AF100 and Glidecam 4000

J

Jonathany26

Active member
I have a Glidecam 4000 and the Glidecam X-10 vest that I used with my HPX170, I sold one of my HPX170 and I am almost positive I will sell the other HPX170, about 85% of my work is commercials and documentaries and I LOVE the cinematic look the AF100 gives, I also used a Sgblade with my HPX170 and although it looked really nice, it was bulky and heavy and required LOTS of light indoors, so I am going to get the AF100 and possibly a GH2 as a B-cam, I know for sure that the GH2 will probably be much too light for the Glidecam 4000 and the X-10 vest, would the AF100 be too light also? I know the minimum weight is 5lbs for my glidecam set up. I think the GH2 is no more than 2lbs and the AF100 is only about 3lbs, is anyone still using my set up with the glidecam and just adding more weight? thanks
 
I use the AF100 on the X10... just added 4 of the weight plates on top (depending on the lens, etc. you use). The toughest thing is focus, as I don't have a remote FF...or anyone to control it. :-)
 
I also had an X10 with a HPX170, I sold it since I've no interest in shooting steadicam work professionally anymore. I'm thinking of the merlin steadicam for the AF100 for my short moving shots. Stripped down, the camera is less than 3lbs, put a 14mm pancake on it, stop down so you have deep focus and voila, you have steady shots that are not as smooth as a vest and arm maybe but usable in a narrative. I've seen some really smooth shots with the merlin and the 5D. AF isn't that much heavier.
 
plus with the merlin you can get into much tighter spaces without worrying about that crazy bronco bucking arm knocking out your grandkids!
 
I recommend keeping your HPX170 to use as your glide-cam.

The real issues with the AF100 will be lenses and focus.

You need wide angle and deep focus for reasonably effective stabilizer work. Shallow focus on a stabilizer works in very, very limited applications -- and can hinder the whole smooth motion effect. Trying to keep focus while "flying" a camera is another joke -- and I do mean 'joke.'

Finally, for your lens, you want (full frame 35mm equivalent) nothing tighter than about 30mm. Anything beyond that and you'll have problems with anything -- including thirty thousand dollar Steadicam rigs.
 
I had just planned on using a wide angle lens on the AF100 if I put it on the glidecam, I am REALLY thinking about keeping my HPX170 but I just feel that the footage would not match the AF100 really good, I think a AF100 and a GH2 would be a better match, I may still keep my HPX170 in case I ever have to do some run and gun stuff (but I doubt I will have much run and gun stuff) I really love my HPX170 and the whole P2 workflow, if I keep my HPX170, I will keep the X-10 and glidecam, not sure what I will do.
 
Focus control is the biggest issue with a large sensor camera. Once you start dialing in that depth of field to less than the subject moves during the shot, you'll need a way to remotely (electronically, preferably wirelessly) control focus.

Long lenses are used much more regularly on Steadicam than most people realize. Beyond 85mm (35mm equivalent) is where it starts to get a little tougher for an experienced Steadicam operator. But 100mm isn't all that uncommon. And done carefully, you can do some really cool stuff with even longer lenses.

I operate mostly TV, so I'm not keeping track of my focal length beyond knowing that I use most of the zoom range on normal standard ENG zoom lenses.

And super super wide can actually be harder, as the horizon (one of the hardest things for a novice operator) is much less forgiving out wide.

Shots that are wider than they need to be and feel like they are on a boat are common signs of a less experienced operator.

But I digress...
A HPX170 is much simpler to user on a smaller "lighter" Steadicam rig, as you can use auto focus for lots of situations, and you have the option of using a low cost electronic controller to adjust Focus, Iris and/or Zoom as you wish. Not to mention it's more forgiving on the focus. But then your shots will also have the look of a HPX170, which may or may not be appropriate for the shot.

An AF100 does take more to set up on a Steadicam. When we shot "A Verse Before Dying", the AF100 package with rails, mattebox, 2 radio mic receivers, a range of medium sized lenses and a remote focus system (We used a BFD) flew very very nicely on my Steadicam Archer. (Pictured below.) Which is a $25,000 mid range Steadicam system rated up to 23lbs of camera system. We probabaly had the camera package with the AF100 built up at around 15-20lbs or so pretty easily (I didn't weigh it, so I'm going from memory). Bottom line is that a more flexible cine style camera, the complexity is also more on a Steadicam. But with that control comes the ability for some great shots.
attachment.php


We did also fly the AF100 on a Merlin on Verse using some little pancake lenses and a super wide fish-eye also, to some really really cool effects. One particular shot we did had us flying the camera through the winch frame above a well, with one operator doing the first half of the shot and then passing off to another mid shot to get it through the hole.

attachment.php



One more, just because it's a great shot. Taken by Taylor Rudd, the best assistant I've ever had the pleasure of working with:
attachment.php


- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top