Talk:Steadicam

message: Children of Men's citation is not accurate and is just the directors page. Children of Men was shot almost entirely handheld with the exception of the car scene which wasn't using a steadicam it was using a unique robotic setup. This can all be seen in the behind the scenes documentary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.132.227 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Children Of Men

message: How to build your own steadicam for $14!
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/
Another DIY stabilizer site with a very active and informative messageboard too.
http://hbsboard.com/
disagree. that's what google is for. the clue is in the "$14!", which is advertising language.
Duncanrmi (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good link to add I think 

message: While I realize that Wikipedia tends to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, "Steadicam" (note inital cap) is in fact a federally registered trademark in the US, and probably wherever else Cinema Products could register it; I really think we ought to restructure the lede to properly reflect this.  Contributing to the generecization of tradenames is probably not our raison' d'etre.  --Baylink 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark 

message: I came across this article and there are lots of links to gimbals and things etc. etc. - how about a diagram with all the parts labelled, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.59.111 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram please 

message: Wouldn't it be better to credit it as Doug Liman's Swingers? While I understand Favreau wrote it, one typically refers to the director, ergo, it would be Paul Vorhoeven's Basic Instinct, not Joe Eszterhas' Basic instinct, at least IMHO. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.73.198 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Favreau's Swingers? 

message: Can someone confirm, whether the Massive Attack's Unfinished Sympathy was also shot using the Steadicam? This song made strong influence on me, when I first time saw and heard it, and, as I read, others also seem to find it to be remarkable. So, it should be added here, if it was really shot this way.
ShapedNoise 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfinished Sympathy? 

message: Would be good to give an indication of the weight of the whole assembly. MadMaxDog 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight?

message: Someone --- me, if I get around to it --- needs to nuke most of the Filmography section. It is a trivia section in disguise, and the truly notable instances should be incorporated into the main article and the rest deleted. SFT | Talk 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I decided to be bold. Most examples are gone, including my personal favorite, the one from Serenity. But Wikipedia articles are not the place for lists of personal favorites, they are the place for long-term--notable instances. If you put back one of the instances I deleted, cite a reference or otherwise establish its notability. SFT | Talk 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many examples 

message: Why is it so difficult to produce a photograph of a, uh, camera?
As an earlier editor remarked, a schematic DIAGRAM or CLOSE-UP of a steadicam assembly is just mandatory for an adequate treatment of this subject.
Until we have one, or a close-up shot of a steadicam (which could optionally and ideally have its parts labelled), our article will remain confusing for many readers.
68.174.247.185 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it is still lacking clarity due to this omission. Huw Powell (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram PLEASE  ... or a close up photo 

message: The article makes no mention of home made or low(er) cost alternatives to the Steadicam(tm). If I remember correctly The Evil Dead used a plank cam. // Liftarn (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also section 4 on this page, Trademark.  What would be the generic term for a device like this, if we did not use the Steadicam trademark to refer to this?  leevclarke (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatives to a Steadicam is the copies, I just bought the Steadicam cone from China, instead of paying $14000.00 for a new one I bought one for $1800.00 and another $300.00 for the batteries. Seems to be just fine and performs like any Steadicam would. I would be interested in buying another one but why Steadicam charges $14000.00 to $50,000.00 for a vest and stable arm is nuts. I also noticed that India is now making the same concept and the Germans are now picking up to a Steadicam clone called a Movcam.--71.95.140.176 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: The final paragraph under "Description" proposes gimbaling the entire sled upside-down in order to enter a "low mode" (placing the camera closer to the ground for a low-angle shot), and claims that the image inversion must be fixed in post-production.  Speaking as a Steadicam camera assistant, I can say that I have never witnessed a Steadicam used in this way.  Low-mode does involve inverting the sled to place the camera mount at the bottom, but it *also* involves remounting the camera using a "low-mode cage" so the camera is, in fact, upright.  (The monitor is also flipped around and is also upright).  No image inversion, and no post-production required.
Androider (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-Mode description 

message: If it is now a standard tool, why does this section even exist?  I may be bold and delete it shortly.  This is like listing all well-known movies shot on Kodak film.  Huw Powell (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since this is an encyclopedia, a few reference films would be valuable. I agree that the list should be trimmed, though. To your point regarding movies shot on Kodak film, I'd be interested in knowing the first film shot on Kodak, the longest film shot on Kodak, the shortest film, etc... Maybe reduce the list down to three or four great examples. Chevy1948 (talk) 06:30, 09 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the reversion of my removal, "Undid revision - a list of movies in which a standard piece of equipment is used seems really superfluous to me.  It's like listing what albums were recorded with 8-track tape recorders."  I ran out of characters, but was going to say what Chevy said - the first/most noticed use would matter, and perhaps 2 or 3 more, especially if the filmographers (?), say, won emmys or whatever for their work. Otherwise, this list just goes on and on and on and on forever. Huw Powell (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography??? 

message: * Oppose merge:  Camera shoulder support is so short, its contents would hardly be noticed here.  Steadicam is a specific rather high-end implementation of a body-supported camera.  There are only three links to camera shoulder support and about 200 to Steadicam.   If a merge occurs, it should include a new section which compares and contrasts the types of camera supports.  And that's obviously getting rather far away from the topic of Steadicam.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge from Camera shoulder support 

message: Surely this can't be correct as the operator needs to move the camera, otherwise it would just be a tripod. Muleattack (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which mechanically isolates the operator's movement from the camera" 

message: I have one of the small simple amateur 'curve' types. Camera on top linked to a counterweight at the bottom, supported on a gimbal at the center of gravity (or I suppose fractionally above it). The gimbal can only absorb 3 axis *rotational* movements, but there are also 3 axis *transitional* movements as well, which it cannot have any effect on. That is, if I rapidly flex/rotate my wrist round the gimbal the camera continues to point in the same direction due to inertia, but if I slide the camera up, down, forward, back, left, right with a jerk it of course moves laterally, it doesn't stay in the same place. So it can't 'iron out' bumps and jolts when moving over rough ground. Now although they don't make it explicit, the method of operation apparently relies on the camera being held almost at arm's length with a slightly flexed elbow, so the (human) arm absorbs the lateral transition movements whilst the inertia of the Steadicam/camera maintains the whole assembly in the same place in space (relative to the operator).
Now by the look of it the large cinematic Steadicam's substitute this human arm by what I might call an 'Anglepoise'(a type of British adjustable lamp) parallel motion counterbalanced hinged 'arm'. This can't possibly act in all three lateral degrees of movement - I can just about believe it acts vertically to absorb vertical bumps and jolts, but surely not sideways or forwards/backwards ones?
Of the six degrees of movement of a body surely the Steadicam is only absorbing four?
86.187.173.50 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Exactly how does it work 

message: "The Steadicam has added another dimension to motion picture cinematography and videography" in the History section is pure, silly advertising hype.
BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising hype