Manoeuvrable 35mm

Paul N Sadka · July 21, 2004

Hi All, I am very interested to know what people would recommend. I want to produce a steadicam effect but also want a lot of flexibility and agility. I do not want to strain my back and wonder what the most lightweight flexible system would be. Thanks

Leon Rodriguez · July 21, 2004

Sound sync or MOS?

Max Jacoby · July 21, 2004

Probably an Eyemo if you don't have to shoot sync sound. That camera was used for some of the POV shots in 'Strange Days' as well as some boxing scenes in 'Ali'. They were initially build for 100 ft spools of film, but there are conversions that can take a 400ft mag

The Arri 2C (or 3C) and the new Arri 235 come to mind as well. Although there are currently ony 7 235s, so they might be a bit hard to come by.

Christian Appelt · July 21, 2004

An Eyemo (without extension mag) is very comfortable to handle, but it holds just about 100 ft. or a minute of film which may be a problem or not, depending on your project. Stanley Kubrick shot the boxing match in KILLER'S KISS with two Eyemos, so one could shoot while the second was reloaded...

A Konvas with a 200ft. mag would be another option, preferably with some kind of shoulder padding. The distribution of weight is IMHO better for handholding than an Arriflex, especially if 400ft mags are to be used.

The lightest 35mm camera available seems to be the UL 35, made by Filmtechnik Fromm of Munich, Germany. It looks like a Konvas movement in a new lightweight glass fibre body, and it was designed for shooting from a miniature helicopter.

Laurent Andrieux · July 21, 2004

Aaton 35 is a great deal on the shoulder - but a little noisy (24 dB I think, you could check it up on aaton's site

Paul N Sadka · July 22, 2004

Thanks everyone for the help. I have been away for a day hence the late reply.

I was hoping to hear somebody recommend some sort of lightweight steadying device rather than hand held options. Is there anything commercially available?

Is the steadicam junior appropriate for any 35mm cameras?

Paul N Sadka · July 22, 2004

I do need sound sync by the way.

Phil Rhodes · July 22, 2004

Hi,

I've seen an SL Cine 35mm camera on a Mini Steadicam (which I think they're now calling the Flyer) but that's MOS. The only other options, certainly for sync sound, require a full-size Steadicam or similar outfit if you want to go that route.

You shouldn't strain your back doing Steadicam if you're doing it properly, but there is a practical limit on how long you can operate, or at least how long you can operate usefully.

Phil

Max Jacoby · July 22, 2004

The Eyemo comes in a configuration called PogoCam which is kind of like a baby-steadicam.

Laurent Andrieux · July 23, 2004

glidecam is cheaper than steadicam, and is a good alternative, because it's very close to steadicam

Mitch Gross · July 23, 2004

The Steadicam JR is way too small for 16mm let alone 35mm filming. At the smallest you'll need a stabilizing device that will mount to the body, not simply something you hold in one hand. A 4.5 minute roll of 35mm film weighs more than the Steadicam JR can handle, forgetting the camera itself.

"Lightweight" film cameras generally weigh in the neighborhood of 20 pounds when loaded with film and basic accessories. There's no way to support this without a vest mount and spring arm system.

Just why are you asking--what sort of project are you preparing? It sounds like you might need to hire someone experienced shooting film.

Paul N Sadka · July 23, 2004

Thank you all again. Very useful. In answer to Mitch, I simply want to find a way of using a movie camera that enables me to record what I normally see in my SLR viewfinder as I follow/track a subject. I am certainly inexperienced and have only had experience up to now with prosumer digital video cameras and the huge depth of field they give is the opposite of what I want to see- and never see usually as I nearly always use the largest aperture available. SO...basically I want to be able to film what I see through a 35mm camera lense fluidly and with ease of movement. I have posted a similar question on the 16mm forum thinking that that might be a compromise solution. I would have the depth of field problem but to a lesser degree.