A homebuilt arm to be proud of at DVinfo.net

Charles King · October 28th, 2004, 06:29 AM

Here is something to water your mouth. You guys want to see a homebuilt professional arm? Check this out: Thanks to Andreas for the pic. This is the same guy who flew a 16mm on his older arm I posted along time ago who is a member on HBS website.

http://www.andreaskielb.de/new_arm.jpg

If you want more info on the arm just go to HBS forum.

Charles Papert · October 28th, 2004, 08:50 AM

Damn, that guy is good! It looks like a cross between a PRO and a Glidecam Gold arm. Impressive.

Cosmin Rotaru · October 28th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Hehe! I was just about to post this, Charles K. :)

Anyway, I'd say is more like www.baer-bel.de
We actualy talked about it on the forum, while Andreas made his design.
He calls himself the "beta tester" for the ideas that went back and forth on HBS forum! He did a wonderful job!

Damn, it looks good!

Casey Visco · October 28th, 2004, 06:31 PM

Impressive is right. Nice work!

Dan Selakovich · October 29th, 2004, 09:10 AM

Good Lord! That's not just an arm, it's a work of art. Beee-u-ti-ful job!

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com

Leigh Wanstead · October 29th, 2004, 01:10 PM

May I ask how do you guys consider a good arm for steadicam? What crerteria? Light? Good looking?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Charles King · October 30th, 2004, 03:06 AM

Here is my criteria:

1. Build (materials involved. Again, a budget thing)

2. Durability

3. Function

4. Stability

5. Capacity (depends on what capacity it was built for; for example, DV or Film. In other words, light weight or Heavy weight)

6. Weight. (The lighter the better but all depends on the budget involved)

Please note that my criteria extend to both commercial and Custombuilt/homebuilt arms.

Charles Papert · October 30th, 2004, 10:52 AM

That's a good list, Charles.

I would add my own thoughts that once you are actually flying the rig, the most important of those is #3--Function (I would probably bundle #4-- Stability, in with this). The smoother and more linear the arm, the better your results will be. What ultimately counts is what ends up on screen. But of course, if the arm isn't strong enough to properly counter the weight (#5), or it is excessively heavy (#6), then it will fatigue the operator more quickly which will ultimately affect the quality of the shot; and if it falls apart on you just before a take (#1 and #2), then you won't have a shot at all!

Had an exciting event a few days ago on "ER"--we were hardmounting the Steadicam on the dolly in low mode for a ground-level up to eye-level shot, and while balancing I heard an ominous announcement from down below. The part between the socket block and the first section of the arm had cracked deeply in two places, and would surely have broken in two given a substantial amount of additional torque.

Fortunately, we were only about 10 miles from the PRO shop, so I handed it off to transpo and it was back in my hands about an hour later, all fixed up with a new part! Too late for that particular shot, which we did on the dolly with a massive dance floor.

Charles King · October 30th, 2004, 11:11 AM

<<<-- Fortunately, we were only about 10 miles from the PRO shop, so I handed it off to transpo and it was back in my hands about an hour later, all fixed up with a new part! Too late for that particular shot, which we did on the dolly with a massive dance floor. -->>>

Not that was a big coincident. Just shows even the big rigs are capable of unfortunate accidents. Nice going Charles P.

K. Forman · October 30th, 2004, 11:14 AM

This may sound naive, but please bear with me... The arm itself looks really good, there is no doubt. However, what good is just the arm without a vest? Does Andreas have any plans to make a harness?

Graham Bernard · October 30th, 2004, 12:50 PM

Now THIS is what I've been talking about for a long time, about camera stuff. Form over Function if and when it works - WILL look fabulous . .remember the Spitfire? remember The Mallard steam engine? Now getting behind this concept and reversing the idea of this philosophy, think of a beautiful design and the function will be better . . by miles!

This piece of design should really get an award . . . .

Best regards,

Graham Bernard

Charles King · October 30th, 2004, 01:22 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : This may sound naive, but please bear with me... The arm itself looks really good, there is no doubt. However, what good is just the arm without a vest? Does Andreas have any plans to make a harness? -->>>

Keith, of course he has the sled and vest. Like you said what's the point of the arm if he doesn't have the rest of the gear, com'on now.
No, he doesn't have any plans, as far as I know. If you want questions ask him on the HBS forum. He'll be glad to answer any questions.

His sled has cponents from an old EFP Sled (includes the gimbal as well).
He has a back-mounted vest but I think he is re-doing the vest. Again, you can ask him on the HBS forum if you want more info.

Graham, so far it works but he's doing more testing. He's machining more plugs to accomodate heavier springs to do more testing. Again, keep checking the forum, where he resides ;)

Graham Bernard · October 30th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Oh yes, of course. But the fundamental wish to actually "make" a beautiful thing that then WORKS is - for my thinking - the way to go. I'm sorry, but there are some truly ugly and hideous stabilzers out there that shouldn't work, just on the basis that they are ugly IMHO!

Graham

K. Forman · October 30th, 2004, 02:08 PM

Charles- I understand now... I think. What he is doing, is taking the componants of an existing system, and redesigning a new arm to fit it. So, what is the sled? And, can you get just the harness without the rest of the gear? Is there any real advantage?

Please understand, I'm not overly familiar with stabalisers, as are some of these illustrious members. I am curious, and hope to be able to move up to better gear... some day.

Charles King · October 30th, 2004, 03:25 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : Charles- I understand now... I think. What he is doing, is taking the componants of an existing system, and redesigning a new arm to fit it. So, what is the sled? And, can you get just the harness without the rest of the gear? Is there any real advantage?

Please understand, I'm not overly familiar with stabalisers, as are some of these illustrious members. I am curious, and hope to be able to move up to better gear... some day. -->>>

Keith, you are misunderstanding me. The arm is completely built from scratch. Everything is machined from the ground up.

The sled is the only thing that uses parts from the Steadicam EFP and the SK2. Parts of the sled is from the SK2 and the gimbal comes from the EFP. The rest is homebuilt.

Can you please clarify your question on getting just the harness without the rest of the gear? If I understand you right. There is no point in just having the arm if you don't have the sled; and at the same token there is no point in getting the vest if you don't have the sled and the arm.

<<<--I'm sorry, but there are some truly ugly and hideous stabilzers out there that shouldn't work, just on the basis that they are ugly IMHO!-->>>

Graham, Have you heard the story of the ugly duckling? ;)

October 30th, 2004, 03:06 AM	#7
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Here is my criteria: 1. Build (materials involved. Again, a budget thing) 2. Durability 3. Function 4. Stability 5. Capacity (depends on what capacity it was built for; for example, DV or Film. In other words, light weight or Heavy weight) 6. Weight. (The lighter the better but all depends on the budget involved) Please note that my criteria extend to both commercial and Custombuilt/homebuilt arms. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

October 30th, 2004, 10:52 AM	#8
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	That's a good list, Charles. I would add my own thoughts that once you are actually flying the rig, the most important of those is #3--Function (I would probably bundle #4-- Stability, in with this). The smoother and more linear the arm, the better your results will be. What ultimately counts is what ends up on screen. But of course, if the arm isn't strong enough to properly counter the weight (#5), or it is excessively heavy (#6), then it will fatigue the operator more quickly which will ultimately affect the quality of the shot; and if it falls apart on you just before a take (#1 and #2), then you won't have a shot at all! Had an exciting event a few days ago on "ER"--we were hardmounting the Steadicam on the dolly in low mode for a ground-level up to eye-level shot, and while balancing I heard an ominous announcement from down below. The part between the socket block and the first section of the arm had cracked deeply in two places, and would surely have broken in two given a substantial amount of additional torque. Fortunately, we were only about 10 miles from the PRO shop, so I handed it off to transpo and it was back in my hands about an hour later, all fixed up with a new part! Too late for that particular shot, which we did on the dolly with a massive dance floor. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

October 30th, 2004, 11:11 AM	#9
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	<<<-- Fortunately, we were only about 10 miles from the PRO shop, so I handed it off to transpo and it was back in my hands about an hour later, all fixed up with a new part! Too late for that particular shot, which we did on the dolly with a massive dance floor. -->>> Not that was a big coincident. Just shows even the big rigs are capable of unfortunate accidents. Nice going Charles P. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

October 30th, 2004, 11:14 AM	#10
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	This may sound naive, but please bear with me... The arm itself looks really good, there is no doubt. However, what good is just the arm without a vest? Does Andreas have any plans to make a harness? __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

October 30th, 2004, 01:22 PM	#12
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : This may sound naive, but please bear with me... The arm itself looks really good, there is no doubt. However, what good is just the arm without a vest? Does Andreas have any plans to make a harness? -->>> Keith, of course he has the sled and vest. Like you said what's the point of the arm if he doesn't have the rest of the gear, com'on now. No, he doesn't have any plans, as far as I know. If you want questions ask him on the HBS forum. He'll be glad to answer any questions. His sled has cponents from an old EFP Sled (includes the gimbal as well). He has a back-mounted vest but I think he is re-doing the vest. Again, you can ask him on the HBS forum if you want more info. Graham, so far it works but he's doing more testing. He's machining more plugs to accomodate heavier springs to do more testing. Again, keep checking the forum, where he resides ;) __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

October 28th, 2004, 06:29 AM	#1
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	A homebuilt arm to be proud of Here is something to water your mouth. You guys want to see a homebuilt professional arm? Check this out: Thanks to Andreas for the pic. This is the same guy who flew a 16mm on his older arm I posted along time ago who is a member on HBS website. http://www.andreaskielb.de/new_arm.jpg If you want more info on the arm just go to HBS forum. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

October 28th, 2004, 08:50 AM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Damn, that guy is good! It looks like a cross between a PRO and a Glidecam Gold arm. Impressive. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

October 28th, 2004, 09:02 AM	#3
Cosmin Rotaru Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Romania, Timisoara Posts: 453	Hehe! I was just about to post this, Charles K. :) Anyway, I'd say is more like www.baer-bel.de We actualy talked about it on the forum, while Andreas made his design. He calls himself the "beta tester" for the ideas that went back and forth on HBS forum! He did a wonderful job! Damn, it looks good! __________________ Cosmin Rotaru

October 28th, 2004, 06:31 PM	#4
Casey Visco Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 280	Impressive is right. Nice work! __________________ Casey Visco Glidecam Industries, Inc.

October 29th, 2004, 09:10 AM	#5
Dan Selakovich Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 220	Good Lord! That's not just an arm, it's a work of art. Beee-u-ti-ful job! Dan www.DVcameraRigs.com

October 29th, 2004, 01:10 PM	#6
Leigh Wanstead Trustee Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NZ Posts: 1,276	May I ask how do you guys consider a good arm for steadicam? What crerteria? Light? Good looking? TIA Regards Leigh

October 30th, 2004, 12:50 PM	#11
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Now THIS is what I've been talking about for a long time, about camera stuff. Form over Function if and when it works - WILL look fabulous . .remember the Spitfire? remember The Mallard steam engine? Now getting behind this concept and reversing the idea of this philosophy, think of a beautiful design and the function will be better . . by miles! This piece of design should really get an award . . . . Best regards, Graham Bernard

October 30th, 2004, 01:44 PM	#13
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Oh yes, of course. But the fundamental wish to actually "make" a beautiful thing that then WORKS is - for my thinking - the way to go. I'm sorry, but there are some truly ugly and hideous stabilzers out there that shouldn't work, just on the basis that they are ugly IMHO! Graham

October 30th, 2004, 02:08 PM	#14
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	Charles- I understand now... I think. What he is doing, is taking the componants of an existing system, and redesigning a new arm to fit it. So, what is the sled? And, can you get just the harness without the rest of the gear? Is there any real advantage? Please understand, I'm not overly familiar with stabalisers, as are some of these illustrious members. I am curious, and hope to be able to move up to better gear... some day. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

October 30th, 2004, 03:25 PM	#15
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : Charles- I understand now... I think. What he is doing, is taking the componants of an existing system, and redesigning a new arm to fit it. So, what is the sled? And, can you get just the harness without the rest of the gear? Is there any real advantage? Please understand, I'm not overly familiar with stabalisers, as are some of these illustrious members. I am curious, and hope to be able to move up to better gear... some day. -->>> Keith, you are misunderstanding me. The arm is completely built from scratch. Everything is machined from the ground up. The sled is the only thing that uses parts from the Steadicam EFP and the SK2. Parts of the sled is from the SK2 and the gimbal comes from the EFP. The rest is homebuilt. Can you please clarify your question on getting just the harness without the rest of the gear? If I understand you right. There is no point in just having the arm if you don't have the sled; and at the same token there is no point in getting the vest if you don't have the sled and the arm. <<<--I'm sorry, but there are some truly ugly and hideous stabilzers out there that shouldn't work, just on the basis that they are ugly IMHO!-->>> Graham, Have you heard the story of the ugly duckling? ;) __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'