Hollywood Lite VS-1 at DVinfo.net

Dave Largent · December 2nd, 2003, 12:45 PM

This is made of aluminum and is for cams under 4 pounds.
Anyone tried it, used it, or heard anything about it? I think they're
marketing it like a Steadycam JR, but better because it's not
plastic. By the way, I recently saw some JR footage that was
smooooth. I'm undecided about the JR because I've heard it's
kind of rolly polly.

Rob Lohman · December 2nd, 2003, 01:56 PM

Do you have a link to this product?

Dave Largent · December 2nd, 2003, 03:48 PM

Here's the link. I have been thinking about a Flowpod. The Flowpod weighs about 5 pounds and the VS-1 is 2 pounds. Thing I like about the VS-1 over the Steadicam JR is that it's not plasic or fiberglass. I have heard of the JR breaking under the
weight of a DVX100.
If you go to the page, click on the *yellow dot* for more information.

http://www.hollywoodlite.com/VS1_Hand_Heldx.html

Bobby Abernathy · December 2nd, 2003, 05:30 PM

Their products look pretty cool. I like the look of their Ultra-Lite stabilizer, which looks similar to the Flowpod, minus the monopod feature. It's only $15 cheaper than the Flowpod at B&H. I can't believe how expensive these things are.

Dave Largent · December 2nd, 2003, 07:59 PM

I know what you're saying about the prices.
One thing that seems appealing about the VS-1 is that it seems to be designed more along the lines of what Charles Papert said was the ideal for these handheld stabilizers--light as possible, wider at the bottom rather than narrow, shorter rather than long. I'm sure Charles will correct me if I'm wrong.

Charles Papert · December 3rd, 2003, 01:51 AM

True enough Dave.

I've played a little bit with the Hollywood Lite products. The VS-1 is simple and sturdy and should work fine for basic stabilizing needs. I think it's somewhat limited in its ability to tilt though. The Ultralite seems decent, although I'm not sure about the gimbal. Haven't flown it.

I don't know what to tell you guys about the prices. One has to remember that these are not mass-produced items, essentially made by hand (well, CNC machined one at a time, at any rate) and with sales projections measured in hundreds of units. Before the introduction of the JR, the next cheapest camera stabilizer of this type cost something like $8000--and that was radically cheap at the time!

Speaking of which, the JR itself is not inherently "rolly polly". It is a precision instrument with low friction, which makes it more susceptible to being overly controlled. A system with a stickier gimbal may resist its owner's efforts, but result in less smooth photography overall.

Dave Largent · December 3rd, 2003, 02:31 AM

Do you think it would give better flying shots than the Flowpod?
From the picture, it looks like the handle is a bit off to the side, similar to the Glidecam 2000. I would think this "being off from the center" could lead to wrist strain. The Flowpod can be operated with the handle right underneath the center of the cam.

December 2nd, 2003, 12:45 PM	#1
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Hollywood Lite VS-1 This is made of aluminum and is for cams under 4 pounds. Anyone tried it, used it, or heard anything about it? I think they're marketing it like a Steadycam JR, but better because it's not plastic. By the way, I recently saw some JR footage that was smooooth. I'm undecided about the JR because I've heard it's kind of rolly polly.

December 2nd, 2003, 01:56 PM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Do you have a link to this product? __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 3rd, 2003, 01:51 AM	#6
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	True enough Dave. I've played a little bit with the Hollywood Lite products. The VS-1 is simple and sturdy and should work fine for basic stabilizing needs. I think it's somewhat limited in its ability to tilt though. The Ultralite seems decent, although I'm not sure about the gimbal. Haven't flown it. I don't know what to tell you guys about the prices. One has to remember that these are not mass-produced items, essentially made by hand (well, CNC machined one at a time, at any rate) and with sales projections measured in hundreds of units. Before the introduction of the JR, the next cheapest camera stabilizer of this type cost something like $8000--and that was radically cheap at the time! Speaking of which, the JR itself is not inherently "rolly polly". It is a precision instrument with low friction, which makes it more susceptible to being overly controlled. A system with a stickier gimbal may resist its owner's efforts, but result in less smooth photography overall. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 2nd, 2003, 03:48 PM	#3
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Here's the link. I have been thinking about a Flowpod. The Flowpod weighs about 5 pounds and the VS-1 is 2 pounds. Thing I like about the VS-1 over the Steadicam JR is that it's not plasic or fiberglass. I have heard of the JR breaking under the weight of a DVX100. If you go to the page, click on the yellow dot for more information. http://www.hollywoodlite.com/VS1_Hand_Heldx.html

December 2nd, 2003, 05:30 PM	#4
Bobby Abernathy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Aubrey, TX Posts: 80	Their products look pretty cool. I like the look of their Ultra-Lite stabilizer, which looks similar to the Flowpod, minus the monopod feature. It's only $15 cheaper than the Flowpod at B&H. I can't believe how expensive these things are.

December 2nd, 2003, 07:59 PM	#5
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I know what you're saying about the prices. One thing that seems appealing about the VS-1 is that it seems to be designed more along the lines of what Charles Papert said was the ideal for these handheld stabilizers--light as possible, wider at the bottom rather than narrow, shorter rather than long. I'm sure Charles will correct me if I'm wrong.

December 3rd, 2003, 02:31 AM	#7
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Do you think it would give better flying shots than the Flowpod? From the picture, it looks like the handle is a bit off to the side, similar to the Glidecam 2000. I would think this "being off from the center" could lead to wrist strain. The Flowpod can be operated with the handle right underneath the center of the cam.