boomstrikevideo
Active member
You should change the post title to "Really crappy wannabe alternative to the MoVi..." in order to not get people overly excited for nothing.
Cheaper "Alternative" to the MoVi set for release in July, the Omnirig.
- Thread starter David G. Smith
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Thanks. Yeah, it is not a MoVi, but that is very acceptable for handheld camera work. It does beat a FigRig, from what I have seen. I think the the biggest problem is the shot design there decided to cover. They chose to use this gizmo to cover fluid moves of very pedestrian action and threw in some, what they thought were, "Gee...golly, gosh...how did they do that..." shots to showcase the gizmo's capabilities. Seeing the footage without the post stabilization actually made me more enthusiastic about the OmniRig. I mean, it is what it is... but what it is would be very, very handy on an uber low budget project with lots of action, motion and an established hand held aesthetic.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Thanks. Yeah, it is not a MoVi, but that is very acceptable for handheld camera work. It does beat a FigRig, from what I have seen. I think the the biggest problem is the shot design there decided to cover. They chose to use this gizmo to cover fluid moves of very pedestrian action and threw in some, what they thought were, "Gee...golly, gosh...how did they do that..." shots to showcase the gizmo's capabilities. Seeing the footage without the post stabilization actually made me more enthusiastic about the OmniRig. I mean, it is what it is... but what it is would be very, very handy on an uber low budget project with lots of action, motion and an established hand held aesthetic.
Strangely, the hand-offs seem to be the smoothest parts of the video. Oh, well, it is better than straight handheld.
I still wish they synced up the two shot better. There is about a second & a half delay between the two shots.
ReelFilmGeek
Well-known member
Yeah been waiting to see non stablaized footage and I actually like it more without the post stabilization, of course its a different look but it is nice.
R Hudson
Well-known member
I like it better without stabilization also. The stabilization on the promotional videos discredited it entirely. I think that with practice and planning the walking and hand-offs could have been even better. You're not going to get fluid tracking but for low-budget/indie stuff this looks like another interesting alternative.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
This will get slightly philosophical but it is on point with what this device appears to provide.
The handheld look has been popular for a number of years now with no signs of abating. The prototypical "indie" look in features is naturalistic lighting and handheld operating. Even if there is a Steadicam available to the filmmakers, it is eschewed in favor of putting it on the shoulder. I've worked with many directors who are insistent that we shoot handheld, but when we need to move the camera over a few feet, become uncomfortable with seeing the operator's footsteps in the shot and ask for it to be "smoother". So, I have the operators sitting on dollies with handheld cameras or we use spring mounted or deflated volleyball heads to simulate the look of handheld without the roughness of the lateral moves.
A device like this could be powerful in maintaining the loose look but eliminating the judder when the operator walks. I think this is every bit as useful as a Movi in theory (I don't know the mechanics) because it would operate in a separate arena. You either want super-smooth stabilized footage, or you want the grit and immediacy of handheld; that's two different methodologies. So to me there is room for both approaches and they shouldn't be compared.
The only downside I see to either is that we are going to see a lot of show-off shots that exploit the handhoff capability, and long meandering tracking shots. I was wondering what trend would become the new shallow-focus and I'm guessing this might be it (ironically, since few using any of these devices will have access to remote focus controls, they will be shooting at deep stops to maintain focus, reversing the previous trend). Having been a player in the previous era of long tracking takes that ended a good ten years ago, I will watch from the sidelines with curiousity.
The handheld look has been popular for a number of years now with no signs of abating. The prototypical "indie" look in features is naturalistic lighting and handheld operating. Even if there is a Steadicam available to the filmmakers, it is eschewed in favor of putting it on the shoulder. I've worked with many directors who are insistent that we shoot handheld, but when we need to move the camera over a few feet, become uncomfortable with seeing the operator's footsteps in the shot and ask for it to be "smoother". So, I have the operators sitting on dollies with handheld cameras or we use spring mounted or deflated volleyball heads to simulate the look of handheld without the roughness of the lateral moves.
A device like this could be powerful in maintaining the loose look but eliminating the judder when the operator walks. I think this is every bit as useful as a Movi in theory (I don't know the mechanics) because it would operate in a separate arena. You either want super-smooth stabilized footage, or you want the grit and immediacy of handheld; that's two different methodologies. So to me there is room for both approaches and they shouldn't be compared.
The only downside I see to either is that we are going to see a lot of show-off shots that exploit the handhoff capability, and long meandering tracking shots. I was wondering what trend would become the new shallow-focus and I'm guessing this might be it (ironically, since few using any of these devices will have access to remote focus controls, they will be shooting at deep stops to maintain focus, reversing the previous trend). Having been a player in the previous era of long tracking takes that ended a good ten years ago, I will watch from the sidelines with curiousity.
Last edited:
f44876
Active member
I'm curious to see what these looks like. I can't say I've ever seen em in action.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
If I can I'll try to take some pics when we use them next.
f44876
Active member
Great! Thanks.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Personally, I am quite tired of a lot of the handheld "look". Some productions go WAY overboard with this look. I am interested in seeing some of the production shots myself
Yeah boy... I am very much over the chaotic handheld look myself. I recently tried to watch "The Hunger Games", which I think goes overboard with that look. I couldn't watch it and then queued up and watched Michael Radford's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (Shoot by Roger Deakins) instead.
They are saying that the Omni-Rig will be available this July.
R Hudson
Well-known member
That's quite interesting because Hunger Games was the most recent example that bugged me
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That's quite interesting because Hunger Games was the most recent example that bugged me
+1.
Yeah, the exaggerated shaky cam look and the ham handed story telling really did it to me for that flick.
Your camera moves should be motivated. There's a reason you slowly dolly in, rack focus, follow with a steady cam. You don't do it just because it looks cool. You're trying to focus the audience's attention to better tell your story.
Shaky cam can be used effectively to create tension. You should use it sparingly. But if you use it for no reason at all then it really distracts from the scene and you're constantly thinking, HEY! Get a Tripod for Christ's Sake! Is the camera man on crack?