This is Pretty Cool : Programmable Camera Movement with the RONIN-SC and RONIN-S

[TheDingo]

 

[DLD]

Tracking seems rather complicated (but worth learning). The power zoom, however. On an auto focus lens/camera. That's big.

 

[jcs]

Tracking seems rather complicated (but worth learning). The power zoom, however. On an auto focus lens/camera. That's big.

Been using the FF for zoom with the Crane 2 & EOS R with DPAF- super cool. Works great with Canon 16-35 F2.8 II as no lens extension when zooming. Need a riser platte to try with the RF 24-105, which does extend, however in testing the Crane 2 can handle the imbalance when setting the balance point midway between the zoom range. Just did a first full test today with Jacqui on rollerblades with an interesting audio solution that I've been wanting to try for a while and finally found the parts to make it happen: it worked great! (will post in another thread once I edit the video). This 7.5lb combination (with the new audio solution) is what I'm calling The Perfect Camera 1.0.

Regarding gimbals and smooth camera moves / programmability: $10K+ heavy tripod heads (and cameras) will be a thing of the past soon. Brought this up a while back and folks didn't seem to buy the idea. Now that I have a decent gimbal and seeing the Ronin software for camera moves, it's even more clear that the future of camera control is lightweight robotic control systems with relatively tiny cameras and no heavy tripods or heads. In fact, I can do amazing slow pans with the Crane 2 completely handheld- looks like a high-end tripod head on sticks!

I like the Ronin gimbals and software (had the Ronin-m), however their proprietary batteries are a challenge (had to purchased a new battery to sell the Ronin-m: both original batteries went into permanent hibernation mode (google it- common problem)). I'm using Samsung 30Q 18650 3000mAh 15A batteries ($6 ea. x3 = $18!) with the Crane 2 and they run a very long time! (the stock 2000mAh 10A batteries are rated at 18hours- the 3000mAh Samsungs should last ~50% longer).

Almost picked up the Ronin-SC for the cool software/features (in spite of the batteries), however I'm happy with simple Crane 2 since I can load it up with a fairly high payload and get great results.

 

[Josh Bass]

That is very cool. Only thing (to me) that could make it cooler is if (somehow, maybe totally unrealistic) you could integrate a tracking feature where instead of you having to time yourself to the robotic move, it could tell that you're in position at point 1, now follow the hands to point 2, etc.

 

[DLD]

... Regarding gimbals and smooth camera moves / programmability: $10K+ heavy tripod heads (and cameras) will be a thing of the past soon. Brought this up a while back and folks didn't seem to buy the idea. Now that I have a decent gimbal and seeing the Ronin software for camera moves, it's even more clear that the future of camera control is lightweight robotic control systems with relatively tiny cameras and no heavy tripods or heads ...

I've been saying this too. Obviously, this is why Alexa Mini, Sony Venice Two Piece (aka the Tethered Sensor Block) and other "camera-in-the-small-box" designs have been created.

Edited to add the link :

WRT, Venice Two Piece, it almost takes one back to the 1970's video cameras, where one had to have a recorder part in a separate tethered box.

https://www.redsharknews.com/produc...ideo-recorder-like-the-sony-av-3400-‘portapak

 

[Jim Arthurs]

You can use the app to setup some basic motion control actions for pan/tilt/roll and repeat the move well enough to do some pretty interesting things like this quick test I did back June of last year with the Ronin-s.

http://files.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/RONIN-S/Ronin-s_multipass_test.mp4

I'm sure the app is better/more stable now, well I hope it is, haven't tried since... I was surprised the hardware was repeatable enough to do this. There are a lot of cool things the hardware could do if the software was more "pro-featured" I suppose...

 

[TheDingo]

You can use the app to setup some basic motion control actions for pan/tilt/roll and repeat the move well enough to do some pretty interesting things like this quick test I did back June of last year with the Ronin-S

Ha! That is hilarious. Amazing what can be done with relatively low cost gear now.

 

[markoconnell]

" $10K+ heavy tripod heads (and cameras) will be a thing of the past soon."

I disagree, as long as long and heavy lenses are needed to pan and track, for example wildlife, heavy tripods will be a blessing.

Another overlooked benefit with the Ronin is the motion time lapse function. Works great.

 

[jcs]

@Jim Arthurs- that's pretty cool!

Crane 2 etc. can also use your phone to track objects with the phone's camera; recent gimbals can also use the phone's gyro/magnetometer to position the gimbal direction based on the phone's orientation.

@markoconnel- recent sensors and optics (and micro-gimbals) can easily fit into a 1" cube or smaller. I think @DLD posted a video with one of the crazy zooms possible with these small sensors.

Sure, carrying around a large tripod head & sticks with a giant camera & heavy zoom lens when in nature to capture birds can be fun / good exercise / nostalgic, however it's not necessary anymore. Tiny sensors, lenses, and gimbals that fit in your pocket can now (or will soon) out perform everything before them, and also provide creative ways to make shots via robotics.

When I owned the C300 II (purchased when it first came out), the biggest/heaviest head + tripod I felt was worth it was a Benro S8 + carbon fiber sticks (~$700). I knew it couldn't do butter-smooth pans, and that it would take major $$$ to get something big & heavy that could. Now with a gimbal + EOS R / 1DX II (probably a Sony 6K => 4K mirrorless soon), I can do butter smooth movements in all directions, while standing handheld. So much more creative freedom vs. a tripod and superior results!

For long range wildlife shots, especially with AI object & animal face tracking, far superior shots will be possible vs. heavy-head+tripod+manual track + lens-only stabilization. Future cameras (e.g. likely Sony) will provide AI data for gimbals to provide even more creative possibilities (so a cellphone isn't needed + run AI on the camera itself (e.g. telephoto view)).

I can see startups / small companies like Z-Cam creating camera systems which export AI image data for gimbals / robotic control systems and/or camera systems built around robotics (DJI is already starting to do this: drones, Osmo etc.).

The Osmo Pocket is decent for a 1st gen product: these systems will get smaller and better!

 

[DLD]

For pure reach, it's pretty hard to beat Nikon P1000. It's ~ 1.5 KG, so will sit on pretty much every monopod.

 

[jcs]

A downvote without a counter argument isn't very persuasive.

More persuasive: your best friend is a chiropractor and you need your heavy gear so your back stays outa whack, or you've invested a lot of money in heavy gear but can't sell it on eBay because it starts with an 'e' and you don't like 'e's. (and it's too heavy to pack & ship).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore)

 

[markoconnell]

"For long range wildlife shots, especially with AI object & animal face tracking, far superior shots will be possible vs. heavy-head+tripod+manual track + lens-only stabilization. Future cameras (e.g. likely Sony) will provide AI data for gimbals to provide even more creative possibilities (so a cellphone isn't needed + run AI on the camera itself (e.g. telephoto view))."

"Future cameras will provide..." Right. There is no doubt that the future will bring many superb developments. In the meantime I'm daydreaming about tripod heads with gimbal capabilities, like stabilization in heavy wind, an indifference to the vibration caused by human touch, and my all time fave- the ability to cancel out the vibration from the motor that travels through the hull of a boat.

(an addition) Also, there's no reason a tripod head shouldn't communicate directly with the camera it's supporting, and also provide electronic pan/tilt capabilities. It seems like tracking should be possible as well.

 

[rob norton]

Regarding gimbals and smooth camera moves / programmability: $10K+ heavy tripod heads (and cameras) will be a thing of the past soon. Brought this up a while back and folks didn't seem to buy the idea. Now that I have a decent gimbal and seeing the Ronin software for camera moves, it's even more clear that the future of camera control is lightweight robotic control systems with relatively tiny cameras and no heavy tripods or heads. In fact, I can do amazing slow pans with the Crane 2 completely handheld- looks like a high-end tripod head on sticks!

What's your definition of soon? Five years? Ten? I think it's a cop out to say "in the future tech x will replace tech y". While that may be true, if it takes 20 years for the take over and none of us really are affected then it's a pretty vague statement. I'd rather hear some time frames! I've been guilty of this as well so I'm also calling myself out.

I think you and I spoke about using gimbals on stands instead of fluid heads. Just because electronics are advancing at a rapid rate, doesn't mean mechanical options won't remain superior in several situations.

You mention amazing slow pans with gimbals. That's fantastic but what about fast pans? I know, the tech will get there eventually but let's speak about your current set up. Whip pans or tracking anything remotely fast is an absolute joke. Onto advances in gimbal technology, at some level you'll still need to program various gimbal speeds and dampening. Adjusting parameters in the field cuts into critical production time vs. a human operator getting to work instantly, despite a heavier set up. It's not only about "superior" specs on paper but how the gear is used within an entire system. Look at Steadicam vs. gimbals - absolute smoothness isn't the top requirement. Steadicam keeps destroying gimbals for its instant, precise control, while being fairly smooth.

Production in the field will avoid batteries if they can. "Heavy" tripods are worth it if it means the alternative is a delicate piece of equipment (with a risk of failure) that also requires batteries. Look at lighting - it's split between people prefer one heavy piece of equipment over several light pieces (power supply built into light or light that weighs less with power supply separate). Even in 2019 the Movi Pro, one of the best gimbals out there is still infuriating productions across the globe. The weight savings isn't as drastic if you need to carry a backup.

Unless the Hollywood/movie making industry goes belly up, heavy tripods aren't going anywhere. You have an industry whose best interest is pushing film production as being valuable. At the Hollywood level, embracing large cameras (as main cameras) = work. The larger format cameras create, or rather maintain many many jobs.

I'm only referencing the high end for $10K+ tripods because the low-mid end mostly don't use $10K+ tripods anyway.

Maybe we'll see a hybrid? A tripod head with built in gimbal that'll also have the ability to work as an unpowered, quality fluid head?

 

[jcs]

@rob norton- for me soon is now! I can do ultra slow smooth pans handheld- have you tried this yet with a gimbal? So liberating not to need a tripod!

I was OK with a steadicam (FlyCam Nano + GH4), pretty easy to use, however with bigger cameras got too heavy (didn't want to deal with vest / dork-rigs). Gravity/pendulum motion can be programmed into a gimbal if the market demands it (personally I don't miss it; could also be easily simulated in post with a slight crop if desired (sure, takes more time)).

Whip pans? How about whip pans with ease out & in!? All possible with a gimbal, and handheld! + the 'ease out/in' is effectively programmable for most gimbals (some gimbals have a Sport Mode to tighten things up).

Agree with your points regarding batteries, however with my current set up, these cheap 18650 batteries last so long I don't worry about turning off the gimbal (vs. the camera which gets shut off frequently to save power).

Like everyone here, I'm speaking from my point of view, which is a creative technologist with many years working with simulators, robotics, AI, and camera systems. I think I've got some shots re: fast motion (while running in sandals chasing Jacqui on roller blades) that turned out pretty good with my latest set up- will post footage here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365172-The-Perfect-Camera-1-0 (already 1 downvote lol- apparently no logical counter arguments == downvotes). Small camera systems are the future, for everything from consumer products to top productions, downvotes won't change that.

If one's product / job depends on large/heavy cameras, time to start planning to pivot to something else- perhaps a robotics startup for cameras or a robotics technician for cameras (people still need to work on these systems + operate them).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore)

 

[DLD]

... Unless the Hollywood/movie making industry goes belly up, heavy tripods aren't going anywhere. You have an industry whose best interest is pushing film production as being valuable. At the Hollywood level, embracing large cameras (as main cameras) = work. The larger format cameras create, or rather maintain many many jobs. ...

... Whip pans? How about whip pans with ease out & in!? All possible with a gimbal, and handheld! + the 'ease out/in' is effectively programmable for most gimbals (some gimbals have a Sport Mode to tighten things up)...

If one's product / job depends on large/heavy cameras, time to start planning to pivot to something else- perhaps a robotics startup for cameras or a robotics technician for cameras (people still need to work on these systems + operate them)...

 

[rob norton]

The venice isn't a small camera. Its volume has just been redistributed to multiple areas to act as a small camera. Anyway you think being small is the be all and end all - this is incorrect. If tight space filming is only 5% of a project, needing the camera to be small is quite a specific application. The remaining 95% of the production might require the camera be a certain size to accommodate other crew member's accessories. So while small can help the shoot it can also hurt the shoot.

 

[jcs]

The venice isn't a small camera. Its volume has just been redistributed to multiple areas to act as a small camera. Anyway you think being small is the be all and end all - this is incorrect. If tight space filming is only 5% of a project, needing the camera to be small is quite a specific application. The remaining 95% of the production might require the camera be a certain size to accommodate other crew member's accessories. So while small can help the shoot it can also hurt the shoot.

What crew to camera interaction can't be done wirelessly or via a master cable + breakout?

Did you watch the VENICE video re: camera size + weight and how much of a win the smaller camera was for them? (even with the tether limitation- e.g. still usable with a small drone to 20').

 

[JPNola]

What crew to camera interaction can't be done wirelessly or via a master cable + breakout?

Did you watch the VENICE video re: camera size + weight and how much of a win the smaller camera was for them? (even with the tether limitation- e.g. still usable with a small drone to 20').

I've been on two features where an experienced Cam Op did handheld with the Venice breakout module and both times the shots had the jitters. It happens because of lack of weight and, more significantly, the sensor plane not being located towards the center of the weight distribution and instead at one end of the weight. Or, more simply, the camera was insufficiently long in length.

Notice that while camera bodies have become more compact, when camera departments build cameras for handheld shooting they aren't necessarily going for lightest weight possible. They still end up building the cameras up to where they are 20 lbs or more. Ops may be glad to no longer have 45 lb rigs, but they also don't want 8 lb rigs. The Cam Ops are not necessarily wanting lightweight rigs but actually like weight at times because it makes for stability in shots. Sort of like having a lot of drag on a tripod. As opposed to a loose tripod head with little drag. An Op is going to be much more steady on a 200mm lens with a heavy camera than with a lighter camera. Increased camera weight= increased steadiness. Decreased camera weight = decreased steadiness.

 

[jcs]

I've been on two features where an experienced Cam Op did handheld with the Venice breakout module and both times the shots had the jitters. It happens because of lack of weight and, more significantly, the sensor plane not being located towards the center of the weight distribution and instead at one end of the weight. Or, more simply, the camera was insufficiently long in length.

Notice that while camera bodies have become more compact, when camera departments build cameras for handheld shooting they aren't necessarily going for lightest weight possible. They still end up building the cameras up to where they are 20 lbs or more. Ops may be glad to no longer have 45 lb rigs, but they also don't want 8 lb rigs. The Cam Ops are not necessarily wanting lightweight rigs but actually like weight at times because it makes for stability in shots. Sort of like having a lot of drag on a tripod. As opposed to a loose tripod head with little drag. An Op is going to be much more steady on a 200mm lens with a heavy camera than with a lighter camera. Increased camera weight= increased steadiness. Decreased camera weight = decreased steadiness.

Sure: a = F/m and t = (r x F) / I, where a = acceleration, m = mass, t = torque, r = radius of contact to center of mass, and I is the inertia tensor ('rotational mass' distribution), and F = force in both equations. I is computed from the integration of points and their masses as a square law from the center of mass: long thin objects behave much differently than round objects for example. While the inertia tensor is a 3x3 matrix, it's possible to find a principle coordinate system so that the inertia tensor is a diagonal matrix, and we can represent the object's mass distribution with just 3 numbers instead of 9 (this also speeds things up for real-time computation for games & simulators).

These two simple equations allow us to model a rigid body and how it reacts to forces applied at any location along with total body mass and its distribution of mass (long, short, square, round, etc.).

For cameras- if we extend mass distribution outward from the center of mass we can make the camera more angularly stable without increasing the total camera weight. This won't have any effect on linear movement (when the force point is at the center of mass).

Using the VENICE camera head without a gimbal: makes sense it will have the same issue as any low mass camera. Put it on a small gimbal and total weight & size won't increase much and there will be zero angular jitter. Linear jitter is less noticeable, and is helped with lens & sensor stabilizers: the VENICE can use optically stabilized E-mount lenses: thus no reason a high end production can't have the best of both worlds.

 

[rob norton]

What crew to camera interaction can't be done wirelessly or via a master cable + breakout?

Did you watch the VENICE video re: camera size + weight and how much of a win the smaller camera was for them? (even with the tether limitation- e.g. still usable with a small drone to 20').

Then why stop at venice's sensor block? Why not make a camera the size of an SD card? Other than physical limitations, it's because there's a sweet spot in size. People will have different ideas of what that sweet spot looks like. Hollywood and other professionals have a different idea of what that sweet spot is compared to you and DLD. It doesn't need to stay the same either - it ideally should be project dependent. For jcs' shooting needs, the smaller the better. You a) don't need to and b) can't apply your philosophy across the entire video production landscape. There's no one size fits all. DLD doesn't shoot any video at all so while it's fun to live in broken record theory land, not everyone will agree, after forming their own opinion from working in the field. I'm sure you're a really nice guy DLD but you say the exact same thing with every single post, I don't get it?

For every venice sensor block separation success story there are 100x larger camera success stories. We're just not hearing about it at trade shows because it'd be ridiculous if cinema5d asked a DP how they were enjoying a way of working that's been going on for decades. I love small cameras if I'm by myself and am only talking about a crew environment (I obviously would have no argument if only speaking about a solo shooter that has few needs). For crew/camera interaction, we're headed for wireless controls across the board but there still needs to be enough real estate for mounting hardware.