I gotta admit it's got me thinking - I'd want a more positive method of determining the direction the camera's pointed. The use of a trailer hitch tongue and ball for counter weight is worthy of a "Golden Todo Juntos" award.
I'd hate to have to pay the insurance premiums on THAT set. That mess hit's an actor of even worse an actress, it's gonna REALLY hurt 'em, but it does create some cool footage. I just don't know how you could make it safe. Why would the guy use sharp, pointed tail fins when he could have easily rounded them and a receiver hitch at the front wit absolutely NO padding on it what so ever?
Edited by James Steven Beverly, 25 August 2007 - 11:19 PM.
herminio-It is not that it doesnt produce results. It is more that no only is it dangerous to the performers, but also to the equipment. It is also unpredictable and uncontrollable. Its sort of like strapping yourself to the hood of a car. It produces results but are the results worth the risk of injury and/or damaged equipment.
A turntable, circular dolly track, a steadicam, a glidecam, dancefloor are alternatives to your rig. Even a Wheelchair are alternatives that are not dangerous. these alternatives are probably the same cost ( rental) as building and rigging this rig. Risk is a factor of cost. how much would it cost to send the lead actor to a hospital and to lose your camera in the same moment? how much would it cost to lose a lead actor b/c they refused to perform inside the area the camera circles? how much does it cost to rent a steadicam for a day? how much does it cost to rent circular track for a day? how much would it cost to rent any alternative?
I think your rig could work it just needs a lot of improvement. Mostly controlability, less dangerous, repeatability. fix these problems and you are on to something. Also the rig wouldnt work outdoors, short ceilings, small rooms, etc. things to think about.
This rig is for NO budget productions, i mean, i spend 28$ on getting a steady orbit shot.
I am not planning to use it in the future, because i am moving on to bigger productions, but i think this concept would be usefull for upcoming filmakers.
The thing is, the tail had beautiful results with 28$ investment... That is why i post it in here.
I'd like to see it mounted on a motorised, rotating head at the top - a beefed-up version of what you'd use to hang a disco ball. That way, it would quickly settle down into a repeatable, reliable circular motion, which would be easier to block to, and probably safer for its predictability.
Edit: Actually, I wonder if it -would- be repeatable, but for shutter phase?
You know what would work and could be made to work relatively safely that would basically do the same this thing does is a counter balanced rig hung at a single pivot point like Rick Moranis' rig when he's searching for the kids in the backyard from Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. The counter weight would have to sit on top of the support beam to be out of frame and the camera would have to sit in a framework that hung down and would allow the camera angles to be adjusted, but basically you would have a lot more control over the camera's circular path and you could change the arch by moving the pivot point. It would be relatively cheap to build and if you used a crash cam or a light-weight cam like and Eyemo or a Konvas with a 200ft load, you wouldn't need too heavy a counter balance, especially if you off set the pivot point towards the camera a bit. It would certainly be cheaper than a curved track dolly rig and with a little practice, you could probably learn how to control it pretty well, plus if it looks like an actor is about to step into it's path, you have a much better chance of grabbing it and stopping it from braining 'em!
Edited by James Steven Beverly, 27 August 2007 - 04:57 AM.