Is a heavier camera smoother on a glidecam?

D

daktulus

Well-known member
I think about getting the Glidecam HD1000 for my 550D/T2i or a HD2000 for my HVX200.
I guess with a little counterweight under the 550D I could use the HD2000 also for the 550D, correct?

The reason why I don´t want to take the HD2000 for both is, that I lately use the 550D a lot for smaller gigs, since it is much lighter. So why use the heavier HD2000 if the lighter HD1000 does the job.

The question is: do I get smoother movements with the HD2000 + 550D, or even the HVX200 + HD2000? Is a heavier camera smoother on the glidecam?
All that counts for me is quality/smoothness of the steady movement.
 
The lighter the better. You want most of the weight on the bottom; a heavier camera is just going to be a top-heavy, wallowing shipwreck. I have the HD100 and I take the battery grip off my 7D and use my smallest, lightest lenses on it. Make sure to center the camera as much as possible and align the camera's weight profile with the weight at the bottom. It's still a pain but the results are better.
 
The main emphasis being on the practice part.

I got an HD1000 for my t2i recently and I have little trouble balancing it anymore, just still need a ton of work to fly it right.

I take off my battery grip and make the camera as light as possible.
 
Justin Kuhn said:
The lighter the better. You want most of the weight on the bottom; a heavier camera is just going to be a top-heavy, wallowing shipwreck. I have the HD100 and I take the battery grip off my 7D and use my smallest, lightest lenses on it. Make sure to center the camera as much as possible and align the camera's weight profile with the weight at the bottom. It's still a pain but the results are better.
Click to expand...

The lighter the better: Yes

You want most of the weight on the bottom: Fractionally

I take the battery grip off my 7D: Not necessary.

It's still a pain but the results are better: Shouldn't be.
 
I use a 2000 pro for my T2i, The thought of using an HVX on an HD2000 makes me cringe. Go with the HD4000; you'll be able to balance it to either cameras. I know plenty of people that shoot with DSLR's on HD4000's, but I don't know of a single person who would use a 2000 on an HVX.
 
The heavier the more advanced stuff gets. The whole idea with these designs is light-wieght counterbalance. "Real" steadycams look very different for a reason.
 
daktulus said:
I think about getting the Glidecam HD1000 for my 550D/T2i or a HD2000 for my HVX200.
I guess with a little counterweight under the 550D I could use the HD2000 also for the 550D, correct?

The reason why I don´t want to take the HD2000 for both is, that I lately use the 550D a lot for smaller gigs, since it is much lighter. So why use the heavier HD2000 if the lighter HD1000 does the job.

The question is: do I get smoother movements with the HD2000 + 550D, or even the HVX200 + HD2000? Is a heavier camera smoother on the glidecam?
All that counts for me is quality/smoothness of the steady movement.
Click to expand...


HVX200: 5.2 lb

Glidecam 4000: 3.3 pounds without Counter Weight Plates, 5.5 pounds with.

10 +- pounds on one arm.

You obviously have no idea.
 
do more research on dynamic and static balance.

weight wise, consider an arm and vest for any rig loaded over 5lbs which you intend to use for more than a few minutes a day. the merlin/pilot arm/vest can be had for 1500 and mated to the glidecam with a few bucks at lowes/homedepot
 
Thanx to all.

So, if I get this right, it is best to get a HD1000 for the 550D.
And NOT HD2000 or HD4000 to use with the HVX200, since there is no difference at all in smoothness using a bigger glidecam with a heavier cam (I just thought of the smoother shoulder movements you get with a heavier cam), correct?


I hope it was not stupid to ask this question in the HDSLR section, maybe camera operators with heavy gear have a different POV and swear a heavier camera makes smoother moves? Has anybody tried both heavy and light cameras on a glidecam?
 
In my experience using a steadicam is all about controlling inertia.
The more inertia your rig has the smoother it will be generally.
Adding dead weight by itself adds inertia i.e. a heavy thing is harder to start moving than a light thing.
What a steadicam rig gives you though is control over all that weight.
Enough control to say move through a crowd without touching anything or subtle movements you see in the footage.
It really is like a finely tuned instrument.

So having said all that, you want to balance your rig with the weight it is meant for.
Steadicam rigs always work best near their maximum weight limit.
So if your Glidecam system is rated at 6 pounds maximum it always flys better with a payload of 5 pounds rather than 3 pounds.
So pick your system that best matches your weight category.

If you T2i is around 3 pounds then get the HD1000. The HD2000 would be too wobbly without the weight on it.
If you want though you can get the HD2000 and simply add weight to the top of the sled to get the same effect.
The only reason you would want a lighter rig is to make it easier on your arm.
Lighter rigs aren't steadier than heavier rigs. The physics just isn't there.
Lighter rigs are easier to carry all day however so that's something to think about.
 
Last edited:
There are two competing issues here. One: Will a heavier camera fly better? Two: Is there a point at which a camera becomes too heavy to fly on a handheld rig?

In terms of the first issue, the answer is concrete. Heavier cameras have more inertia, as Boncrek said. Inertia means a steadier rig. Hell, I even prefer to fly a RED ONE with an onboard battery, just to make my rig fly even a bit smoother. However, a block of lead at the bottom of the post won't do you half as much good as a few tiny bits of weight extended way far out in front and behind the rig. You'll note that on a Glidecam, you can slide the base in and out. I'd just extend front and back out as far as I could to start, and never move them from there unless I had to fit the rig into a smaller place for some odd reason. (for the physics of this, see the footnote at the end of this post)

Second issue - what's too heavy to fly handheld? I'd say the Glidecam 4000 HD with an HVX is a bit over-the-top for longer shots. Doable for shorter shots, and certainly weighs almost nothing when on an arm, but I concur with the group that a DSLR is going to be a lot easier to start off with. You're going to have 2 real challenges when operating with your rig, the physical challenge of holding the damn thing up, and then the much more finessed challenge of operating it. With a lighter camera, it'll be easier to take more time to practice and learn, and that's always a good thing.

So, what does that mean when you put those 2 things together? Well, I think you should get the 2000 HD. Couple of reasons why. The 1000 HD uses a smaller post size, smaller everything, and honestly felt like a toy when I flew one at a trade show a few months ago. The 2000 and 4000 both use a much more reasonable post diameter of 1". You could step up and get the 4000, but the issue there is that to balance heavier cameras, it has a longer post. With a light camera, that means you'd need very little weight at the bottom, and if you remember above, I recommended you put some weights extended way far out at the bottom. The 2000 would require a bit more weight at the bottom, but that would fly better if extended all the way out from the post. Finally, with the 2000 HD, you can fly something heavier than 3 pounds (the limit on the 1000). Even though the 2000 is still quite limiting at 6 pounds, a DSLR setup can stay under that if you're careful. Very hard to stay under 3 pounds if you ever need a matte box, or a heavier zoom lens, etc...

That's my 2 cents - best of luck learning with the thing! It's a real art form to do it right. (Seriously, ask my friends - I've got crosshairs of gaff tape up all over my apartment walls, so I can practice doing point-to-point moves on zoomed in lenses... yeah.)


---

Now for the physics geeks:

"Inertia" (or more technically when referring to a device moving smoothly and not wanting to stop - momentum) is calculated with the formula of P=M*V. P being the momentum of the object, M being its mass, and V being its velocity. The faster an item is moving, the more momentum it has, and the more mass it has, the more momentum it has. It makes sense in practical terms - a car moving at 5 miles per hour is a lot easier to stop than one going at 50, and a freight train is a lot harder to stop than a car, even if they're going at the same speed.

Rotational Inertia (another technical term referring to how difficult it is to make something rotate) is also applicable to this discussion. It's the reason why I'd always want the weights spread as far apart on the bottom as possible. The formula for this is M*L^2, with M being the masses, and L being the length they are from the pivot point. Thus, even a very light weight quite far from the pivot point (in the case of a Steadicam, the post) will have a lot more impact than a very heavy weight directly at the pivot point. Rotational inertia is particularly pertinent to Steadicams, as rotational inertia is what keeps the rig pointed in the same direction, even as you move around the rig.
 
Last edited:
tomthemacman said:
There are two competing issues here. One: Will a heavier camera fly better? Two: Is there a point at which a camera becomes too heavy to fly on a handheld rig?

In terms of the first issue, the answer is concrete. Heavier cameras have more inertia, as Boncrek said. Inertia means a steadier rig. Hell, I even prefer fly a RED ONE without an onboard battery, just to make my rig fly even a bit smoother. However, a block of lead at the bottom of the post won't do you half as much good as a few tiny bits of weight extended way far out in front and behind the rig. You'll note that on a Glidecam, you can slide the base in and out. I'd just extend front and back out as far as I could to start, and never move them from there unless I had to fit the rig into a smaller place for some odd reason. (for the physics of this, see the footnote at the end of this post)

Second issue - what's too heavy to fly handheld? I'd say the Glidecam 4000 HD with an HVX is a bit over-the-top for longer shots. Doable for shorter shots, and certainly weighs almost nothing when on an arm, but I concur with the group that a DSLR is going to be a lot easier to start off with. You're going to have 2 real challenges when operating with your rig, the physical challenge of holding the damn thing up, and then the much more finessed challenge of operating it. With a lighter camera, it'll be easier to take more time to practice and learn, and that's always a good thing.

So, what does that mean when you put those 2 things together? Well, I think you should get the 2000 HD. Couple of reasons why. The 1000 HD uses a smaller post size, smaller everything, and honestly felt like a toy when I flew one at a trade show a few months ago. The 2000 and 4000 both use a much more reasonable post diameter of 1". You could step up and get the 4000, but the issue there is that to balance heavier cameras, it has a longer post. With a light camera, that means you'd need very little weight at the bottom, and if you remember above, I recommended you put some weights extended way far out at the bottom. The 2000 would require a bit more weight at the bottom, but that would fly better if extended all the way out from the post. Finally, with the 2000 HD, you can fly something heavier than 3 pounds (the limit on the 1000). Even though the 2000 is still quite limiting at 6 pounds, a DSLR setup can stay under that if you're careful. Very hard to stay under 3 pounds if you ever need a matte box, or a heavier zoom lens, etc...

That's my 2 cents - best of luck learning with the thing! It's a real art form to do it right. (Seriously, ask my friends - I've got crosshairs of gaff tape up all over my apartment walls, so I can practice doing point-to-point moves on zoomed in lenses... yeah.)


---

Now for the physics geeks:

"Inertia" (or more technically when referring to a device moving smoothly and not wanting to stop - momentum) is calculated with the formula of P=M*V. P being the momentum of the object, M being its mass, and V being its velocity. The faster an item is moving, the more momentum it has, and the more mass it has, the more momentum it has. It makes sense in practical terms - a car moving at 5 miles per hour is a lot easier to stop than one going at 50, and a freight train is a lot harder to stop than a car, even if they're going at the same speed.

Rotational Inertia (another technical term referring to how difficult it is to make something rotate) is also applicable to this discussion. It's the reason why I'd always want the weights spread as far apart on the bottom as possible. The formula for this is M*L^2, with M being the masses, and L being the length they are from the pivot point. Thus, even a very light weight quite far from the pivot point (in the case of a Steadicam, the post) will have a lot more impact than a very heavy weight directly at the pivot point. Rotational inertia is particularly pertinent to Steadicams, as rotational inertia is what keeps the rig pointed in the same direction, even as you move around the rig.
Click to expand...

+1 to what he said :)
What I take from all this is I guess everyone has different weight capacities that they can bear comfortably.
I once flew a home-made hand-held rig that was 15 pounds for two hours straight.
It was a marathon but I wanted to get the shots as perfect as possible and the concert I was filming wasn't going to stop for me to rest my arm :)
That is an extreme example but it just goes to show that you can fly heavier rigs hand-held if your willing.
It can kill you though lol
 
Eikoop2 said:
No fun at all...:cry:
Click to expand...

You got that right.
I know I am pretty tortuous to myself when it comes to "getting the shot".
I hear its a thing all pro steadicam operators do lol so hopefully that means I am on the right track.
Be safe of course however.
 
tomthemacman said:
There are two competing issues here. One: Will a heavier camera fly better? Two: Is there a point at which a camera becomes too heavy to fly on a handheld rig?

In terms of the first issue, the answer is concrete. Heavier cameras have more inertia, as Boncrek said. Inertia means a steadier rig. Hell, I even prefer to fly a RED ONE with an onboard battery, just to make my rig fly even a bit smoother. However, a block of lead at the bottom of the post won't do you half as much good as a few tiny bits of weight extended way far out in front and behind the rig. You'll note that on a Glidecam, you can slide the base in and out. I'd just extend front and back out as far as I could to start, and never move them from there unless I had to fit the rig into a smaller place for some odd reason. (for the physics of this, see the footnote at the end of this post)

Second issue - what's too heavy to fly handheld? I'd say the Glidecam 4000 HD with an HVX is a bit over-the-top for longer shots. Doable for shorter shots, and certainly weighs almost nothing when on an arm, but I concur with the group that a DSLR is going to be a lot easier to start off with. You're going to have 2 real challenges when operating with your rig, the physical challenge of holding the damn thing up, and then the much more finessed challenge of operating it. With a lighter camera, it'll be easier to take more time to practice and learn, and that's always a good thing.

So, what does that mean when you put those 2 things together? Well, I think you should get the 2000 HD. Couple of reasons why. The 1000 HD uses a smaller post size, smaller everything, and honestly felt like a toy when I flew one at a trade show a few months ago. The 2000 and 4000 both use a much more reasonable post diameter of 1". You could step up and get the 4000, but the issue there is that to balance heavier cameras, it has a longer post. With a light camera, that means you'd need very little weight at the bottom, and if you remember above, I recommended you put some weights extended way far out at the bottom. The 2000 would require a bit more weight at the bottom, but that would fly better if extended all the way out from the post. Finally, with the 2000 HD, you can fly something heavier than 3 pounds (the limit on the 1000). Even though the 2000 is still quite limiting at 6 pounds, a DSLR setup can stay under that if you're careful. Very hard to stay under 3 pounds if you ever need a matte box, or a heavier zoom lens, etc...

That's my 2 cents - best of luck learning with the thing! It's a real art form to do it right. (Seriously, ask my friends - I've got crosshairs of gaff tape up all over my apartment walls, so I can practice doing point-to-point moves on zoomed in lenses... yeah.)


---

Now for the physics geeks:

"Inertia" (or more technically when referring to a device moving smoothly and not wanting to stop - momentum) is calculated with the formula of P=M*V. P being the momentum of the object, M being its mass, and V being its velocity. The faster an item is moving, the more momentum it has, and the more mass it has, the more momentum it has. It makes sense in practical terms - a car moving at 5 miles per hour is a lot easier to stop than one going at 50, and a freight train is a lot harder to stop than a car, even if they're going at the same speed.

Rotational Inertia (another technical term referring to how difficult it is to make something rotate) is also applicable to this discussion. It's the reason why I'd always want the weights spread as far apart on the bottom as possible. The formula for this is M*L^2, with M being the masses, and L being the length they are from the pivot point. Thus, even a very light weight quite far from the pivot point (in the case of a Steadicam, the post) will have a lot more impact than a very heavy weight directly at the pivot point. Rotational inertia is particularly pertinent to Steadicams, as rotational inertia is what keeps the rig pointed in the same direction, even as you move around the rig.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what rig do you own?
 
JPM Photography said:
Just kidding, I looked on your website and saw the list.
A very nice set-up.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It was a big investment, but it's fantastic to finally be able to take any kind of job with any kind of camera, without worries about hitting the limits of my rig. I end up hitting my own limits far before my rig does!
 
I just pick up a flycam 5000 comes with vest etc.... Will be using the HVX with it. I think the t3i would be way to small for it but will try it anyway. It will be interesting to see how it works for me. I have been hand held shooting for a long time and my shot are pretty smooth carrying an HVX200 with Redrock gear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy717Ea92nc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top