Magiqcam

Joe Sacher · November 5th, 2003, 10:31 AM

I don't think I would score the paint. This is just one setup, of which you will most likely have many while the Magiqcam lasts. I figure that I would include a small, short (6') tape measure in my kit and a small notepad with settings for various configurations. Setup with just camera, camera with ME66 mic on top, camera with light, etc.

I like the idea of using a mic stand. I've got an old one sitting around and didn't think about using it for that.

I've got a few weeks to wait, but I hope it gets here soon. :)

Dave Stewart · November 5th, 2003, 02:59 PM

Yes, I think I'll not mark up the unit. Someone said to use whiteout, which can be wiped off with mild solvent. Sounded like sound advice. At least you can use them as a rough estimate and do final tweaking at the job. I did a little jogging with it as well and someone watching me said the camera stayed level like a bird's head. Very cool.

Dave Largent · December 26th, 2003, 01:08 PM

Anyone know if the Magicqams being built now have an arm with an adjustible pitch? I believe that when Charles Papert met with the Magicqam owner, Charles had made some suggestions for improvement. About a month or so back I had corresponded with the owner who had said that all of Charles' suggestions had been incorporated.
I currently have the Steadicam JR (for the moment, anyway). Does the Magicqam gimbal have the capability to tilt?

Charles Papert · December 26th, 2003, 03:42 PM

Dave:

As far as I've heard, the adjustments are in place in the current production model Magiqcam.

The gimbal does tilt, through a complete range as with the other axes.

jonniesiri · December 29th, 2003, 09:32 AM

Has anyone have any success with Magiqcam? I'm looking at Glidecam V-16 plus low mode and vehicle mount. If magiqcam support low mode and vehicle mount, I'll definitely go with magiqcam.

Dave Largent · December 29th, 2003, 01:38 PM

I had a gig pop up for New Years where a floatation device would come in handy. I tried using a monopod as a stabilizer for flying. It *is* better than
handheld but it doesn't cut the mustard. And in a
short amount of time, with a VX and a wide angle,
your arm begins to shake.
I haven't yet called tech support on the JR. My
gut-level feeling is that the VX weight is pushing the
limits of the JR. And the VX is pushing the
limits of my arm. Suddenly, the Magiqcam
is looking better.
Charles, that guy with the HBS, who shot the
skate board footage, how did he shoot that?
Was he running while shooting? I wanna shoot
like that guy!

Charles Papert · December 29th, 2003, 05:47 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by jonniesiri : Has anyone have any success with Magiqcam? I'm looking at Glidecam V-16 plus low mode and vehicle mount. If magiqcam support low mode and vehicle mount, I'll definitely go with magiqcam. -->>>

Magiqcam does have a low mode setup on their website . Haven't seen a vehicle mount listed, but that is a very simple part & I would recommend basing your decision around the stabilizers themselves.

Regarding low-mode--it's easier and sometimes better to just flip the unit upside down and rebalance, then re-invert the image in post. The mount is usually more stable this way than a suspended cage setup, and definitely quicker to configure.

Dave;

I can't say for sure about Cody's skateboard material, it looks like he was riding one himself. At that speed, I would have expected some jitter in the footage if he was running flat out. I personally don't recommend using a wearable stabilizer in conjunction with skateboard/rollerblades/skis and the like; if your center of gravity shifts suddenly you can lose control of the rig and the crash can be spectacular. Many have done it successfully, however; some have come home with their rigs in a trash bag.

Cody has definitely put in his practice time with his gear, and it shows.

Kevin Maistros · December 31st, 2003, 10:02 AM

I will be purchasing the Magiqcam rig very soon and will let you know my thoughts as well.

Dave Largent · January 1st, 2004, 04:03 PM

Do let us know, Kevin. Have you used any
stabilizer before?

Kevin Maistros · January 2nd, 2004, 12:45 AM

Yes. I've used a friend's HMS before. In car, on rollerblades, running, walking, backwards and forwards for all of them, and even on a glide cable.

I'm no Charles Papert when it comes to my expertise with body stabalizers, but I know what looks good and what doesn't and from a "down and dirty" aspect, I can give you my opinion on it as a creative user of such rigs.... and test footage.

Dave Largent · January 2nd, 2004, 02:14 AM

I'm "this close" to getting the Magiqcam. The handheld
didn't work out for me. I'm not "Arnold", if you know what I mean.

Kevin Maistros · January 13th, 2004, 05:46 AM

I recieved my camera yesterday and my first initial thoughts are, "wow, how did most people miss this?" -

I recieved it in it's carrying case today, and out of the box I had it assembled in about 5 minutes. Cross balancing was easy, because of the Table top camera mount sliding far left and right or front and back. It has a series of different positioned holes on the table to help even further for cross balancing. The kit comes with 5 or 6 heavy washers, that slide onto a the weight pole on the slanted sled arm. Then there's a retainer ring you put over the washers, that tightens to the metal nub which holds the washers. You can move both sled arms at the bottom around 360 degrees to help balance when you have monitor/batteries/weights on it. The vest is very comfortable, and very easily adjustable.

I havn't had the chance yet to use it in "normal" practice, just in my house and around my neighboorhood for a small amount of time. When I did test it, though it ran extrememly smooth in all functions. I can already in my first hour outdo their demo footage on the magiqcam website.. which means I'm pretty confident in saying who-ever was using the magiqcam for that demo footage didn't know how to use a stabilizer or must have really been jerking it around... hard. I ran to my local BP and back with it, and got back just a big tired. The vest has pretty good weight distribution and wasn't too hard on my lower back. I was using it with an XL-1s that had more accessories than R2-D2 on it.

I'll have a more in depth review when I have the chance to use it in more extreme conditions, and a video short to watch.

Kevin Maistros · January 13th, 2004, 05:48 AM

I'm very very happy with this purchase, and got much more than what I was expecting from it. I'll have the more in-depth review very soon as I'll be using it on an upcoming local production. I'll even have a review on the low-dog mode, too.

Dave Largent · January 13th, 2004, 12:41 PM

How long did it take to get it between ordering and
arrival?
Also, does the arm have an adjustible pitch angle
from the vest?
Does anyone have an idea which of the two Magiqcams would be better for my situation? My cam (with accessories) is on the upper weight limit of the smaller unit they offer and it's on the lower
weight limit of their larger rig. The lower arm
section of their larger unit has a spring and there
appears to be about a 3" section between where
the upper and lower arm sections meet. The smaller
rig has a lower arm section with no spring and
it appears there is only about a 1" distance between
where the upper section meets the lower.
Any opinions on the smaller versus the larger
rig (i.e. springed lower section versus not,
and 1" versus 3" between the arm sections)
and how this might affect usage/performance
would be, of course, appreciated.

Charles Papert · January 13th, 2004, 12:58 PM

Dave:

The dual arm will give you a much greater boom range than the single arm, and for $200 it would be worth it. You'd just make yourself a steel plate to bring your camera up a few lbs. I'd get it into the middle of the weight range of the 2a, these design of arms work better when they are at their top load than their minimum. The other thing is that this leaves you some flex in load bearing for unseen accessories (onboard light? lightweight telemprompter? Mini35?) or a bigger camera down the road.

More mass on the rig also means more stable shots. Unless you are planning marathon shooting sessions, the added weight shouldn't be a killer once you've gotten used to it. It's nowhere near as insidious as a handheld stabilizer that way. And yes, I have confirmed that the Magiqcam now offers an adjustable pitch connection at the vest, which makes it an exceptional value at this price point.

As far as the apparent gap in the arm: the less gap, the more range generally. John at Animagique should be able to answer this for you. Tell him I sent you!

December 26th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#19
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Dave: As far as I've heard, the adjustments are in place in the current production model Magiqcam. The gimbal does tilt, through a complete range as with the other axes. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 29th, 2003, 09:32 AM	#20
jonniesiri Posting suspended -- Contact Admin Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: TN Posts: 12	Low mode & Vehicle mount Has anyone have any success with Magiqcam? I'm looking at Glidecam V-16 plus low mode and vehicle mount. If magiqcam support low mode and vehicle mount, I'll definitely go with magiqcam.

December 29th, 2003, 05:47 PM	#22
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Re: Low mode & Vehicle mount <<<-- Originally posted by jonniesiri : Has anyone have any success with Magiqcam? I'm looking at Glidecam V-16 plus low mode and vehicle mount. If magiqcam support low mode and vehicle mount, I'll definitely go with magiqcam. -->>> Magiqcam does have a low mode setup on their website . Haven't seen a vehicle mount listed, but that is a very simple part & I would recommend basing your decision around the stabilizers themselves. Regarding low-mode--it's easier and sometimes better to just flip the unit upside down and rebalance, then re-invert the image in post. The mount is usually more stable this way than a suspended cage setup, and definitely quicker to configure. Dave; I can't say for sure about Cody's skateboard material, it looks like he was riding one himself. At that speed, I would have expected some jitter in the footage if he was running flat out. I personally don't recommend using a wearable stabilizer in conjunction with skateboard/rollerblades/skis and the like; if your center of gravity shifts suddenly you can lose control of the rig and the crash can be spectacular. Many have done it successfully, however; some have come home with their rigs in a trash bag. Cody has definitely put in his practice time with his gear, and it shows. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 13th, 2004, 12:58 PM	#30
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Dave: The dual arm will give you a much greater boom range than the single arm, and for $200 it would be worth it. You'd just make yourself a steel plate to bring your camera up a few lbs. I'd get it into the middle of the weight range of the 2a, these design of arms work better when they are at their top load than their minimum. The other thing is that this leaves you some flex in load bearing for unseen accessories (onboard light? lightweight telemprompter? Mini35?) or a bigger camera down the road. More mass on the rig also means more stable shots. Unless you are planning marathon shooting sessions, the added weight shouldn't be a killer once you've gotten used to it. It's nowhere near as insidious as a handheld stabilizer that way. And yes, I have confirmed that the Magiqcam now offers an adjustable pitch connection at the vest, which makes it an exceptional value at this price point. As far as the apparent gap in the arm: the less gap, the more range generally. John at Animagique should be able to answer this for you. Tell him I sent you! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

November 5th, 2003, 10:31 AM	#16
Joe Sacher Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 177	I don't think I would score the paint. This is just one setup, of which you will most likely have many while the Magiqcam lasts. I figure that I would include a small, short (6') tape measure in my kit and a small notepad with settings for various configurations. Setup with just camera, camera with ME66 mic on top, camera with light, etc. I like the idea of using a mic stand. I've got an old one sitting around and didn't think about using it for that. I've got a few weeks to wait, but I hope it gets here soon. :)

November 5th, 2003, 02:59 PM	#17
Dave Stewart Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 109	Yes, I think I'll not mark up the unit. Someone said to use whiteout, which can be wiped off with mild solvent. Sounded like sound advice. At least you can use them as a rough estimate and do final tweaking at the job. I did a little jogging with it as well and someone watching me said the camera stayed level like a bird's head. Very cool.

December 26th, 2003, 01:08 PM	#18
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Anyone know if the Magicqams being built now have an arm with an adjustible pitch? I believe that when Charles Papert met with the Magicqam owner, Charles had made some suggestions for improvement. About a month or so back I had corresponded with the owner who had said that all of Charles' suggestions had been incorporated. I currently have the Steadicam JR (for the moment, anyway). Does the Magicqam gimbal have the capability to tilt?

December 29th, 2003, 01:38 PM	#21
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I had a gig pop up for New Years where a floatation device would come in handy. I tried using a monopod as a stabilizer for flying. It is better than handheld but it doesn't cut the mustard. And in a short amount of time, with a VX and a wide angle, your arm begins to shake. I haven't yet called tech support on the JR. My gut-level feeling is that the VX weight is pushing the limits of the JR. And the VX is pushing the limits of my arm. Suddenly, the Magiqcam is looking better. Charles, that guy with the HBS, who shot the skate board footage, how did he shoot that? Was he running while shooting? I wanna shoot like that guy!

December 31st, 2003, 10:02 AM	#23
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	I will be purchasing the Magiqcam rig very soon and will let you know my thoughts as well.

January 1st, 2004, 04:03 PM	#24
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Do let us know, Kevin. Have you used any stabilizer before?

January 2nd, 2004, 12:45 AM	#25
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	Yes. I've used a friend's HMS before. In car, on rollerblades, running, walking, backwards and forwards for all of them, and even on a glide cable. I'm no Charles Papert when it comes to my expertise with body stabalizers, but I know what looks good and what doesn't and from a "down and dirty" aspect, I can give you my opinion on it as a creative user of such rigs.... and test footage.

January 2nd, 2004, 02:14 AM	#26
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I'm "this close" to getting the Magiqcam. The handheld didn't work out for me. I'm not "Arnold", if you know what I mean.

January 13th, 2004, 05:46 AM	#27
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	I recieved my camera yesterday and my first initial thoughts are, "wow, how did most people miss this?" - I recieved it in it's carrying case today, and out of the box I had it assembled in about 5 minutes. Cross balancing was easy, because of the Table top camera mount sliding far left and right or front and back. It has a series of different positioned holes on the table to help even further for cross balancing. The kit comes with 5 or 6 heavy washers, that slide onto a the weight pole on the slanted sled arm. Then there's a retainer ring you put over the washers, that tightens to the metal nub which holds the washers. You can move both sled arms at the bottom around 360 degrees to help balance when you have monitor/batteries/weights on it. The vest is very comfortable, and very easily adjustable. I havn't had the chance yet to use it in "normal" practice, just in my house and around my neighboorhood for a small amount of time. When I did test it, though it ran extrememly smooth in all functions. I can already in my first hour outdo their demo footage on the magiqcam website.. which means I'm pretty confident in saying who-ever was using the magiqcam for that demo footage didn't know how to use a stabilizer or must have really been jerking it around... hard. I ran to my local BP and back with it, and got back just a big tired. The vest has pretty good weight distribution and wasn't too hard on my lower back. I was using it with an XL-1s that had more accessories than R2-D2 on it. I'll have a more in depth review when I have the chance to use it in more extreme conditions, and a video short to watch.

January 13th, 2004, 05:48 AM	#28
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	I'm very very happy with this purchase, and got much more than what I was expecting from it. I'll have the more in-depth review very soon as I'll be using it on an upcoming local production. I'll even have a review on the low-dog mode, too.

January 13th, 2004, 12:41 PM	#29
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	How long did it take to get it between ordering and arrival? Also, does the arm have an adjustible pitch angle from the vest? Does anyone have an idea which of the two Magiqcams would be better for my situation? My cam (with accessories) is on the upper weight limit of the smaller unit they offer and it's on the lower weight limit of their larger rig. The lower arm section of their larger unit has a spring and there appears to be about a 3" section between where the upper and lower arm sections meet. The smaller rig has a lower arm section with no spring and it appears there is only about a 1" distance between where the upper section meets the lower. Any opinions on the smaller versus the larger rig (i.e. springed lower section versus not, and 1" versus 3" between the arm sections) and how this might affect usage/performance would be, of course, appreciated.