seems under legislative review and may be about to change? And interestingly, Garret Brown still has some active patents seemingly connected with the original Steadicam, such as this taken out quite recently: https://patents.google.com/patent/US850 ... t+W.+Brown

Yep.

Brown is constantly innovating.



JB

bmpcc6k wrote:

timbutt2 wrote:I got a Steadicam in 2020 and have been very happy with it.

Which model do you use?

I have a combination because I bought used. So the Vest and Arm are the Steadicam Zephyr and the Sled is the Aero 30. This benefits me with the support weight of the Zephyr in what matters most for that in the Arm, which is 23 lbs. whereas the Aero 30 normally supports 20 lbs. However it’s tough to say how much more beneficial the Sled of the Zephyr would be over the Aero 30, but I’m sure the benefits are there for heavier rigs. Luckily I normally rig my URSA Mini Pro G2 to 16.5 lbs with the prime lenses. Otherwise at worst 18 lbs with the zoom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dondidnod wrote:

Steve Fishwick wrote:

dondidnod wrote:Laing M30P Camera Shoulder Stabilizer Load Vest and Double Handle Arm for DSLR DV Camera

All these products are Chinese copies that sail well too close to the Steadicam patents...I guess Garret Brown is too tired now to fight the impossible.

Garret's Steadicam was used in THE SHINING in 1980. Just how long does his patent last?

Before Shining there was Rocky, before Rocky there was Orizzonti di gloria (I don’t remember the original name), steadycam was around before Shining, Kubrick saw camera motion in others movies and want it, force to develop low mode Gareth brown, and more


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk