Talk:Steadicam

Children Of Men
Children of Men's citation is not accurate and is just the directors page. Children of Men was shot almost entirely handheld with the exception of the car scene which wasn't using a steadicam it was using a unique robotic setup. This can all be seen in the behind the scenes documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.132.227 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Iso-elastic?
Whatever engineering meaning it has (and I'm not convinced it's much), "iso-elastic" is a term that CP started using for Steadicam arms towards the end of their existence. Are we sure it isn't a type-specific term for the concentric pulley arrangement used on Master/Ultra arms? I believe it would certainly be understood to mean that in the field.

I also hate the 'graph
 * The weight of the counter balance and camera means that the sled has a high level of inertia and will not easily be moved by small movements from the operator. The free-swinging counterbalance--not the harness itself--accounts for most of the picture stabilization; shaky filmed images mostly result from a change of angle, not a translation of camera position.

but i am beyond my depth in trying to rewrite it as well; hope someone else will try. --Jerzy 02:05, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

I killed the "(sic)" in the middle of "Steadicam Operators Association": --Jerzy 02:29, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * it should be "[sic]", which i assume is syntactically forbidden, and
 * it's not really an error: there is a (disgusting, IMO) convention that apostrophes may be, and usually are, dropped, where grammar logically requires them, in the names of organizations. (The corresponding convention is treated as a solid rule for place names by the US Geographical Names Board.)

I reverted your revert where you removed the link which you described as an add. The page describes to build a steadicam which is obviously relevant. It was featured on Slashdot. Just because the guy also sells them doesn't make the page worthless and only an add. The $14 refered to the cost of materials when you do it yourself, btw, and not the price of a video that gives instruction of how to build a steadicam, which is sort of what it looked like.

CGS 18:48, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, much better link; enough better that i have no problem waiting to see what others think. --Jerzy(t) 23:42, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)


 * How about the health issue? It takes an iron man to operate the steadicam to its limit. A good article can not do without the health issue of an operator. Another section on female steadicam operators may also be good. Just a suggestion. --Toytoy
 * Sorry, only just noticed this comment. We already have an external link to the BBC Health and Safety guide. But it wouldn't hurt to put some discussion directly in the article. You could probably cull enough detail from the intro of the BBC guide. -- Solipsist 8 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

I added a note to explain "sled". The reference to the movie "Aliens" mentioned that the sled was removed, but nowhere in the article did it explain what a sled was. --Dshaw 8 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

A good link to add I think
How to build your own steadicam for $14! http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/

Another DIY stabilizer site with a very active and informative messageboard too. http://hbsboard.com/

disagree. that's what google is for. the clue is in the "$14!", which is advertising language.

Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Image showing operator


Which of these two images do people prefer? I note someone fixed the 'overexposed' lighter image, but isn't it useful to have it brighter, so the detail of the steadicam is actually visible, as opposed to the steadicam just being a shadow against a light background?

I'm in two minds myself - the darker version is prettier, yes, but seems less useful. What does it look like on other people's monitors? Are the dark areas visible?

Mike1024 (t/c) 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, it would look best if the contrast was between the two. The dark one is too solid, the light one is too grainy. Even if I turn the brightness on my screen right down, the lighter one still looks too pale.
 * -- Sasuke Sarutobi 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone fix it, it looks shite too dark 202.191.106.92 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put together a new version, based on these comments and the screen brightness standard of wp:fpc. Hope that's OK with everyone? Mike1024 (t/c) 10:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This image's description says "This steadicam's 'sled' includes a battery pack and LCD monitor." the first image has the same features which makes this redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.132.227 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademark
While I realize that Wikipedia tends to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, "Steadicam" (note inital cap) is in fact a federally registered trademark in the US, and probably wherever else Cinema Products could register it; I really think we ought to restructure the lede to properly reflect this. Contributing to the generecization of tradenames is probably not our raison' d'etre. --Baylink 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the kid in the shining
he was riding a big wheel, not a tricycle.

Other Movies
What about "Wolfen"? I'm pretty sure they used a steadicam to produce the Wolf's view as he was chasing people.

Diagram please
I came across this article and there are lots of links to gimbals and things etc. etc. - how about a diagram with all the parts labelled, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.59.111 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Jon Favreau's Swingers?
Wouldn't it be better to credit it as Doug Liman's Swingers? While I understand Favreau wrote it, one typically refers to the director, ergo, it would be Paul Vorhoeven's Basic Instinct, not Joe Eszterhas' Basic instinct, at least IMHO. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.73.198 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfinished Sympathy?
Can someone confirm, whether the Massive Attack's Unfinished Sympathy was also shot using the Steadicam? This song made strong influence on me, when I first time saw and heard it, and, as I read, others also seem to find it to be remarkable. So, it should be added here, if it was really shot this way. ShapedNoise 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Weight?
Would be good to give an indication of the weight of the whole assembly. MadMaxDog 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this & another comment that there isn't enough detail here to explain the underlying technology that makes the Steadicam & its imitators so successful. I suspect there are issues around patent law. fwiw, the mk1 weighed close to 70 pounds, mainly because it used a CRT monitor with a tube in the power supply as well as the display. battery technology has evolved a lot since those early rigs too, but unless you have a camera which can be dismantled so as to distribute its weight (e.g. a video camera with separate lens/optical block & a fibre link to the amplifier electronics & power supply), then you need a similar mass at the bottom of the rig to the mass of the camera at the top. otherwise the centre-of-gravity is too high (or low, if the rig is underslung) & the basic operating principle is compromised. another point about the weight- certainly with older tube tv cameras & 35mm film cameras, the operator needed to take frequent breaks, & often I saw on set an adapted lighting stand with the same "spigot" attachment at the top as the Steadicam vest itself, so that the camera & arm could be lifted free of the operator to relieve him of its weight in between takes/setups.

Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many examples
Someone --- me, if I get around to it --- needs to nuke most of the Filmography section. It is a trivia section in disguise, and the truly notable instances should be incorporated into the main article and the rest deleted. SFT | Talk 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I decided to be bold. Most examples are gone, including my personal favorite, the one from Serenity. But Wikipedia articles are not the place for lists of personal favorites, they are the place for long-term--notable instances. If you put back one of the instances I deleted, cite a reference or otherwise establish its notability. SFT | Talk 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Diagram PLEASE ... or a close up photo
Why is it so difficult to produce a photograph of a, uh, camera?

As an earlier editor remarked, a schematic DIAGRAM or CLOSE-UP of a steadicam assembly is just mandatory for an adequate treatment of this subject.

Until we have one, or a close-up shot of a steadicam (which could optionally and ideally have its parts labelled), our article will remain confusing for many readers.

68.174.247.185 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it is still lacking clarity due to this omission. Huw Powell (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives
The article makes no mention of home made or low(er) cost alternatives to the Steadicam(tm). If I remember correctly The Evil Dead used a plank cam. // Liftarn (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See also section 4 on this page, Trademark. What would be the generic term for a device like this, if we did not use the Steadicam trademark to refer to this?  leevclarke (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatives to a Steadicam is the copies, I just bought the Steadicam cone from China, instead of paying $14000.00 for a new one I bought one for $1800.00 and another $300.00 for the batteries. Seems to be just fine and performs like any Steadicam would. I would be interested in buying another one but why Steadicam charges $14000.00 to $50,000.00 for a vest and stable arm is nuts. I also noticed that India is now making the same concept and the Germans are now picking up to a Steadicam clone called a Movcam.--71.95.140.176 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Low-Mode description
The final paragraph under "Description" proposes gimbaling the entire sled upside-down in order to enter a "low mode" (placing the camera closer to the ground for a low-angle shot), and claims that the image inversion must be fixed in post-production. Speaking as a Steadicam camera assistant, I can say that I have never witnessed a Steadicam used in this way. Low-mode does involve inverting the sled to place the camera mount at the bottom, but it *also* involves remounting the camera using a "low-mode cage" so the camera is, in fact, upright. (The monitor is also flipped around and is also upright). No image inversion, and no post-production required. Androider (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Filmography???
If it is now a standard tool, why does this section even exist? I may be bold and delete it shortly. This is like listing all well-known movies shot on Kodak film. Huw Powell (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, since this is an encyclopedia, a few reference films would be valuable. I agree that the list should be trimmed, though. To your point regarding movies shot on Kodak film, I'd be interested in knowing the first film shot on Kodak, the longest film shot on Kodak, the shortest film, etc... Maybe reduce the list down to three or four great examples. Chevy1948 (talk) 06:30, 09 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the reversion of my removal, "Undid revision - a list of movies in which a standard piece of equipment is used seems really superfluous to me. It's like listing what albums were recorded with 8-track tape recorders."  I ran out of characters, but was going to say what Chevy said - the first/most noticed use would matter, and perhaps 2 or 3 more, especially if the filmographers (?), say, won emmys or whatever for their work. Otherwise, this list just goes on and on and on and on forever. Huw Powell (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

merge from Camera shoulder support

 * Oppose merge: Camera shoulder support is so short, its contents would hardly be noticed here.  Steadicam is a specific rather high-end implementation of a body-supported camera.  There are only three links to camera shoulder support and about 200 to Steadicam.   If a merge occurs, it should include a new section which compares and contrasts the types of camera supports.  And that's obviously getting rather far away from the topic of Steadicam.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"which mechanically isolates the operator's movement from the camera"
Surely this can't be correct as the operator needs to move the camera, otherwise it would just be a tripod. Muleattack (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

agreed- it's semantically imprecise. the function of the assembly is to decouple the centres of gravity of the operator & the camera. in use, I have witnessed the operator having to explicitly "tow" the camera into motion from a standing start, & decelerate in anticipation of bringing the moving camera to a standstill. in fact, the overall impression resembles nothing so much as a couple dancing... :-) Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how does it work
I have one of the small simple amateur 'curve' types. Camera on top linked to a counterweight at the bottom, supported on a gimbal at the center of gravity (or I suppose fractionally above it). The gimbal can only absorb 3 axis *rotational* movements, but there are also 3 axis *transitional* movements as well, which it cannot have any effect on. That is, if I rapidly flex/rotate my wrist round the gimbal the camera continues to point in the same direction due to inertia, but if I slide the camera up, down, forward, back, left, right with a jerk it of course moves laterally, it doesn't stay in the same place. So it can't 'iron out' bumps and jolts when moving over rough ground. Now although they don't make it explicit, the method of operation apparently relies on the camera being held almost at arm's length with a slightly flexed elbow, so the (human) arm absorbs the lateral transition movements whilst the inertia of the Steadicam/camera maintains the whole assembly in the same place in space (relative to the operator).

Now by the look of it the large cinematic Steadicam's substitute this human arm by what I might call an 'Anglepoise'(a type of British adjustable lamp) parallel motion counterbalanced hinged 'arm'. This can't possibly act in all three lateral degrees of movement - I can just about believe it acts vertically to absorb vertical bumps and jolts, but surely not sideways or forwards/backwards ones?

Of the six degrees of movement of a body surely the Steadicam is only absorbing four?

86.187.173.50 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Advertising hype
"The Steadicam has added another dimension to motion picture cinematography and videography" in the History section is pure, silly advertising hype.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

agreed, but it needs elaboration, not deletion. what the steadicam does is give the director a new way of inserting the viewer into the action, as an impartial observer. by removing the jerky motion of hand-held, or the crippled choreography of dolly/jib/rails on the set, a new option was made available, which is a significant development in the way cinematography interacts with the on-screen subject matter, especially if this is a fiction into which the director wishes to involve the viewer as a silent observer. but of course, I can't find a good citation of this; it seems to be taken as read that the technique was already a requirement & that brown's development answered it. it is, in short, a less emotionally-loaded way of allowing the viewer to closely follow the on-screen action; more involving than a dolly-shot, but less distracting than hand-held. this deserves a proper section; the steadicam was a game-changer in dramatic terms, even in football coverage but especially in drama (film or tv). currently, the article only links to one publication that addresses this at all, & it's behind a paywall.... https://archive.org/details/steadicamtechniq00ferr_571

duncanrmi (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)