glidecam or merlin vs a DIY stabilizer

P

pernell91

Active member
i might look kind of silly here, i know that there must be reasons why the $14 steadicam or $50 DIY steadicam don't live up to a glidecam 2000 for example

i have read about the gimbal and stuff but seriously in terms of practical use, what is the extra money for by purchasing the glidecam or the steadicam?
 
Steadicams work around ballence. The Merlin and the larger steadicam rigs have very fine controls to adjust the balence. You turn the knob and the weight moves half a mm. Using this its easy to get very accurate ballence. These components cost money to design and produce.

The gimbal is the most important part of the steadicam sled, its what's responsible for keeping it level and steady. Without it it wouldnt be a steadY camera. Bearings are expensivev, decent bearings are even more expensive, and lots of decent bearings together is obviouvly, very expensive. The components that hold the bearings are strange shapes, but have to be very strong. They are all CNC machined as moulding parts this accurate is not really an option.

In the end you get what you pay for, if you pay $50 you get some steel pipe and a gym weight. If you pay more money for a better system you get something that actually works. The gimbal and balancing systems cost money to produce and its worth paying the extra for them.

I went through a whole pile of home made stabilizer devices before buying a proper steadicam rig, and obviously, none of the home made versions I made, and none of the home made versions out there come anywhere near close to the results you can get with the proper kit.


If its a tossup between the glidecam and the merlin, assuming the merlin is capable of taking the weight of your camera, I would go for that. There is another post on this board from a guy who is buying a merlin because his glidecam fell apart, which says something about the glidecam durability. Also the handle on the glidecam pulls forwards and down in a twisting direction and Is bad for your wrists and hurts after a short period of use. The glidecam stuff is usualy considered to be pretty tacky next to the steadicam products.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=140320
 
okay thank you for the info

i am wondering though, what is the advantage to a true steadicam or glidecam for a moving car shot over a rig where the camera is fixed to the car? what does the glidecam or steadicam do to counteract the up / down bumps from driving? would fixing the handle of a glidecam to the car bet better than a fixed car mount? are you meant to hold the glidecam with your hand as you're in the moving car so your arm can compensate?
 
When the camera is fixed to the car, the car that it's attached to will be stationary in the frame, and the scenery will move by, but if the car goes over a bump for instance, the footage can look a bit odd, as the world around the car seems to "jump" a bit. A Steadicam shot from a car (in theory) will be perfectly smooth, as if the camera is just floating along. Shooting car to car (as in not having the camera pointed at the car that the camera is attached to), it would be very disorienting to have the picture shake and jump randomly as the camera car drove if the camera were hardmounted.

Fixing the handle of the Steadicam to the car won't do you much good without an arm in between! The idea of a Steadicam being either handheld or on an arm is this - the arm (or your arm) absorbs the large spatial shocks (as in up and down, front to back, etc), and the gimbal of the rig prevents the angular shocks (tilting, rolling, and panning) from being transferred to the camera. By mounting the sled to a car, there's nothing to absorb the larger spatial shocks. While it may not be visible for some things, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

Also, another thing to note is that the Steadicam needs to have an operator with it. It can't go on the outside of the car (I wouldn't wanna see someone try to rig up holding themselves to the outside of a car!). You can shoot from car to car, but you generally sit in the back or side of a pickup truck, SUV, or Van. The Steadicam rig requires the influence of an operator to keep the picture framed - you gently apply pressure with your fingertips just below the gimbal to frame the shot. Otherwise, the camera will just point whichever way it pleases, which probably won't give you a very pleasing shot. But, that influence is part of the magic of a Steadicam. Even shooting inside of a car, an operator can create shots which can move around, panning and tilting, looking inside and outside of the car, without having to worry about shakes ruining the picture.

So, it's two different tools for two different purposes. The car mount is good for shooting from the outside of a car in, or shooting from one car to another where you want to see part of the car holding the camera. The Steadicam can make incredible floating shots that can engage the viewer, but it's not quite as easy of a setup, and requires a lot of practice to be good with.
 
tomthemacman said:
When the camera is fixed to the car, the car that it's attached to will be stationary in the frame, and the scenery will move by, but if the car goes over a bump for instance, the footage can look a bit odd, as the world around the car seems to "jump" a bit. A Steadicam shot from a car (in theory) will be perfectly smooth, as if the camera is just floating along. Shooting car to car (as in not having the camera pointed at the car that the camera is attached to), it would be very disorienting to have the picture shake and jump randomly as the camera car drove if the camera were hardmounted.

Fixing the handle of the Steadicam to the car won't do you much good without an arm in between! The idea of a Steadicam being either handheld or on an arm is this - the arm (or your arm) absorbs the large spatial shocks (as in up and down, front to back, etc), and the gimbal of the rig prevents the angular shocks (tilting, rolling, and panning) from being transferred to the camera. By mounting the sled to a car, there's nothing to absorb the larger spatial shocks. While it may not be visible for some things, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

Also, another thing to note is that the Steadicam needs to have an operator with it. It can't go on the outside of the car (I wouldn't wanna see someone try to rig up holding themselves to the outside of a car!). You can shoot from car to car, but you generally sit in the back or side of a pickup truck, SUV, or Van. The Steadicam rig requires the influence of an operator to keep the picture framed - you gently apply pressure with your fingertips just below the gimbal to frame the shot. Otherwise, the camera will just point whichever way it pleases, which probably won't give you a very pleasing shot. But, that influence is part of the magic of a Steadicam. Even shooting inside of a car, an operator can create shots which can move around, panning and tilting, looking inside and outside of the car, without having to worry about shakes ruining the picture.

So, it's two different tools for two different purposes. The car mount is good for shooting from the outside of a car in, or shooting from one car to another where you want to see part of the car holding the camera. The Steadicam can make incredible floating shots that can engage the viewer, but it's not quite as easy of a setup, and requires a lot of practice to be good with.
Click to expand...

wow thanks a lot for the explanation, that helped

based on your terms used in your post, im assuming you prefer to work with steadicam over glidecam?
 
pernell91 said:
wow thanks a lot for the explanation, that helped

based on your terms used in your post, im assuming you prefer to work with steadicam over glidecam?
Click to expand...

I do own a rig that is partially Steadicam brand (some parts of it I did have made in a machine shop), but anything I talked about can be applied to any of the major brands of stabilizer equipment.

There is definitely a difference between the Steadicam and Glidecam rigs in my opinion, but both are workable solutions. I haven't flown a Glidecam enough to do a real "review" of it, but when I did fly it, I wasn't so keen on the topstage (the part where your camera mounts), and also the method of adding counterweight to the bottom. On the Steadicam Merlin, for instance, your camera mounts up to a plate, which can be easily mounted up with reference marks, and which then can be finely moved around above the gimbal, allowing for you to balance the rig in a very precise, quick manner. On the Glidecam, you have to remove 4 thumbscrews, pull off a plate, screw it to your camera, put the plate back on, screw the thumbscrews back in, and then see how it goes, then loosen the thumbscrews, slide the plate a bit, re-lock it, try it out, etc. Does it work? Absolutely. It'll balance up a camera. But, it takes a lot more work than a Steadicam topstage. The counterweights are similar, instead of having them screw into each other and lock together easily like on the Merlin, they are a huge stack of big washers that you have to align over each other properly, and the tighten down another thumbscrew. Again, it's workable, but just not real pretty or quick.

That's just my opinion though, if you can, I'd recommend trying out both rigs. I know B&H in New York has them both out and flyable, but I don't know how convenient that is to where you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top