Letus Extreme : Canon XH A1 : Glidecam

PaPa

PaPa

Major Contributor
Here is a little test video i did for my director to show him the potential of using the letus extreme with a 24mm lens as our steadicam rig for our upcoming production entitled The Vaudeville Show. Basically the first shot is of inside this location:

Lionbanquet.jpg


The shot is simple but beautiful. We start off with black, credits, and then a body moves away from the front of the lens revealing the location. We follow the waitress in a medium shot from about 6-7 feet away as she approaches the bar to pick up an order. She works her way towards the front of the stage and vears to the right where she places it on the table, meanwhile the camera continues its travel towards the stage, where the star of the film, Mr.Nice is posing as he just hit the last note of the opening song.

Now, there is much talk about needing a remote follow focus for any 35mm adapter work on cranes, or steadicams, which i understand completely. However, while keeping a few of the restrictions in mind, we were able to choreograph an exciting and beautiful opening without having to pull focus. It is more like a tracking shot than anything.

Using the 24mm lens, stopped down to F4, gives us a focused image between roughly 8-10 feet up to infinity. Using this same logic, we are following a subject that is approximately 6 feet from the camera, so although infinity won't be in perfect focus, due to the tracking shot style, we have no need for this. When the waitress veers to the right as we approach the stage, we have a slightly soft mister nice, but as we approach him, we stop at the 6 foot mark and now we have a perfectly focused character.

Here is the video on youtube. I understand that the heavy compression makes it near impossible to distinguish the in focus stuff from the out of focus stuff, however that is mostly due to the fact that my focus is set at 8 feet, F4, which gives me the majority of my image in focus. ( with the circle of confusion at approximately 1/700th )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQt6-rsGjg

All this to say that even though there are restrictions without using a remote follow focus, sometimes it gives you an added bonus of helping you know what you can and cannot do. Then it is simply a question of working with what you can achieve. I will also post the clip of the film when it is completed to show again how this can be achieved without spending thousands on a Remote FF.

Cheers all.

-Jon
 
Wow that was really smooth! A couple jerks here and there, but I mean wow. Great footage - really cements my decision to get the A1. When I figure out the A1, time to get a Letus.

That opening shot is going to look really good. I can't wait to see it.

-Kegan
 
I hate giving excuses, but two things happened there that caused any jerkiness ( that normally inst there with proper rehearsal )

1) i didn't rehearse the movement, it was improvised
2) my sock got stuck on a small nail that was sticking out of the carpet!! WTF?
3) i just woke up and eagerly remembered i needed to show my DP and director what was capable, so i may have still been dreaming :)
4) going through one of my doors required me to set myself slightly sideways because the arm would hit the door border. This is something i need more practice at. Its one things to remain constantly behind the camera, its another thing when you have to shift yourself around the rig to accommodate the space.

I am beginning to wonder what exactly sets the weight limits of the glidecam 4000 pro?

I compared it along a professianl steadicam operator on the previous shoot and they are both about the same in length. The steadicam was much more robust and looks like it can take a hell of a lot of abuse more so than my 4000 pro. But in terms of maximum weight capacity... i don't understand how limits are set.

I understand completely, for the glidecam 2000 pro, because the pole only extends to a certain length. But with the 4000 pro, one can make it QUITE long, then its just a question of how much counter weight to place on the bottom to balance the top heavy camera. I dare say my rig right now is breaking the 10 pound region ( canon XH A1 + Letus Extreme + 24mm lens ). But after knowing this rig inside out, i am convinced that i could have even more weight on top, and then just blaance it out beneath.

Perhaps this is an issue that has more to do with putting too much pressure on the gimble than anything else?
 
Last edited:
Your sock got stuck?! Haha, that's hilarious. That's a good enough excuse for me! I forgot to add that if the Glidecam can do that, maybe I should invest in one of those too.

-Kegan
 
Thanks for posting that footage. Reminds me of that no-cut steadicam scene in Children of Men... but with less gunfire ;)
 
yeah, i don't remember how dynamic the scene was, but perhaps it is another example of not necessarily needing to shift focus during the take?

It is simply because i understand the necessity of having to pull focus when your on a steadicam, but there is still soo much potential with using a wide lens wit ha deep depth, and planning your shots with the restriction of keeping focus the same.
 
But i don't understand why you don't just shoot sans letus. I mean the deeper the dof for these shots the better, and it makes your job easier. The audience won't really care about what an adaptor can do (which is virtually nothing, save make your shot harder to focus) in such a situation. At least that's my pov: maybe someone more experienced may correct me, or you have your own justification. However, i do admit that your footage looks gorgeous...I'm simply wondering what the point of it is.
 
Were you using the GlideCam body pod with your 4000 pro? How did you feel with a 10 pound rig? Is it something you could manage for extended periods of time if need be?
 
Last edited:
MalcolmOng said:
But i don't understand why you don't just shoot sans letus. I mean the deeper the dof for these shots the better, and it makes your job easier. The audience won't really care about what an adaptor can do (which is virtually nothing, save make your shot harder to focus) in such a situation. At least that's my pov: maybe someone more experienced may correct me, or you have your own justification. However, i do admit that your footage looks gorgeous...I'm simply wondering what the point of it is.
Click to expand...

There's reason to do it both ways, so it's not that either's wrong. I think I would go the same route with the adapter based on the fact that there will still be frames where you want to isolate certain subjects from the fore and background. With the adapter off, you not only lose the diffusion but you also (like you said) lose the ability to selective focus. Not to mention different choices of width and focal lengths.

It'll be easier to do with just the camera, but the pay-off may not be as pleasing.
 
Kholi said:
There's reason to do it both ways, so it's not that either's wrong. I think I would go the same route with the adapter based on the fact that there will still be frames where you want to isolate certain subjects from the fore and background. With the adapter off, you not only lose the diffusion but you also (like you said) lose the ability to selective focus. Not to mention different choices of width and focal lengths.

It'll be easier to do with just the camera, but the pay-off may not be as pleasing.
Click to expand...

Exactly
You can still have selective focus. For example, try getting a shallow depth of field if your tracking someone from 3 feet with the bare camera.. not gunna happen without zooming in, and then you lose your wide angle.

Also, there is a softness/diffusion element that the adapter provides, which i like far more than the naked camera.
 
DeGrey said:
Were you using the GlideCam body pod with your 4000 pro? How did you feel with a 10 pound rig? Is it something you could manage for extended periods of time if need be?
Click to expand...

I am using the Glidecam 4000 pro with smooth shooter. And i have to say i love it. I can easily go for extended periods of time, probably no more than 15 without a small break but its quite nice. Also, the heavy rig now allows for much smoother motion and less wobble. :) Love love love!
 
Any estimate of post length or how many weights you need on it with that setup?

Also why not throw this up on vimeo? I'd love to see this shot higher res.
 
never tried vimeo, i just add everything to youtube because i already have a good 30 videos up there. Ill look in to it though.

I used a substantial amount of counter weights. including one of the counter weight plates that are supposed to be used on top for lighter cameras. Ill get the specifics if you want.
 
now speaking of wireless FF, hows redrock coming with their unit? Any news and updates? Is it out?
 
I got my Steadicam Pilot a couple of weeks ago and have been doing some of the same kinds of tests (minus the Letus, which is on order), although my NYC apartment is far smaller and more cramped than your house, which has been making my practice sessions quite challenging. I think being able to move around in a space like yours (or larger) when I have a chance to is going to feel like I'm in heaven.

In your clip I noticed a little of what I'm finding is one of the trickier parts of stabilizer operation which is what I call the "ship at sea" effect: the tendency of the image to roll side to side gently like you're on a boat. It was most evident in your clip when you went from the kitchen to the living room. I find the fore/aft version (aka "pitching") is also challenging to control, but a little less distracting in the result. I saw commendably little of that in your clip.

So it looks as though you're a bit ahead of me on the practice/learning curve. Just curious - how long have you owned the Glidecam/arm and approximately how many hours would you say you've you spent learning to use it?

Overall, the footage looks really great. Stabilzers are seriously cool toys, huh? :love4:
 
that sideways swaying effect was caused due to me having to operate the steadicam from the side as opposed to directly behind it due to the smaller door frame not being wide enough to accomodate both my mass and the unit. I can operate fine from behind, but when i have to make my way around the unit to get through tricky spaces, i lose a bit of the control factor.

I first got my glidecam 2000 pro about 2.5 years ago and used it mainly with my wrist ( you can check out my Prague videos on youtube under username jdubsky )

All of it was shot with me running around the city with the dvx100b and glidecam 2000 pro.

How many hours? Not a clue, because its one of thsoe things i don't use that often, but when i do i practice and practice. But its kind of like riding a bike, once you learn how to use it, you never really forget, but it does take some... for lack of a better term, warming up to get back in to it. But i would say that after 6 months of receiving the first unit, i became reasonably comfortable.
Yeah,
They are great toys! lol
 
Yeah I'm feeling that "riding a bike" analogy. Each time I use it I get better, but I'm sure it'll be a little while longer before I get completely comfortable and smooth with it. Practicing's pretty fun though, so I don't mind.
 
I'm not using any weights on the top sled, only the bottom.

i believe i have, on EAch side of the bottom plate, one of the top plate weights for lighter cameras, and then 8 round washer weights. so 16 washer weights and 2 of the top plate weights to counter my canon XH A1 with the letus extreme and 24mm lens.

I can take a photo of it if you would like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top