Tilting a jib-mounted camera by tilting the tripod head?

D

djhg

Member
I realize that jibs are designed to always lock the orientation of the camera mounting plate to that of the jib's mount.


This should mean that if a (parallelogram-designed) jib arms' angle with respect to a tripod is held, and the head of that tripod is tilted (with the compact jib mounted on it), a camera mounted at the end of that jib should tilt to the same degree.


Despite having to accommodate the change this would make to the counterbalancing, it seems like a good way to tilt the camera from the tripod if it’s out of reach.

It would change the stress on the posts linking the upper and lower boom arms, but on a compact jib I can't imagine that change would be destructive.


Am I missing something? I can’t find any evidence that this is done (but as I shop for a compact jib I see plenty of offers for remotely tilting heads, which in light of the above don't seem absolutely necessary.)

I'll appreciate any thoughts.
 
That will totally F up your balance and control. It's not as simple as when you 'unlevel' the head on your tripod with just the camera on it to get some off-angle shots(which I'm sure is you're line of thinking). The reason you can't find any evidence of it being done is because no one is doing it. It's unsafe.
 
I have direct experience. Your supposition is correct about being able to tilt the camera using the tripod head. It is not a great idea since it can unbalance the whole rig, and the heavier it is the more unbalanced. If you tilt forward you may find you lack the physical strength to get it back to level with a heavy set up. When my advantajib went over I estimate with the leverage multiplier of the head I might have been dealing with as much as 200+kg. To do so smoothly is also difficult, since the balance shifts dynamically as you tilt.

However if the jib and camera are light, and the tripod head is heavy, it should be okay. If you have a sliding fine-balance counterweight it will go some way with a lightweight set up to resolving the counterbalance issue. It won't really stress the boom arms but it will definitely stress the head. And if loaded up with counterweight (can be a 3:1 or even higher depending on your jib dimensions) the whole thing can go over. Not so much the tripod legs but if the head gets away from you the whole jib will smash full force camera first into the ground. If your tripod head doesn't have a strong tilt lock you are going to get into trouble quick, finding yourself in an awkward position holding the whole thing from collapse and unable to set it down.

That said I've only worked with heavy payloads with camera rigs weighing 6-12kg. The jibs I have used are the Advantajib (big heavy pricey, 50-60kg fully loaded) and a portable Zollinger jib (a cheap lighter weight folding version similar to seven jib, 30-40kg fully loaded). I'm aware from when I was searching for a jib a couple of years ago that there are a few cheaper jibs out there that have been specifically designed to work as you describe, using the head for the tilt. I can't point you to one because none of them met my payload needs (they typically have a payload no higher than 2-3kg) and from memory were all shorter jibs (about 4ft of reach).

I did try this trick when I first got the Zollinger and unintentionally did it with the advantajib (thankfully without the camera) when the tilt lock slipped. After those two experiences I would personally never use a jib that mounts to a head, only one that mounts to the tripod bowl. Bear in mind that to use a jib mounted to a head, the weight of the jib, camera AND counterweight must be within the payload rating of the head. Depending on the brand this payload rating may or may not be optimistic and may or may not be valid when the head is tilted. Sticks on the other hand will almost always handle many times the payload rating of the head itself. Sticks are almost always conservatively rated but you still need to add the weight of the camera, head, jib and counterweight to determine the rating.

If you are looking for advice I would suggest looking for a jib that has a payload rating higher rather than equal to your rig, that mounts directly to the sticks (100mm or 75mm bowl) with it's own tilt mechanism, if you need it. Alternatively you can put the head under the camera and you can manipulate it from the front similar to a steady cam. With all the weight balanced on the jib you only need to overcome inertia to get movement and you can hold the front of the jib with one hand, the pan handle of the head in the other and with a little practice can do some amazing things with great control.

To be honest, while tilt is a nice feature to have (and the advantajib not only tilts but also pans with its cable driven 'tiller' style handle) the best looking shots I've done keep the camera level. You get cleaner vertical parallax, less distortion and the audience doesn't have to struggle to see what they are looking at. Panning is more useful (easier to track a subject) but there are only a couple of jibs out there with a mechanical pan feature so just about everyone else is getting away without it. Additionally, using a wide lens (that likely already has some distortion) you can get some weird distortions through panning, tilting and craning, especially if it is simultaneous, and it can get kind of seasick. Better to float than fly. Simpler compound moves are generally less disorienting and more dramatic IMO.
 
Last edited:
On an 8' Kessler, tilting can be done from the head, but it can take some serious strength because of all the weight involved. It's hard to do smoothly or repeatably. It's most useful when you want to set a tilt level before an actual move, and lock it in. Once you unlock it, the whole thing wants to fall.

It's great that other posters say their best shots are level shots, but when you need a tilt, you need a tilt. I found a 75mm ball mount similar to Kessler's $100ish one (eBay, $30), and I often stick a lightweight head on the end of the crane (in fact, I use a cheap "fancier" fluid head and it works great). You'll need a good deal more weight so plan accordingly. Operating from the tip, with a head, really opens up some moves (you may need a step stool, or you may need someone to hold a monitor and move it with you). You can use the crane as a quick dolly or slider (you have to take the fact that it moves in an arc vs. a straight line into account), a straight-down overhead that can track motion, or flip the head and you can do shots that start literally on the floor and rise. I mean "lens an inch from the floor", it can be really cool. In fact, if you crane's already setup and you need a high hat, it's kinda best-hi-hat-ever.

I've had residential set shots where the only angle was to open a window and shoot from outside, and in one case the foundation was such that the sill was about chin height from outdoors. Used the crane as a tripod, rested the tip on the sill with some sandbags. Real life saver - think of it as a device to get a camera where people or tripods can't go. Having a ball mount at the tip is a godsend.
 
So, that sounds like a bad idea...

Next up in line: use a 3-axis gimbal as a robotic head that can be controlled with a cheap wired joystick. Bonus point: you don't even need a real jib (since the head will be leveled by the gimbal, a cheaper kind of jib that is basically just one long pole with an end for the camera and another one for the counterweight can be designed for this particular task; not for your Alexa but definitely for my a7s).
 
OP here: Many thanks for all the generous advice above, it's helped me eliminate what I was wondering about. {I was considering using a tripod's head to tilt a camera mounted on a parallelogram jib (not a jib with the pully/cable feature designed to link tilting at the tripod to tilting of the camera mount.) In addition to the concerns above, I realize that the extremes of this action would greatly reduce the effective truss depth of the parallelogram which would drastically weaken the assembly. Too risky.}

But it seem promising to find a jib linking the tilting of a tripod head to the camera mount separately from the cantilever assembly e.g.: Steadytracker's cable/pully-tilt Fotocranes. (An evf might need to be mounted from the only mounting points not moving around - the tripod legs: Doable.)

If my camera is looking from a viewpoint up on a crane way out of reach, I'd like to be able to tilt it (and pan, for that matter) for the same reasons we point them around to follow action when they're anywhere else. (I'd consider a mechanized remote if I can't find a suitable method allowing manual control - I'm wary of robotic motion or high cost - or both.)

And before I get the camera up in the air I'd like to be able to adjust the jib's length to one of many different lengths. Particularly useful to optimize interior locations.

My FS100, typical (and heaviest) zoom, evf, and fluid head add up to just under 4 kg. (Of course evf and head wouldn't be part of the jib's load if I'm operating from the tripod, but I need that load capacity when I operate from the tip.) Seems for these loads I could use a relatively light duty jib; some of those Fotocranes seem capable, for example.

But according to specifications, each Fotocranes' length can be adjusted only to short (about 3.5') or long (varies with model), but nothing in between. I assume this limitation is to reduce complexity related to multiple cable lengths. (But even Fotocrane's rod-connected model is specified with the same limitation to length adjustment.)

Given what I'm seeing in the marketplace, it seems to me that there ought to be a light-duty jib well under $1000, adjustable to many different lengths with - for tilt - tripod-head to tip-camera-mount linkage by telescoping/locking rods.

Maybe I'm missing something again - thoughts welcome.

DG
 
Depending on intended usage short and long should be more than enough. My Zollinger has a short pivot and longer one which I think is about 1.2m and 1.8m of reach respectively, enough to reach the ceiling indoors anyway. I would suggest that around 4' short and 7' or 8' long would cover most indie owner/operator situations.

Both lengths have their uses but I can't imagine a situation where I would need something in between. Other than fitting into tight spaces, the primary benefit of the shorter length is reduced counterweight ratio, I might only need 15kg instead of 25kg for example. For comparison, with the advantajib at full size I might need 50kg or more to balance a 10kg camera. In this arrangement the sticks are carrying close to my bodyweight and I'm fat (or at least what was called fat 20 years ago, probably normal now). Any position the shorter length can reach, so can the longer length as long as there is enough clearance to the rear. All other things being equal I'd use the longer length exclusively because the arc of the movement is less apparent in the footage but in practice the ability to go short to get into spaces is well worth it.

Now something to consider, even though the Advantajib (roughly 5 or 6 times the price) is unquestionably superior in quality, strength, control and just about every other measure beside weight and convenience, I only ever use it in situations the Zollinger can't handle and I would never put it in the car 'just in case'.

This is a crucial thing to understand. Amazing shots become less appealing if it takes more effort or time to achieve. On set lofty intentions fall by the wayside. I've read it many times in these forums but it didn't sink in until I experienced it for myself. The only reason I keep the cheap jib is because it folds compact (80cm) and weighs 6kg, takes under 5 minutes to assemble, balance and mount the camera. It can fit anywhere in the vehicle. The advantajib is night and day in quality but it packs into a bag 1.3m long and 3 times wider, is heavy, has small parts that could be easily lost, can take up to half an hour to assemble and balance without assistance and almost as long to pack down. Being larger and heavier it needs more counterweight just to balance the boom, let alone the camera. The point is, your dreams of amazing shots may not survive the inconvenience of reality. Even if you have determination the production may simply not be able to spare the time or budget of achieving such shots, even when equipment is available. Convenience should be a primary concern in selection.

I've only done half a dozen projects for other people so far (although 2015 is shaping up to be a busy year, even getting paid on my current gig, woot!) but even though they get excited about the equipment I bring (benefit of having a day job) I rarely get to use any of the cool stuff for these very reasons. And I can only bring what fits in the car. I still haven't used either jib in anger for anything other than my own stuff, and even then most of that has been specifically for practice. I am sure the day will come where I can use my advantajib to get the money shot and on that day it will all be worth it. But even if the planets align, I have the time to spare and have the jib on hand, the shot still needs to serve the story.

Hope this helps give some insight into what to expect at an entry level with this equipment. Entering the real world, working with others and for others can change a lot of perspective type things fast. When I started I would have vomited at the idea of corporate work. Now even though my dream is still independent movies, if I could land a job in even advertising it would be just as much of a dream. I have gear and enough knowledge to be dangerous. I just want to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top