Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Brian Drysdale]

The person in the Gimbal video is, I gather, one of the top operators in the industry. What he can do and what your local Gimbal operator can do is probably worlds apart, plus he will be using a high end rig, which also has to be factored in.

I can operate a Steadicam, but one of the living masters can do incredible shots that I would struggle with. Although, the move on the shot in the video doesn't look that difficult, a good Steadicam operator likes doing dolly type shots. The mass of the larger camera assists you with the smooth operating.

[Josh Bass]

the local operator for the martial arts video and sole crew member is probably Ryan.

[Charles Papert]

The Breaking Bad shot is definitely not Steadicam. I would guess Technocrane.

To back up to the clarification you made a page ago:

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

I guess what I want to know is, is there any ways or tools, for moving a camera with longer lenses without tracks if possible, that can produce unmotivated type of vertical and horizontal movement?

There are many ways to do this. Some are expensive, some require more technical skill than others.

Starting with the most traditional way to achieve this: a dolly. In most instances it would be preferable for longer lens work to use a dolly on track, but sometimes this can be done with rubber tires on very smooth floor (in the industry the grips create "dance floors" over varying surfaces using 4x8 sheets of birch topped with sheets of smooth wood or plastic). The sheer mass of the dolly helps dampen vibration that would hurt the shot, which is often an issue with lighter weight dollies as one would find in a budget situation. The popular Dana Dolly when used with elevated track is one of the worst tools to use for long lens work for this reason, plus having the operator walk alongside vs riding as on a conventional dolly will tend to introduce jitter.

For the type of overhead shot that you were describing earlier (and the one above from Breaking Bad), crane/jibs are the most popular tool. The telescoping Technocrane has the most flexibility as you are not locked into a specific swing via the arm, but is far more complex and expensive. For most scenarios it is helpful and/or crucial to have a remote head for operation, and again because of potential vibration that will be magnified with longer lenses, that head should be stabilized. This has traditionally been a very expensive proposition but the proliferation of gimbals in recent years now gives the budget filmmaker a much more affordable option. I'm coming off six months of working with the Chapman Miniscope (a 7 foot telescoping arm) with a MoviPro used as a remote head, and it was extremely effective at a fraction of the cost of a typical stabilized head.

With bodymounted or carried platforms, you have gimbal or Steadicam. With gimbals, again vibration is a challenge but for different reasons than the mechanical devices above--here it tends to be more of a software tuning issue plus there is a massive range of quality across various brands. In addition, subtle operating adjustments within a shot are challenging with gimbals, particular in one-person operating mode where the electronic pan may appear jerky on a longer lens shot. A quality gimbal operated in dual mode especially with handwheels vs joysticks will mitigate this.

For Steadicam, just as with gimbals quality gear is a pre-requisite--a cheaper knockoff rig will provide less isolation from the operator which translates into jitter on longer lenses. And here, the operating finesse is a much more critical aspect than with the other methods--it takes considerable skill to manage long lens Steadicam shots without erratic motion in the frame. However, I have seen lenses as long as 150mm in use by solid operators to great effect! In my Steadicam days I got to do quite a few of these, probably the best known was the roundy-round from American History X, here at 2:30:

here at 2:30

That was a 75mm, with a full 180 degree rotation around the actor. Since my days in the rig, gimbal/brushless motor tech has been incorporated into several devices that augment the classic Steadicam setup and help mitigate some of the operating challenges.

So after all this--which is the best method to attack a long lens moving closeup, but on a budget? I think probably the best solution in this day and age would be gimbal, but with the caveat that it be operated by someone who has a thorough knowledge of tuning the software for a given shot so that the response is just right and chatter or vibration is minimal, and usually best with a bodymounted support that helps mitigate the operator's footsteps to avoid vertical pogo-type artifacts.

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, there seems to be a bit of a zoom in on the tail end of that shot.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, the 75mm close up shot in American History X is what I am looking for for some shots. But I would like the opposite of moving from a close up to a wide, without having to worry about seeing tracks, if possible... or vice versa move from a wide to a close up but on a longer lens like 75 mm, without having to see tracks, and not have to worry about shake either. Or I want to move the camera with the actor in a close up and stay in close up for the whole shot, but not have to worry about a track coming to and end, during.

[Brian Drysdale]

That has a lot of unknown unknowns. Given that you've got hardly any budget for equipment, other than a mental exercise, why are you coming up with complications that you won't have the resources for.?

It also goes against the style of Kurosawa blocking and framing that you spent pages on in another thread.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well I wasn't going to just use Kurosawa's style only. I wanted to use Kurosawa's style for some scenes, but for others I wanted to incorporate other styles as well... the more suspense fueled shots that is.

I have some budget for equipment. I could set aside maybe $1500 for equipment to move the camera with, but just wondering if that is enough to get a piece of equipment where I can move it horizontally and some vertically, anywhere I want, without having to worry about track, but also can move it with longer lenses for face close ups.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

I would like the opposite of moving from a close up to a wide, without having to worry about seeing tracks, if possible... or vice versa move from a wide to a close up but on a longer lens like 75 mm, without having to see tracks, and not have to worry about shake either. Or I want to move the camera with the actor in a close up and stay in close up for the whole shot, but not have to worry about a track coming to and end, during.

Looking this up on the pCam app, assuming an S35 sensor, on a 75mm you can track back from a closeup to a wide head to toe (approx. 8 feet to 36 feet) and not see tracks, since they start 8 feet away from the subject. Obviously if you have to see more floor, you will start to see tracks at some point. If this had to be done on track, using a jib pointing forward will buy you the length of the jib extra for not seeing tracks. Or depending on
the shot, offsetting the track to the side and arming back into the frame (jib angled 90 degrees to direction of movement).

Track is smooth, but the joins between track are often problematic. Skilled dolly grips work hard to level out track and minimize bumps at the joins. We also use special troughs under the dolly wheels that use multiple smaller rubber wheels to help with this.

Again: a gimbal mounted on the dolly can potentially help with this by acting as a small stabilized head, especially if used in conjunction with an isolator arm.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. What if it's a curved flex track, would that cause any problems?

[Brian Drysdale]

I should point out that Ryan's questions never have an end answer, they just drift into a maze of more questions, which drift further from the original subject.

The real suspense comes from the audience's involvement with the characters and so emoting with them, not how complex you make the shots with a particular lens focal length. That's the weakness you should be addressing.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well it's just I want to do the shots the best way, in order to bring out those feelings of suspense and all.

[Brian Drysdale]

That's all very well, but you don't have the resources for these types of shots, keeping it simple and getting the camera into the correct spot to catch each moment is the best you can do on an extremely low budget feature film.

Doing a camera move with a 75mm lens and an inexperienced crew can eat up time getting good takes.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I should point out that Ryan's questions never have an end answer, they just drift into a maze of more questions, which drift further from the original subject.

I just got finished reading today’s posts and I’m thinking to myself was anything resolved or accomplished? Only thing clear to me is Ryan wants to use a gimbal with a telephoto lens and he is seeking out anyone to confirm his desires. Why listen to us? Rent, buy, or borrow a gimbal and try filming it with a telephoto lens. Is it possible? Sure. Can you do it? Who knows!

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh okay thanks. What if it's a curved flex track, would that cause any problems?

Flextrack is quite smooth and avoids bumps at joins, but it is impossible to make a mathematically perfect curve, so the camera travelling on it will experience a certain amount of wandering back and forth in pan which the operator will have to attempt to backpan against. The longer the lens, the more pronounced the effect.

[Ryan Elder]

I don't have to do it all on the gimbal. But then I see gimbals used with longer lens, in other things, and I wonder if I was missing something, if others are doing it. I can use a dolly and tracks if that's better, it's just when people say work with what you have, well I haven't got the equipment yet. So I was just wondering what to get in the first place, so I invest in the wrong equipment.