First thing is I know I am using a tripod that does not do what I need it to do.

I am trying to shoot sports video for my kids and for the football games I have come up with the following setup for two cameras. I want both to pan together while I can pan/tilt with my tight shot camera.

MEGAPIX (http://www.megapix.com/?d=5DVJLYEH)

When I pan I am getting twist at the tripod head and legs so I need to start looking for the "1" tripod that I want to purchase. I have 3 more years left of high school sports so I will get the use out of a good tripod but I don't want to break the bank either. I would like something light enough to carry up and down the stands but I do know I need something substantial enough to stop the twist issue and hold the equipment. I am also going to mount a Varizoom 7" monitor off of one end so I can frame my tight shot camera. The weight of my setup looks to be right at 11 lbs for both cameras, arm, monitor, and quick release to the tripod.

Tonight will be the first time for me to try out my new setup but it is the last game of the regular season. I will be shooting more playoff video this year so I hope to get the bugs worked out on this setup.

Suggestions for which tripod I should look at will be greatly appreciated. Something maybe in the $500 plus range would be in my budget as I know I am tight when it comes to toys like this. I also know I cannot use a set of sticks with a ground spreader since I will be sitting in the stands most of the time.

Ooh, I can see where some of that "twist" is coming from, but that's not really the point.

The setup in the picture is a challenge for any tripod/ head system because of the effect of the "windup amplifier" connecting the cameras to the pivot point.

A 1/2 degree twist at the pivot point wouldn't look so bad if the camera was actually mounted at it, but stuck "out on a limb" as they are, that is one heck of a lot of movement.

Having the pan bar (lever 1) stuck out on the end of the "windup amplifier" (lever 2) is just adding insult to injury.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, would be to invest in a "decent" 75 mm bowl video tripod and a "decent" 75 mm ball video pan/ tilt head (we'll get to the definition of "decent" directly) and one of these type thingies:

Hague Twin Camera Mount (http://www.b-hague.co.uk/hague_twin_camera_mount.htm)

The setup outlined has a couple of major advantages over your current system:

1. The pan bar is now at the pivot point thus significantly reducing the windup force on the tripod.

2. With a decent pan/ tilt head you can get superbly smooth pans & tilts with both cameras simultaneously.

3. Keeping the camera to camera distance as small as possible reduces the "windup amplifier" effect significantly

4. With the cameras so close together it's easy to keep track of what each camera is seeing "live".

Now, for "decent".

First of all, I hear you, $500 or so. Hmm, gonna be a push, but lets take it from the top:

A good set of 75 mm sticks?

The best of the cheapest I've reviewed have been these:

Manfrotto 546B Pro Video Tripod w/Mid-level Spreader 546B B&H


Given your application, the vile mid level spreader shouldn't be an issue and could possibly be dispensed with entirely depending on your circumstances and at $440 are very good value.

Windup wise they ran a very close second behind the Vinten PoziLoc 3819's, but they're $820 on their own, $1120 odd if parked under a Vision Blue head thus:

Vinten VB-AP2M Camera Support System VB-AP2M B&H Photo Video


Of course, $500 - $440 = doesn't leave a lot of wriggle room on the head front. If you could put a little bit of extra moolah on that figure, I **could** suggest this rig:

Manfrotto 504HD Head w/546B 2-Stage Aluminum 504HD.546BK B&H


(Oh God, did I just do that?)

Now, I have to be totally honest here, that head has the counterbalance system from Hell (amongst other faults) BUT with a bit of creative engineering you may just be able to ameliorate it's worst excesses.

It has two "EasyLink connectors", basically threaded holes, one on each side of the head.

If you were to contrive/ find a bracket that would allow you to connect to one (or both) of these connectors and then right angle down with the LCD screen at the end BUT beneath the head pivot point, it would, depending on how much below it was or how much extra weight was added to it, almost perfectly balance your cams, no counterbalance necessary but maybe a tad of tilt drag.

Voila, CB system from Hades bypassed!

Don't know if any of this is your cup of tea, so I'll await feedback and other suggestions from "the team".


CS

PS: Just going to throw this in, gratis, as it has caught quite a few people out with even the best camera supports.

Do remember that if those cams have an OIS system, as most do, to turn it off when using them on a support of any sort. It can play havoc, with the picture jumping all over the place as it tries to correct for your pans and tilts.

The issue with the Hague Twin Camera Mount is that both cameras pan/tilt together. That does not work for my application since I am only panning with the wide shot camera while pan/tilting with the tight shot camera. I also have to have the cameras far enough apart so that the tight shot camera does not pick up the viewing screen from the wide shot camera while panning to the right or vice versa when panning to the left thus the spread on the Manfrotto Double Head Support (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=MA131DDB&N=0&InitialSearch=yes).

After using this "thrown together" setup tonight I was very surprised at the outcome. Once I got the two 128RD (3130)heads lined up and strapped together tightly the results were pretty good. It took me about 4 or 5 tries to get the velcro tight enough around both heads so the pan lag between the two heads was minimal. I shot the game using my tight shot camera and only having do minimal adjustments to the wide shot camera. My plan is to replace the velcro strapping with a timing (toothed) belt that has little stretch and an idler system to take up any slack.

So going back to my issue, my first concern is to get the best value tripod for my setup and then look at better heads to replace my 3130's. If I went with the Manfrotto 546B I could use the Manfrotto 520Ball to attach my Manfrotto doulble head support. My next step could be replacing the 3130's with 503HDV heads since they can attach to the Manfrotto arm. Any other suggestions?

If I went with the Vinten 3819-3 sticks is there anything like the Manfrotto 520Ball so I could attach the Manfrotto double head support? Then what heads would you use on the double head support?? I would also consider the VB-AP2F system if I could adapt it for 2 camera shooting.

I know I am making a bastard system but I believe this is the type of mounting system that will work for football filming. I could then use the same set of legs with a much better bowl head for 1 camera filming. I know I threw out the $500 range but I will spend more to get quality. I just don't see spending $2000 on a tripod system to shoot football for the kid.

Thanks

Hmm, mulling over your info and about to head out to dinner, so any response will be tomorrow.

Anything else you can throw in would be usefull - links to some of the stuff mentioned would be a real help, as I'm not familiar with them (that you know about the 520 Ball tells me you aren't a complete jerk!) [Joke and a Godsend]

Now the ante has been upped, more options are open, it's that bastard system of yours which is the major stumbling block.

We'll get there!

Regards,


CS

Added the links and Google is a powerful weapon in the hands of someone that can type. My issue with sticks and heads are the mounting points due to working around the Manfrotto double head mount, all 3/8" screws. Limits my choices as to what I can use.

My belief is that with a better system tying the two heads together (less slack) and a smoother panning head that the video will be pretty good. Will I have smooth pans and professional looking video, no but I am just shooting football. I believe it will be better than most but my main goal is to control the second camera while only shooting with the first.

Then using the same set of sticks with a bowl type head will give me a great setup for one camera filming. I am also trying to keep the cost down as right now I have less than $1400 in that total rig. 1 Sony CX520V that was new, a used CX500V, both 3130's (1 is new), the new Manfrotto arm, and the Varizoom monitor (almost new).

Thanks for the help

I shot football game film for 5 years. I see exactly what you are doing with the rig to pan both cameras with different composition. Nice rig.

Go with a video tripod not single pipe photo tripods. You can get a lot of bang for the buck on eBay.... maybe an older ball/bowl set who's head is a don't care but the legs are nice. 75mm or 100mm ball would both be an option. One-stage or at least 2:2:1 legs also preferable. I think Chris tested twist on a bunch of legs and published a spreadsheet on the results. Search here on DVinfo.

The trick is mating your rig to the bowl on the legs. Manfrotto makes some 75 and 100mm balls that may help.... here's one:
Manfrotto 520BALL 75mm Half Ball 520BALL B&H Photo Video

For sure a mid level spreader. A good shoulder strap will help hauling it up the stands and free your hands for other stuff.

Here is one play (30 sec) that I shot last night illustrating what I am trying to accomplish.

single play pan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8GggqsEkw)

I am filming the play with the camera on the left (CX520V) that is used for the "tight"shot (panning/tilting). The second camera on the right (CX500V) is following the play when I pan with the first camera. All that is connecting the two heads is some double stick velcro on the heads and a 15' velcro strap wrapped around the bases of both heads. I thought the wide shot did a pretty good job of keeping the play in the center of the frame while panning down the field.

Would a Manfrotto 3191 tripod be something that could work in my case? Only thing I see wrong is the 60" height.

This is something I made a while back but iit worked pretty well. I took a piece of 1/4" aluminum flat stock 2" wide and about 18" long. I found the center and drilled and tapped a 3/8" hole so I could use the 3/8" mounting bolt from my Manfrotto QR plate which then would mount to my 501hdv head on the 525 legs.
I then drilled and tapped 2 3/8" holes about 2 1/2 inches in each direction from the center hole. I mounted 2 501 HDV heads using some 3/8" hex head bolts I had, mounted it all up and BAM! I could control both cameras with either the main head or individually with the 501hdv heads. I set it up for football and was able to use one camera as a wide master shot and the other one tight on a particular player and by using the main head to follow the action I was able to keep everything within frame and still see the overall play develope. Well at least for the most part. Since I had the aluminum flat stock and bolts laying around anyway it didn't really cost me anything but about an hour of my time (I even painted it flat black). I only used the setup 3 times to make a scholorship video for this one kid (his family is close to mine otherwise I don't think I would have done it) but for what it cost me (nothing) and for what I needed it actually worked very well although there was a bit of flex on the far ends of the flat stock but after the first time using it I cut the ends in closer and that seemed to help. Anyway it worked and the video came out well.

OK, here goes.............

The setup Don just described is pretty well what I'm proposing, albeit a slightly more "home made" version.

In your current setup the main mount bar is kept parralell to the near edge of the field of play, and the camera(s) angle is changed to follow the action.

In my proposal, the camera angles remain perpendicular to the mount bar at all times, it is the mount bar that changes angles with the near edge of the field of play.

The advantages of the latter are:

1. As the cameras are always perpendicular to the mount bar and thus the centre lines of the field of view of both are parallel, neither camera can ever see the other no matter how wide or tight they are zoomed, thus they can be mounted MUCH closer together. This significantly reduces the bar length and thus the amount of movement.

2, One (good) head controls/ supports both cameras. Yes, this does mean both cameras tilt as well as pan, but the wide shot cam will show infinately less tilt than the tight shot cam, simple physics. I cannot see this being an issue.

Moving on, given the amount of Manfrotto stuff you already have, I'd take that Vinten out of the mix for a start.

The 500/ 520 Ball adapters will work with any 75/ 100 bowl tripod, so make of 'pod is not an issue, it's purely a question of cost and rigidity, 100 mm being the better option by far. Ebay is awash with the things BUT, you won't know how rigid any particular unit is till you try it and if you insist on continuing with your current setup you really are setting ANY tripod a real challenge.

If you want to get a bit of weight lifting practice in for the next Olympics, you could try trawling for a used Manfrotto 528XB system, gut busters extraordinaire but boy, are they SOLID (and rigid)!

Manfrotto 528XB Pro Video Heavy Tripod - Single Leg (http://www.manfrotto.com/product/528XB)

The down side is that in order to run'ngun with a set of 528's, you do need to be an Olympic Gold weight lifter.

Other than that, well, you pays yer money etc.

As for head(s), using your existing arrangement means it's showing up tripod flaws in the main, the heads not so much. I'm hesitant to suggest improvements in case my suggestion won't work with that belt arrangement.

If you change to my suggested system, the arrangement will mostly be showing head imperfections, so it would pay to get the best head you can afford, remembering that you only need one as it's the only game in town, the cameras being fixed on the mount bar.

Ball back in your court.


CS

PS: A little more research has turned up that the Manfrotto bar you already have can be converted to take two cameras (without any heads required) with the whole shebang then mounted on a video head. See the bottom of this link: http://www.b-hague.co.uk/manfrotto_twin_head_tripod_mount.htm

Nearly there then!

PPS: The Manfrotto 3191 would appear to be no longer available.

My personal preference to doing multicam off a single tripod would be to simplify by having three default pan offset positions for the wide camera which with practice makes pre-sighting and aquisition with the narrow-view camera easier when you learn just where the narrow views are centred in the wide view.

Wide view defaults will be offset right (leading), to give noseroom for panning right, centre for matching narrow view centre and offset left for panning left. You would need to build in some adjustment to match each venue.

For most comfortable composition, the centre of narrow view needs to be in a position lower than centre in the wide view.

Pan lead defaults should be easy enough to set up with your current rig if you add a springloaded jockey pulley to your velcro "drive belt" and future cog belt layout. The lead limit could be adjusted by restricting the travel of the jockey pulley arm. You would need to have enough frictional resistance to make the narrow view camera lag behind the wide view when panning the wide-view camera.

If you have a good fluid head under the tandem bar and the narrow view camera locked off on the bar, using the wide view camera's pan arm to actuate the pan movement of the whole assembly should do it for you, whilst sighting through the narrow view camera. Leading the tilts would be another matter, too complicated to set up and probably un-necessary if the wide camera view is wide enough and a fixed vertical offset is deep enough..

A collateral benefit of tracking with your narrow view camera is that your wide view movements will be the absolute smoothest.

I was a bit lazy. I filed a bit of metal off the piece of flatbar I used as a side arm for the wide-view camera on my ground-to-air rig and left the 1/4" bolt holding it down to the inner plate just a little bit slack against a few springwashers and flatwashers sandwiched. It was just enough for about five degrees of movement which was not quite enough for my widest views but adequate.

1) Will a 100mm half-ball adapter fit pretty much any tripod with a 100mm bowl or do I need to stay with that particular brand??

2) The reason I started with this type of mount is to keep the wide angle camera from tilting when the tight shot is tilting. I had researched the single bar with two cameras mounted on it and decided that was not the direction I wanted to go. OK, I know I am difficult but that is what makes the project.

3) Right now I know my equipment is at it's worst but my cost is at it's lowest. Instead of jumping off and spending a bunch of money I am trying to tackle one thing at a time and figure out what might be best. The only reason I have the new Manfrotto arm, head, and quick release is I knew I needed a solid base to work off of. The arm is mounted to a Manfrotto 625 quick release which I choose for the 3 points of contact on the base. The second 128RC head was purchased because that is what I already had. That way I am not guessing which head is giving me issues, it should be both or none this way.

4) As it is right now the wide angle camera needs the tilt to be adjusted as the plays move down to either end of the field. As it goes through it's arc then it drops out of the center of the field frame but not by much. Also the zoom has to be adjusted as the plays end up at either end but both of those are very minor adjustments.

5) I can still find new Manfrotto 3191 tripods at a price of $350 so that is not an issue. But if I get the answer to #1 then I might go for a better quality tripod that I can pop a half ball into and film football.

6) My goal is to get equipment that I can get most of my money out of when I move up in quality. Like my 2 - 128RC heads, I might lose about $40 at the most when I resale both of them. My current tripod is a throw away since I paid so little for it including the 128RC head.

So, which way do I go now??

1) Will a 100mm half-ball adapter fit pretty much any tripod with a 100mm bowl or do I need to stay with that particular brand??


Yes and no. Yes, it will fit just about any 100 mm tripod and no you don't need to stick to one particulasr brand.

That is not a blanket pass BTW, when it comes to pan/ tilt heads it can get a lot messier.

2) The reason I started with this type of mount is to keep the wide angle camera from tilting when the tight shot is tilting. I had researched the single bar with two cameras mounted on it and decided that was not the direction I wanted to go. OK, I know I am difficult but that is what makes the project.


OK, I'll stop trying to make you see sense and just get on with it.

5) I can still find new Manfrotto 3191 tripods at a price of $350 so that is not an issue. But if I get the answer to #1 then I might go for a better quality tripod that I can pop a half ball into and film football.


Round about here it starts getting messy..................

6) My goal is to get equipment that I can get most of my money out of when I move up in quality. Like my 2 - 128RC heads, I might lose about $40 at the most when I resale both of them. My current tripod is a throw away since I paid so little for it including the 128RC head.


Bloody hell, don't want much, do you?

So, which way do I go now??


I'm minded of that very old Irish joke, where a couple of tourists ask a country bumpkin in darkest back country how they can get to Dublin.

After a great deal of chin rubbing, mutterings to self and scrutinising of each road in turn, the answer is............ (forgive my diabolical Irish accent btw)...........

" Well, I'm not really sure, but I wouldn't start from here".


But, start we must.

First things first - take the entire rig off that tripod.

Then, using an appropriately threaded 3/8" bolt/rod/ whatever, bolt it to the most rigid object you can find, a 100 lb block of concrete would be ideal.

Do make sure it's somewhere you can really use it in anger, as it is imperative you establish how many of your problems are inherant in the rig, before you go any further.

It is quite possible that the stresses you are applying to the Manfrotto bar/ heads/ mounting stud/ quick release give rise to most of the movement. Whatever, there's no point going into tripods till that has been established.

When you have the answer, get back to us.

Hows that?


CS

A direction, that is what I need. Once I get that done and shoot a clip will that help determine the issues at hand??

On the answer to the 100mm ball question, does that mean some ball pan/tilt heads will not fit well with other manufacturer tripods?

.......... Once I get that done and shoot a clip will that help determine the issues at hand??


One would hope it gets you started. If, when attached to said 100 lb block of concrete, the results are not acceptable, you've got some hard decisions to make about the rigs configuration, components or both.


.......... does that mean some ball pan/tilt heads will not fit well with other manufacturer tripods?

I think he's got it!

Vinten and Libec heads, with their chunky 4 lobed clamp knobs, are particularly notorious in this regard.


CS

As stated in my introduction to this forum, I am a Texan and an Aggie therefore some would consider that 2 strikes to begin with.

I will get the bastard rig mounted in some manner and post the results. My guess from fooling around with it is that it is pretty solid right now. Due to the design of the Manfrotto arm it did take a pretty big set of slip joint pliers in order to tighten the knobs to the quick release and heads (that is a truly crappy design) as a plain bolt head would have been much better to work with.

I will admit that I have not been able to find anyone else that has done this and maybe for good reason. I just haven't found my good reason yet as I was pretty pleased with my first test the other night. I just know I found some very weak points in my setup so you might say its off to the races to find the solutions if they are there.

Don't give up on me yet, we just might end up with a pretty neat item here. After all I did start my college career off as an engineering major.

I'll stay tuned for the "non destruct" rig test and we'll take it from there.

As an interim matter, just because I'm shooting in the dark in many respects, can I make a suggestion?

I'll take that as a yes.

Fire an e-mail to Peter.Harman@VitecGroup.com .

He's the product manager for Vinten and he can, if you are so minded, arrange a (free) test drive of a Vision Blue system.

This is not because it's necessarily the answer to all your problems, but it will give you an idea what a Pro rig can do and it will be a benchmark for how your rig will behave on same.

Now, before anyone pipes up and asks why I've not included Barbara at Sachtler in this, I don't think the Ace has a snowballs chance in Hell of handling the torque of that rig, and the "big boys" at Sachtler will blow the entire States budget, let alone Richards.

You WILL require a Manfrotto 520 Ball (double check, I can never remember which one is which) fitting as the VB head has a non detachable 75 mm ball.

Sounds like a plan to me.


CS

I know where you are coming from with the wide view tilt issue. With ground-to-air shot of aircraft, the issue is aircraft are "free range" and a lead-lag device in the tilt axis would be difficult as the wide-view would likely be lost on overheads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4rC5dVPq1s

I also use the wide-view as a means of sighting which cannot work if the lead-lag movement is too large . I also have a different setup in that whilst the cameras are identical, the lens systems are not. Both zooms do however have a zone of overlap.


http://exposureroom.com/members/DARANGULAFILM/0f993f3acfe84243a3f9cd2678f8ecfe/


I have also simply been too lazy to address it. My aviation vision has not been and is unlikely to be an earner because the events are simply not of national interest and too infrequent here in the far west.

A sports ground however is a more confined movement. I think the quickest and easiest mod for you would be to make a heavy mass balance, coarsely adjustable in the tilt plane (fine adjustments using the head tilt), attach it to your wide-view head and leave the clamp mount backed off so the mount is free to pivot in the tilt plane on the round bar.

Alternatively, just hang the mass from a spacer plate fitted between the wide-view camera base and its tripod head base and leave the tilt backed off with light drag friction. This route may stress the camera body bedcause of the fluid drag of the head.

The necessary lightness of structure where it is at its thinnest might introduce shake in the tilt axis with sudden tracking moves. With either method your wide view once trimmed should remain as you want it in the tilt axis but still lead in the pan axis when you want it to.

You would need to drill two small holes and insert splitpins and maybe also thrust washers to stop the piece from sliding off the end if you go for letting the head mount itself swing freely.

Your cogbelt and jockey pulley should be able to accommodate the amount of twist involved. If the belt tends to ride off the jockey pulley, then applying the tension to the belt with a flat pulley from the outside and allowing the pulley mount to freefloat on the tube should fix that issue.

Your mass balance might need to be ovoid in profile to reduce windage which might induce a sway in the tilt movement. If you use a mass balance directly acting on the tilt head to use its frictional dampening, windage buffet is likely to cause the long view to shake at the extreme end of the zoom.

As an alternative to a belt relay mechanism you might examine a simpler two-piece tie-rod with simple yoke and clevis-pin ends like in light sail rigging, incorporating an adjustable lost-movement slide and a turnbuckle for trimming, similar to the track-rod arrangement of large trucks and older four-wheel drive vehicle steering systems.

Servo actuator rods and ball-ends as used in large-scale remote control model aircraft and helicopters might be another direction.

The downside of a solid linkage is the limit on the range of pan movements which on some sports grounds might leave you short of the goal ends in the long view.


An alternative would be to keep mechanicals out of the mix as much as possible. A compromise might be to mount both your cameras with the wide-view camera on its own tripod head, the narrow view camera fixed on the bar, itself fixed upon on the second common tripod head with its tilt locked to preferred wide-view and the pan left free with friction. There would be limit stops on the wide-vew pan movement of the wide-view head on the bar. The tilt movement would be left free with a mass balance as described above. The narrow view camera would be on the second tripod head mounted to one end of the bar. The pan movement would be initiated with the wide-view control arm to enable noseroom in the composition during the movement.

Tilt movements of the narrow view camera would be controlled by the arm on the main tripod head supporting both cameras. The bad downside to this arrangement is two hands being required to operate both tripod handles leaving no hand free for lens controls. Initial lag would also lose the frame on subject in the narrow view camera, which is why both hands would be needed on both control arms. If the narrow view camera zoom and focus is capable of remote control via a LANC cable to a controller on one of the handles, then this arrangement could be workable.


FOOTNOTE.

By mass balance, I mean a pendant weight on a fixed arm.

He's the product manager for Vinten and he can, if you are so minded, arrange a (free) test drive of a Vision Blue system.

CS

There it is. I was wondering how long it would be till the inevitable happened.

@Richard. Why are you talking about a head? I thought you had two heads on a bar rotating with a belt and all you needed was a way to attach the bar to some bowl legs. Some of the Manfrotto balls I linked you to don't have knobs on the cup so they are quite compatible with the various legs.

Les,

I shan't comment on what I percieve to be the underlying insinuation in your post, though perhaps paying greater attention to the details in the thread may be illuminating, but I will say this:


If you know of a way of getting a Pro support system (FREE!) to Mr/ Ms Anyone's Doorstep, Anywheresville, The World, with just one e- mail, do pipe up and tell us, because the only other way I know is via Sachtler and the reason why they were not included this time is also in the thread.

It (the VB) also just happens to be a system I have, have tested exhaustively against numerous others AND measured it's performance empirically, so have an in depth knowledge of what it can and cannot do.

Google "benchmark".

Sad.


CS

Chris, since you have the VB can you tell me what the distance is from the top of the tripod to the bottom of the head? I have looked at a lot of pictures including the review you did and it looks like the gap might be as much as 1 inch or more.

Thanks

You tell me your definition of "bottom of the head" and I'll gladly measure it, but I've gotta say, the reason for the question isn't immediately apparent, though I'm sure there is a good one.

Do you mean where the half ball fixes to the head body itself?

If this is related to it's operation with a 520 Ball half ball adapter, I can send you a picture/ take that measurement if it's more pertinent, I have both 500 and 520 Ball adapters..........somewhere.

Tho', unless it's love at first sight with the VB, it probably isn't relevant, as something closer to your budget figure will probably be the ultimate weapon of choice, I simply can't pluck a Manfrotto 546B out of thin air like I can a Vinten.


CS

Yes I mean where the half ball fixes to the head. From the top of the tripod to the bottom of the head unit, that space where you see the part of the half ball extending from the tripod. I do want it on the Vinten since that is what I will be able to play with. Just want to be prepared when it comes in from Peter.

Does that make sense?

OK, sense made.

4 measurements around the join - 13 to 14 mm, average, say, 13.5 mm, my conversion thingy say's .53150 inches.

Got your mail btw, geez, what a setup!

I'll stay tuned for TNEE!


CS

Sorry but gotta ask for a few more measurements on the VB equipment. Since it is a 75mm bowl I am assuming that is the diameter of the bowl at the tripod. What is the diameter of the half-bowl where it meets the bottom of the head?

Also, since the head is kinda square what is the general width of it at the base? Or if it is not square what are the two measurements?

Lastly if you were to put a bowl over the top of the tripod head,one that would fit over the outside edges, what would that diameter be? Doesn't need to go over the top of the legs just the support part for the legs.

I cannot find any detailed measurements anywhere of the head and want to order a few items before the test rig comes in.

Thanks

Oh, and on the setup, until you take the tour you haven't seen anything. I am one of the few people I know that takes the family videos off the camera and watch them on our tv. Kids watch most of their sports games and when they have friends over the movies come in quite handy.

Right, Blood/ Caffeine meter is now steady at "barely human", both eyes are open (just) and the standby generator on my digital micrometer has been persuaded, albeit reluctantly, to splutter into some form of intermittant life, I'll take a stab at that measurement marathon you've set.

I shall begin:

Since it is a 75mm bowl I am assuming that is the diameter of the bowl at the tripod.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? Actually, that 75 mm thing is somewhat of a moveable feast between the various manufacturers, the opening of the bowl on the VB is actually 71.4 mm.

What is the diameter of the half-bowl where it meets the bottom of the head?


Er, I take it you mean "half ball"? Not the easiest thing to measure as the whatsits on the thingummy aren't really long enough, but will 74.6 mm keep you going?


if it is not square what are the two measurements?


See "whatsits" comment in previous answer, but give 91.3 mm (W) X 83.0 mm (D) a shot.


........ bowl over ... top .... head .... that.... fit..... outside edges.... would..... diameter?

Sorry about the delay, needed to boost the caffeine meter to "stupid prat" level for that one.

As far as I can tell, with no accuracy whatsoever, having upended the head and inserted the clamp bolt UP through the half bowl, centred it as carefully as possible, then measuring from the bolt centre to one of the lobes on the "tricorn" that makes up the receiver (everyone still with me?), the diameter would be...............drum roll...........66.32 mm, er, no, that's the radius, clot, try, um, 132.64 mm.

Er, however, having re - read the question in light of finding a spare grey cell that was having the day off, a more accurate measure would have to be the diagonals of the head plate itself, which, without knobbly bits, runs to 155 mm each, max.

Throw in assorted knobbly bits and adding another 10 mm to that would be prudent.


until you take the tour you haven't seen anything


That sounds like one scary setup you've got. The street lights all over town must dim every time you fire up that server farm!

You running "pay per view" services for most of the Southern US of A, or haven't quite got there yet?


CS

Thanks for the answers as that is a big help in getting my thought process going the right way. And no comments about my thought process please.

As far as the system, the drives spin down when not in use so the electric bill does not get impacted in a big way. When you access a file then that drives spins up while watching then after a period of being idle it will spin back down. It is a fancy toy but we use it all the time so it has become a very useful toy. We have even had the teams over to watch games more than a few times. I just found a 45 drive server setup so I will start playing with that idea next, I am even surprised they got all of that in one box. No ppv yet as my movie library just hit 1800, working on becoming Netflix.

Peter is working on the demo, thanks. I will order my parts so they are here when they VB gets here and its off to the races again.

Peter is working on the demo

Good to hear, er, read, he's obviously answering your mails, wish he'd do the same to mine once in a while (dig).

Just in case you're wondering (which I doubt you were) the reason I've not enquired about what it is you're up to with those measurements and "parts" is not down to any lack of curiosity, oh no.

I've donned my Sherlock Holmes deerstalker hat, filled my pipe with my very own mixture of mind altering substance and have decided to work it out myself, using the bread crumb trail of clues you have so kindly left me to follow.

At this point I think the "Elemetary, my dear Watson" moment may well be some considerable way down the track, though as that phrase was, in fact, never written once in all the SH stories ever published, it seems quite likely it won't get used here either.

It did, for the briefest of moments, occur to me that, what with winter coming on and all, you may be going to knit the VB a little wooly jumper in Texas Rose yellow, though the thought was quickly dismissed as irreconcilable with the aforementioned "parts".

That and the fact that from memory, the VB will work at temperatures so chilling the operator will, long before, have thought "Sod this for a game of soldiers", packed his/ her gear and made a beeline for the nearest pub with a hot fire and cold beer.

I shall continue my deliberations and keep you posted, though why I would do the latter when you know what you're doing already, makes no sense whatsoever.


CS

Yes, winter is coming on in fact we are to be near 32C tomorrow, bone chilling I would say.

Let's say I have a few ideas swirling around but remember my goal is to be able to pan and not tilt with the second camera. Parts for the experiment are less than $20 so I won't break the bank but that will cover 2 different mounts for the VB. Good thing my time is cheap because I have spent so many hours reading, searching, and studying your review of the VB I could almost recite it by memory.

I also asked Peter for detailed measurements so lets see what he comes up with. I think I have downloaded every pdf that has something to say about the VB system and there is little info there as to measurements. BTW, I think he answered my email due to the chuckles he is getting from reading this thread as he said he had been following our banter.

HMOG.................

Anyone who could recite one of my reviews from memory has definately got "The Force" with them (that, or definately due for a long stay in the local nut house, paraphrase at will).

More power to your elbow, (a phrase used in many English speaking areas of the planet, USA excluded, as they don't really speak English).

Go for it, I'm all agog as to what you're going to come up with.

As for Peter, salt of the Earth, just wish he'd answer his effing mails (translate at will, Google is no help on that one).

I have been aware (don't ask me how, I simply don't know, but I know) that Peter &/OR Barbara have been tracking this thread, so I always keep a weather eye on what is happening with that in mind, and a few chuckles along the way never does any harm.

(Hi, Peter and Babs, how you doing? The occasional mail wouldn't go amiss - you never write, you never call, what's a mother to do?).

Good luck with your creation, Richard, and tell us what you think of the VB, dying to hear that one.

More, as and when.


CS

Soucy pimping Vinten Vision Blue again.

Disgraceful!

You need to do what the BBC did here when advertising Radio Times Magazine. Small print:

"* Other listings magazines are available."

I've started to mount a small Panasonic with wide angle lens onto the top of my usual camera, and it's amazing how many times the pictures from this get used. Obviously you'd have to make up a frame of some kind to get yours on top of each other, but it should be possible, and with the wide angle on the top and the main camera at the bottom, stability should be ok.

Richard...I'm getting into this conversation late, but has anyone suggested looking at the 'Astronomy' community? They do a lot of 'dual' instrument viewing, and I've seen some rigs with 'huge' payloads on them. A Co. that comes to mind is 'Losmandy'. Scott Losmandy is a Machinist 'extraordinaire', if you needed something 'unusual' I'm sure he could help.

JMHO, YMMV.

J.

Well, hello Mike, bit late to the party, what you been up to and what do you think of it so far?


CS

Richard..............

A question or three for you.

The original photo you linked to showed that Manfrotto bar mounted on what appears to be a standard stills tripod, is that correct?

Irrespective of the answer to the previous question, what mechanism was/ is in place to prevent the bar from simply unwinding off the mounting stud if subjected to the right force in the right direction?

Is that mechanism, if it exists, going to translate to the use of a Manfrotto 520/ 500 ball, each with their 3 head lock screws?

If you don't know already, both the 500 & 520 have three screws embedded in the flat bed of the top, which are designed to impinge on the underside of a flat bottomed head to prevent it being unwound from the 3/8" mounting bolt once tightened.

Is it possible to post some pics of the underside of the bar mount block and provide dimensions, so I can attempt to work out if the screws on either adapter, will, if fact, lock that bar or not?

If I can establish that, I'll feel a lot happier about it's use, or at least be able to start thinking about a workround.

If anyone actually knows the answer to the question just posed, please pipe up and save everyone a lot of buggering about.

Richard, it's not necessary to link to outside sites for pics - simply scroll down below your "Reply to Thread" box and click on "Manage Attachments" (do make the resultant box full screen, as relevant controls aren't visible otherwise) and simply point to the relevant files you wish to upload, hit the "er, what's it called?" button on the far right to "DO" the upload and it's done.

I do hope this has made some semblance of sense.


CS

Actually I came up with what I feel will be a much better mount using the VB system. I hope I can describe it so it will make sense.

A single plate going under the head and extending to both sides of the head. It will be milled so the head will fit down into the plate slightly and have L shaped brackets on either side that will secure the bracket to the shoulders of the VB head. The bracket will have a hole in the center that the VB ball will fit through so it will still be mounted to the tripod in its normal way. The wide shot camera will sit to the left of the head and if I need to counter balance it I will be able to do that on the right side. I can mount a lightweight head so I can tilt the wide shot camera to frame the field. Don't ask me to draw it but I can see it in my mind so I am pretty sure I can make it.

Since I have not been able to find a shot of the underside of the VB head I am not sure of the clearance I will need so the head will still be able to pan. This mount would have several advantages but mainly being much lighter as I can mill it out of aluminum and it would still be stiff enough to hold the wide shot camera without flexing. The second camera would have a slightly larger arc than the one mounted on the VB head but that should not be much of an impact on the shot.

One thing that I will need to do is add weight to the VB head. I saw where you have a great little CB box and you said you were going to do a write up on it but I cannot find any details about it. So if you could please provide us with your little electronics box CB. See I do use the search feature!


And to answer your question my tripod has 4 screws that I used to anchor the Manfrotto quick release. That plate was what the Manfrotto arm was attached to and I had to use a very large set of slip joint pliers to tighten the knob that attached to the plate. The two heads for the cameras were tightened in the same manor since there is no way to get it done by hand, just a really bad design. Plain bolt heads would have been much better than the knobs since you could get a wrench on that. I will post pictures tomorrow.

And I do know that if this works it is very close to what you wanted me to do in the first place, a single plate that holds both cameras. I am still trying to accomplish what I want which is to have the wide shot camera only pan.

BTW, I have no "manage attachments" anywhere. I thought that was strange since I have that on other forums. Maybe my permissions aren't correct since I had some issues getting my account approved so I could post in the first place. Time to contact the admins.

I looked at the Losmandy site and they do some very fine work. Maybe if my idea works someone else will get it made.

Well, hello Mike, bit late to the party, what you been up to and what do you think of it so far?


Chris - I don't think I have the required level of invention to provide constructive feedback!

I was going to suggest something like Paul's camera-on-a-camera solution as something that would just work easily, but I can see that Richard is a lot less afraid of going into the workshop and making things than I am!

If my new idea for the mount works then there will be no mechanical side to it anymore which would be sooo much better. The current mount that I came up with was due to the type of tripod I had and what ideas I could come up for that. A lot of weight and a lot of mass to work with that will be gone. Trust me I searched here and looked at everything thing I could find on dual camera mounts trying to find something that would do what I wanted. The new idea does away with all of that and it will just take a little patience to get it fitted and working I hope.

Since I can now post attachments:

...........I have not been able to find a shot of the underside of the VB head


Well, you have now..........

I think I've got a handle on your plan, though you may want to factor in a couple of holes in the plate surrounding the ball/ under the head so that the plate is actually bolted to the head base.

Those bolts holding the head base to the head are 3 mm Allen Key headed, what I don't know is how much meat is on them or whether you'd need to find longer replacements.

Remember too (though you're probably waaaay ahead of me) that you don't have a lot of wriggle room between the head base and tripod reciever, if you take into account the need to level the head on possible non level terrain, which means the plate between the two must be kept as thin as possible, with a possible 90 degree bend beyond the head/ receiver outer perimeter to give it the necessary rigidity.

Taking that one step further, it may be wise to have a 90 degree bend in both the left/ right axis and another perpendicular to the first in the rear/ forward axis, then Argon Tig/ Mig welding the two together at the join.

Another thing to note is that distinct beump where the pan lock shaft enters the body, which will require a cutout.

In case anyone is wondering where the fourth bolt dissapeared to, there isn't one.

The $64,000 questions are these:

1. Is Peter Harman going to have a fit of the vapours if you (partially) dismantle the loaner head?

2. If you do perform 1, that the base of the head isn't going to explode, showering everything within a 10 metre radius with springs, cogs, rachets and cams?

3. That performing 1. on the "real" VB (if it happens) isn't going to kybosh your warranty.

Whoa! Belay most of the above aka spot the deliberate mistake!

If you use the bolts holding the head together to attach the plate, instead of the top of the bolt heads being level with the base surface, the BOTTOM of the bolt head will be sitting ON the plate, which is REALLY going to limit head leveling.

Back on yer heads and keep thinking.


CS

PS: Subsequent thoughts:

1. Replace Allen head bolts with flat head machine screws, maybe get you a mil or two.

2. Line the top inside rim of the half BOWL with a flexble plastic strip, say 3 - 5 mm wide, that runs around the entire inside circumference, similar type of plastic as used for washing detergent squeezy bottles, maybe.

This will lift the half BALL up out of the BOWL by 4 - 6 mm depending on thickness of strip, but should still give you plenty of meat on the clamp knob and bolt.

The two together should pretty well solve the leveling adjustment issue.

Thanks for the pic as that could make things very easy.

As you said there is not much room between the head base and the tripod receiver (your measurement of 1/2 inch) so that is why I was going to mill out an area for the base of the head to fit into. That will make the portion under the head thinner but should still maintain it strength as it still has meat on the sides. The more I leave on the sides the stronger it will be overall. If it is not strong enough then I will have to add some sort of bracket that will sit on the shoulders of the head to add support. It might be a little strange looking with the bracket going all the way around the pan lock but who cares.

With the three screws in the bottom of the head I could just use those to attach my bracket to the head. I will see when the demo gets here. And Peter shouldn't worry because there is no way I am taking a demo unit apart. If I like what I see I will order one and screw up my unit. It shouldn't be rocket science to make a mount. The other thing I can do with the screws is drill and tap them so I could use a very small screw down the center to attach the plate, depends on their diameter.

I was figuring on two cutouts, one for the pan lock and the other for the pan drag dial. Remember the plate will fit around the base of the head.

And if all else fails lining the bowl as you suggested will easily give me the additional room I might end up needing. Since this dual head mount will be used mostly for football then I really shouldn't have any issues with the tripod being level, either in the stands or on the pressbox.

Man are you really giving your brain a workout over this! Where are the details on your cb box????

Ah, the CB box.

Well, my first idea foundered on the fact that all the boxes I could get my hands on were' exceedingly thin walled and ditto soft alluminium, leaving no meat for any screw attachment to really be secure.

Attempt two is still awaiting for the arrival here on Saturn of a Manfrotto 577 adapter:

Manfrotto 577 Rapid Connect Adapter with Sliding Mounting 577

The basic idea is for two components:

1. A length of 5 mm walled steel RHS, 50 mm X 50 mm and slightly longer than the adapter.

This would have the bottom face drilled and tapped to accept two 1/4" X 20 screws through either the head slide plate OR component 2.

In addition, the top face would have two holes drilled to allow two additional 1/4" X 20 screws to pass through freely to screw into either the 2 X 1/4" holes in the 577 adapter OR the base of component 2.

In line with those holes would be two additional holes in the base face to allow access for a screwdriver to do those screws up.

Yep, you guessed, the two sets of holes in the base face must be out of alignmet else it won't work.

Additionally, the 577 MAY need to be offset to the right face (looking from the rear) as a "hippy" camera on the 577 MAY prevent the adapter lock lever swinging correctly if the lever is not hangng over the side.

Additionally (this is gonna be the Rolls Royce of CB systems, I'm telling you) the inside left and right faces of the RHS will have two rails spot welded to each face, each rail being just long enough to accomodate component 2, with lifts at both ends of the rails to keep the component in place whilst testing is completed.

Once a suitable configuration has been achieved, one or both of component 2's can be fixed permanently within the rails using supplied screws through access holes in the left/ right faces into tapped holes in the side faces of component 2.

2. is a slab of steel at least 10 mm thick that will fit into the rail system in the 50 X 50 "lifter", but, it gets better.

Each one is drilled and tapped on the bottom face to accept 2 X 20's AND they are drilled and countersunk with access holes to allow 2 X 20's to pass through, either into the 577, the lifter box or the other "weight plate" as I call it.

In short, you can mix and match height and weight distribution in just about any way you like. The only fly in the ointment is you must start/ finish with a 577 adapter.

So, to demonstrate how this works, let's call the "lifter" - 1 and each weight plate (I'm expecting to supply 2 of, if it ever happens) - 2, every configuration must have the 577 on top, so I will ignore it.

Here goes, some possible configurations: Every item after the plus is "on top" of the item before, those in brackets are in the rails, L = lower rail, H = higher

0
2
2+2
1
2+1
2+2+1
2+1+2
1+2
1+2+2
1 [2L]
1 [2H]
1 [2L+2H]

There are heaps I've missed, but you get the idea.

If you can't get your camera to CB with that lot, you must be trying to get a POV to CB on an OB head!

Quite how you do all this without access to a CNG, or is that CNC?, machine (which I'm hoping to find here very shortly) is a bit of a mystery, though the lifter on it's own is pretty well doable for a reasonably tooled up engineer like yourself.

BTW, the reason for two 1/4" X 20 is that this stack is gonna get pretty high and one just ain't gonna cut it, not with an HD cam on top, anyway.

Let me know if I've missed anything.


CS

This works.
Tripod head is of nodal type and tilt axis is same as camera centre of gravity i.e. no springs etc required. Pan axis is under red spot. The small camera (TM900) is mounted on a ball but it could just as easily be mounted on its own fluid head. The second pic shows the EX3 replaced by a boom. Fluid damped booms are interesting.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/images/attach/jpg.gifhttp://www.dvinfo.net/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif

Geez, Alastair...........

Who in the heck engineered that bit of kit?

Doesn't look like anything "off the shelf" I've ever seen, and I shudder to think of the cost of having it made bespoke.

That first HTTP link you put in takes one into the abyss, btw.

Interesting thought, though, even if it looks like it would cost a kings ransom.


CS

And you thought my first bastard rig was a mess, it is nothing compared to your cb setup!

Alastair must be a master in the machine shop as his small fluid head shows.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/tripod-sticks-heads/501553-small-true-fluid-head.html

Just in case anyone is thinking this thread has been swallowed by some sort of black hole, wrong.

We're waiting on the arrival at Richards' of the Vinten VB loaner, amongst other things, which I will leave to Richard to do the necessary about.

I am still waiting on the arrival of the Manfrotto 577 adapter so that my CB box can see the light of day, though as I am imagining it currently doing breast stroke down the Suez canal, it could still be some time.

Do not adjust your sets, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.


CS

Ironic that I now have two 577s, and only need one. The world is ill-divided, Mr S!

I gather that Richard's aim for this exercise is to be able to pan two cameras at once but with tilt control on one camera (using a longer focal length) only.

I am a little vague as to what the plan is for the “loaner” Vision Blue, maybe all will be revealed in due course.

The set-up shown in my previous post is possible because there is easy access to a sizeable platform between pan and tilt units to which a second camera can be attached. It would be very easy to modify a design like the Miller LP (below) to do something similar. I have bought a couple of these for about $60 each at a local flea market. Despite being about 40 years old the one shown works very well and internally there are very few signs of wear. I have modified the mounting platform to facilitate camera attachment and initial balance.

In this head the tilt unit is attached to the pan drum by three internal bolts (1/4” Whit). If a suitable plate was fitted between the base of the tilt unit and the pan drum it would provide an attachment point for a second camera. It would be a simple and reversible modification.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif

Alastair you are exactly right on the two camera setup.

As to the loaner I think Chris's aim to to be able to show me what "quality" is without the cost of purchase. Since I know nothing about equipment that will give me an idea of the direction I want to go in my purchase of equipment. I don't want to spend that kind of money but would if I think it is that good. I have 3 years left of high school with our kids so I know I can get good use out of anything I purchase as I am filming football, basketball, volleyball, and anything other thing the kids get into.

As to the Miller head something like that would be so easy to modify, build a plate, get 3 longer bolts, and I am in business. The main question would be would this head be too much for small camcorders? How smooth would the pan/tilt be with little weight. Since football is the only thing I film with two cameras maybe a setup like this would work great and still not cost much. My issue is that I am so in the dark as to what might work and what won't work.

If you are doing the machining on the two items you have shown in this thread then you are quite the master.

Hi Richard,

I can’t remember the weight rating of the LP (light professional) heads, but I think it was around 20 pounds. However this style of head has no counter springs so it will tip forward or backwards as the case might be if the camera’s C. of G. is not exactly over the tilt axis. I do not know how Miller estimated weight ratings in those days but the LP has no bearings as such and the silicone fluid, although very good at damping, is not regarded as a good lubricant. I suspect the rating was more related to the surface area of the fluid film than anything else. Weight ratings of current tripod heads have to take into account the weight of the camera and the height of its C.of G. above the tilt axis.

I have previously posted pictures of two homemade heads (thanks for the compliments re machining) that do not require balance springs as the aim is to align the camera’s C.of G. with the tilt axis. When set up correctly the camera can be left in any position and stay there. It makes for a bulky head but as they can be mounted with the pan unit uppermost, use very close to the ground is possible. I am currently working on a new system that makes low level work much easier. I can effect fluid damped pans and tilts with a “tripod/ tripod head” combination that stands at about 3” high. Very slow pans are possible thus permitting the use of longer focal lengths.

I have modified my LP so that I can move the camera backwards or forwards to suit the choice of lens etc and the tilt angle that I am working on. I do not have to tilt the camera very far before I have to counter the the effect of the shift in centre of gravity. In practice I rarely perform extensive tilts so this behaviour is not of great concern. A lighter and lower camera would reduce this effect. However despite this limitation it is capable of smooth movements as one would expect, after all it was an industry standard in its day, at least in this country. I would think it would satisfy your current needs.

Interesting mod Alistair. That is the same style of fluid head I have been using, very controllable and very predictable.

For very past pans, the friction even when backed right off will move the tripod over or force the ball mount over unless you brace to the camera or lens with second hand. This is not always the best for lightweight plastic camera body/tripod base structures like small Sonys which tend to tear away. Another older black Miller design has an extra free pan stage with a release thumbscrew. In real world it is difficult to go after when you are tracking a moving object. I inevitably fly ahead of the shot when the friction is released, so no real advantage. The tilt on this head has two thumbscrews for friction plus the wheel. I never did really work out what did what except that the wheel seemed to lock it. Smoothest and most controllable of them all though.

My solution has been to use a second pan/tilt handle in the spare mount which is found on the older Millers and to face it forward into a convenient seesaw arrangement. It also can become a handy rest for the wrist of the lens control hand.

Interesting head, and eminately modifiable as already said.

However, my concerns would be:

Maddeningly, the photo does not show the clamp knob.

The reason that is important is that those sticks look like you'd need a small team of native bearers to transport the support system alone, so a new, lightweight set of sticks would be a must unless you're trying out for the Olympic Weight Lifting Team.

Hence, needing to know the format and dimensions of the clamp knob & cup to determine compatability.

Also, is that a 75 or 100 mm bowl/ ball?

The absence of a CB system of any sort is also a worry. Shooting an entire football game, hanging on to the pan bar like grim death, is going to be a major issue.

Dialling in drag is just as bad, as then you're trying to get it to move when it doesn't want to for the duration, and you're back to the Olympics team again.

As for the VB loaner, yep, it's all about getting to test drive something without having to risk the budget buying it first and finding out it's not for you, you need a baseline to determine any decision.

Unfortunately, I can't think of one modern fluid head that is easily modifiable to suport both a tilting and a non tilting cam at the same time, as that Miller is.

However, the Miller's downsides may make it unusable as well.

As for a COG head, I can't think of a current production model that allows for that scenario either, so it's a bit of a stalemate at the moment.

I'll wait for the VB trial and take it from there, and I'm sure Richard "has a plan" up his sleeve.


CS