Does the Glidecam 4000 pro work, or is it me?

Charles Papert · November 9th, 2004, 09:59 PM

A top heavy rig will actually fall over and hang upside down. A rig that drops faster than 2 seconds will appear to be more stable, but will pendulum during acceleration and starts and stops as Zach noticed; also will require too much force to make a significant tilt.

With a 2-3 second drop time, it's true that it will act more "squirrely" and require a more delicate touch, but those are the conditions under which the best shots will be delivered.

Ken Beals · November 10th, 2004, 01:21 AM

Extremely fascinating thread on the physics and frustrations involved in getting these stabilizer gizmos balanced especially the Glidecam 4000.

Appreciated reading all the great inputs.

Speaking of balance...finally purchased my own gear, a Sony PD170 and the stabilizer I purchased was an ultralite made by Hollywood lite. It would not balance due to the extra front end weight of the WA lens.

It is going back to B&H and am considering replacing with a Glidecam 4000.

Without getting too dangerously close to changing the subject I have a couple concerns before purchasing the 4000 that some of my peers here could help me out with.

First, has anyone used a PD170 on a Glidecam 4k and have been able to get a good balance ?

Second, according to some of these posts it sounds like one needs the forearms of a sailor named Popeye to endure using the device.

That said, would you recommend getting the body harness or forearm accessories or can you develop endurance and techniques to minimize fatique?

Whew ! That was a bit lengthy. Thanks in advance for all your feedback(s)

Ken
Agape Productions
Mesa, Az.

Charles Papert · November 10th, 2004, 07:22 AM

Ken:

Start eating your spinach, mate!

A body mount will help considerably with the fatigue aspect, but bear in mind that you lose some of the flexibility of a handheld system, namely the ability to adjust your lens height from very low to above your head. Of course, you can always go handheld for those shots in particular.

Check out this 3rd-party bodymount system. The man behind it, Terry Thompson, posts here regularly so you can ask him questions about it.

Dennis Chapin · November 12th, 2004, 12:14 AM

I went with the Varizoom FlowPod and it works very well with the DVX100a. It is alittle on the heavy side but it is easy to balance, it comes with a very slick bracket that clamps to a table and lets the FlowPod float so you can easily balance the camera.

Zach Prichard · November 12th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Charles:

The thing with the pendulum effect for me is that the camera is already bottom heavy enough with just 3 total weights on the bottom (plus the monitor which isn't all THAT heavy) that it has an under 1 second drop time.

Won't adding more weight just make it drop quicker?

George Ellis · November 12th, 2004, 09:18 AM

You could remove weights and possible shorten the staff to lengthen the drop time.

Charles Papert · November 12th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Yes, what George said. If you are out of options for reducing weight on the bottom and the post is as short as possible and it is still bottom heavy, you can add weight up top by the camera.

My guess is that it has something to do with the monitor. If you have this and a battery attached to the front of the rig, you will obviously need back weight on the bottom to counteract this. My recommendation would be to move the battery from under the monitor to the rear of the sled (you'll need to extend the power cable of course) which will spread out the components better. Try taping it in place as a test before you bother with the wiring work to see if it makes sense. You may even be able to remove the washer weights with this scenario, achieve a 2-3 second drop and be working with a lighter rig.

To understand why the 1lb monitor is making such an impact, consider the principles of leverage.

In a perfect world, you would be able to raise the monitor off the bottom plate. A clamp attached about 8" up the center post with a short arm to the monitor wouldn't be too hard to build if you are handy. Keep the battery down at the bottom rear of the base. This is the model of the big rig design, and has been proven to be an efficient and effective distribution of masses.

George Ellis · November 12th, 2004, 12:49 PM

If you need weight up top, a Bogen quick-release will pile it on quickly ;) My old quick-release was about 1 pound!

Simon Wyndham · November 12th, 2004, 01:28 PM

Coming into this late! I'm one person who was mad enough to mount an XL1s onto a GC 2000 Pro once! It actually worked pretty nice, but I'm lucky I have the arms for it!

Good luck to anyone using a 4000Pro with one of those things attached without an arm brace!

Casey Visco · November 14th, 2004, 02:10 PM

Well, the good news is that the Smooth Shooter (the arm and vest system designed for the 2000/4000 Pro) is almost done. So you wont have to rely on your own arms to hold up a fully loaded 4000 Pro.

Jean-Philippe Archibald · November 14th, 2004, 06:29 PM

Casey,

Great to know that glidecam is designing an arm and vest add on for the handheld devices. But don't you think that this system will canibalize the sales of the V8 ?

Casey Visco · November 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Ofcourse it will, Jean-Philippe. A Smooth Shooter/4000 Pro setup would be a great alternative to the V-8...but we're replacing the V-8 as well with a newly designed rig called the V-10. The Smooth Shooter prototype was recently shown at the Satis trade show in France, and the production versions will likely be ready in the coming few months, if not sooner.

Like the V-35 that's already been previewed at the NAB and IBC shows, the V-10 and Smooth Shooter represent a significant departure from the existing line of products in terms of design, engineering and construction. I, for one, am very excited and proud of what we've come up with.

Charles Papert · November 14th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Casey, I think that's great. It's pretty clear that the current (and probably future) line of "serious" DV/HDV cameras are of a weight class that aren't appropriate for handheld stabilizers, but are also in a price range that make larger stabilizers seem too expensive, relatively speaking. Sounds like the Smooth Shooter will service the needs of the digital filmmaker that doesn't need to (or can't afford to) accomodate a larger/more expensive camera package. Looking forward to seeing the new product.

George Ellis · November 15th, 2004, 08:13 AM

As Charles said, looking forward to it. Sounds like a great deal for the occasional time user like me.

November 9th, 2004, 09:59 PM	#46
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	A top heavy rig will actually fall over and hang upside down. A rig that drops faster than 2 seconds will appear to be more stable, but will pendulum during acceleration and starts and stops as Zach noticed; also will require too much force to make a significant tilt. With a 2-3 second drop time, it's true that it will act more "squirrely" and require a more delicate touch, but those are the conditions under which the best shots will be delivered. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 10th, 2004, 07:22 AM	#48
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Ken: Start eating your spinach, mate! A body mount will help considerably with the fatigue aspect, but bear in mind that you lose some of the flexibility of a handheld system, namely the ability to adjust your lens height from very low to above your head. Of course, you can always go handheld for those shots in particular. Check out this 3rd-party bodymount system. The man behind it, Terry Thompson, posts here regularly so you can ask him questions about it. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 12th, 2004, 09:52 AM	#52
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Yes, what George said. If you are out of options for reducing weight on the bottom and the post is as short as possible and it is still bottom heavy, you can add weight up top by the camera. My guess is that it has something to do with the monitor. If you have this and a battery attached to the front of the rig, you will obviously need back weight on the bottom to counteract this. My recommendation would be to move the battery from under the monitor to the rear of the sled (you'll need to extend the power cable of course) which will spread out the components better. Try taping it in place as a test before you bother with the wiring work to see if it makes sense. You may even be able to remove the washer weights with this scenario, achieve a 2-3 second drop and be working with a lighter rig. To understand why the 1lb monitor is making such an impact, consider the principles of leverage. In a perfect world, you would be able to raise the monitor off the bottom plate. A clamp attached about 8" up the center post with a short arm to the monitor wouldn't be too hard to build if you are handy. Keep the battery down at the bottom rear of the base. This is the model of the big rig design, and has been proven to be an efficient and effective distribution of masses. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 14th, 2004, 02:10 PM	#55
Casey Visco Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 280	Well, the good news is that the Smooth Shooter (the arm and vest system designed for the 2000/4000 Pro) is almost done. So you wont have to rely on your own arms to hold up a fully loaded 4000 Pro. __________________ Casey Visco Glidecam Industries, Inc.

November 14th, 2004, 06:29 PM	#56
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Casey, Great to know that glidecam is designing an arm and vest add on for the handheld devices. But don't you think that this system will canibalize the sales of the V8 ? __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

November 10th, 2004, 01:21 AM	#47
Ken Beals Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Tempe, Az Posts: 172	Extremely fascinating thread on the physics and frustrations involved in getting these stabilizer gizmos balanced especially the Glidecam 4000. Appreciated reading all the great inputs. Speaking of balance...finally purchased my own gear, a Sony PD170 and the stabilizer I purchased was an ultralite made by Hollywood lite. It would not balance due to the extra front end weight of the WA lens. It is going back to B&H and am considering replacing with a Glidecam 4000. Without getting too dangerously close to changing the subject I have a couple concerns before purchasing the 4000 that some of my peers here could help me out with. First, has anyone used a PD170 on a Glidecam 4k and have been able to get a good balance ? Second, according to some of these posts it sounds like one needs the forearms of a sailor named Popeye to endure using the device. That said, would you recommend getting the body harness or forearm accessories or can you develop endurance and techniques to minimize fatique? Whew ! That was a bit lengthy. Thanks in advance for all your feedback(s) Ken Agape Productions Mesa, Az.

November 12th, 2004, 12:14 AM	#49
Dennis Chapin New Boot Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: roseville, ca Posts: 10	I went with the Varizoom FlowPod and it works very well with the DVX100a. It is alittle on the heavy side but it is easy to balance, it comes with a very slick bracket that clamps to a table and lets the FlowPod float so you can easily balance the camera.

November 12th, 2004, 08:54 AM	#50
Zach Prichard New Boot Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6	Charles: The thing with the pendulum effect for me is that the camera is already bottom heavy enough with just 3 total weights on the bottom (plus the monitor which isn't all THAT heavy) that it has an under 1 second drop time. Won't adding more weight just make it drop quicker?

November 12th, 2004, 09:18 AM	#51
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	You could remove weights and possible shorten the staff to lengthen the drop time.

November 12th, 2004, 12:49 PM	#53
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	If you need weight up top, a Bogen quick-release will pile it on quickly ;) My old quick-release was about 1 pound!

November 12th, 2004, 01:28 PM	#54
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Coming into this late! I'm one person who was mad enough to mount an XL1s onto a GC 2000 Pro once! It actually worked pretty nice, but I'm lucky I have the arms for it! Good luck to anyone using a 4000Pro with one of those things attached without an arm brace!

November 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM	#57
Casey Visco Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 280	Ofcourse it will, Jean-Philippe. A Smooth Shooter/4000 Pro setup would be a great alternative to the V-8...but we're replacing the V-8 as well with a newly designed rig called the V-10. The Smooth Shooter prototype was recently shown at the Satis trade show in France, and the production versions will likely be ready in the coming few months, if not sooner. Like the V-35 that's already been previewed at the NAB and IBC shows, the V-10 and Smooth Shooter represent a significant departure from the existing line of products in terms of design, engineering and construction. I, for one, am very excited and proud of what we've come up with. __________________ Casey Visco Glidecam Industries, Inc.

November 14th, 2004, 09:20 PM	#58
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Casey, I think that's great. It's pretty clear that the current (and probably future) line of "serious" DV/HDV cameras are of a weight class that aren't appropriate for handheld stabilizers, but are also in a price range that make larger stabilizers seem too expensive, relatively speaking. Sounds like the Smooth Shooter will service the needs of the digital filmmaker that doesn't need to (or can't afford to) accomodate a larger/more expensive camera package. Looking forward to seeing the new product. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 15th, 2004, 08:13 AM	#59
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	As Charles said, looking forward to it. Sounds like a great deal for the occasional time user like me.