Will a gimble produce steady cam results for a dslr shoot?

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

If so, what is a good gimble to buy? I've read reviews on them and seems they have trouble with setups that weigh a few pounds.

Thanks

[Aapo Lettinen]

You can't substitude a steadicam with a gimbal. Sometimes they can be used for same type of stuff but the results and feel are different. One of the problems with small gimbals and lightweight setups is that they don't remove the perspective + parallax shift even if they otherwise stabilise perxectly. You will notice this extremely well when being close to subject. It can even make the shot unusable whereas the mass/inertia balanced system (steadicam) might have a better change depending on the shot. 

Ideally you would use a dolly when shooting precise stuff or very close to subjects but whatever tool can be used if it produces the results you like.

I use the AK4000 gimbal with mirrorless and dslr for lightweight stuff and steadicam or full sized Ronin for everything else if dolly track is impractical due to logistics

[Robin R Probyn]

small gimbals are 3 axis .. you will never get rid of the UP /DOWN movement your body makes when you walk or run.. a steadicam you can .. you can minimize that up/down by doing a sort of crouching ,toe to heel "ninja" walk..

if you have a moving subject in the shot.. ie you are following someone .. the viewers eye is distracted and that movement becomes less noticeable ..as compared to only static objects in your moving shot.. or shoot it slo mo .. that why you see so much small gimbal footage in slo motion.. it takes out the bumps !

but for what they are and are so cheap now .. with a mirror less camera.. you can have fun with them and get some good shots.. but will never be the same as a steadicam ..

Edited November 21, 2019 by Robin R Probyn

[Phil Connolly]

The nice thing about stedicam is it normally comes with a stedicam operator.  But a lot more expensive, think about 2 to 3 sound recordists for a good one.

[Robin R Probyn]

2 to 3 sound recordists !!  you can fund a mid level budget feature film for that money !! and change for a Gulf 5..  come on man !.. get real bro.. 

[Mark Dunn]

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

2 to 3 sound recordists !!  you can fund a mid level budget feature film for that money !! and change for a Gulf 5..  come on man !.. get real bro.. 

You can use their wallets as counterweights though.......

[Robin R Probyn]

4 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

You can use their wallets as counterweights though.......

Way too heavy.. I have seen them used as counter weight for Condor lights ..

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

OK, thanks for the replies. 

[Phil Rhodes]

If I'm not too late to reply, I think the answer is "sort of, sometimes."

The apparent smoothness of gimbals starts to fail when you want to exploit parallax, as we often do in two-dimensional filmmaking so that the audience can perceive depth. Objects near the lens will reveal the the translational instability that the gimbal doesn't solve, while a Steadicam (to an extent governed by the ability of the operator) doesn't have that problem. You can do deep-parallax tracking shots with Steadicam that you can't do very well with a gimbal.

I think in most practical circumstances, it's not generally an either-or choice but I have to say I like gimbals. A gimbal will give you a shot that is well-stabilised in rotation with almost no skill required. You still have to frame and block, but you have to do that with Steadicam too, and a poorly-operated Steadicam really doesn't work very well at all. It is extremely difficult to operate Steadicam even moderately well, and you can end up with a terrible drunken mess, and people often do. If you can't afford the very best Steadicam operators, I think the gimbal is a safer choice. There isn't really any such thing as a middling Steadicam operator. They're either spectacular or it really isn't great.

And in the end, a lot of the stuff that Steadicam does particularly well are things like walk-and-talks, where massive script page counts are shot in a continuous take as the operator strolls around a huge set on some LA sound stage. That works extremely well if you have a big set that's wonderfully production designed and lit to look great from every angle. It works very poorly if you need to be careful what you're seeing especially, as I say, if you have a less-than-high-end operator. But either way, that is something that you can to some extent do on a gimbal, with the added advantage that the horizon will stay level as you go around corners. Yes, a really, really good steadicam operator will get this exactly right - but can you afford that really, really good operator?

 

[Tyler Purcell]

I have a DJI Osmo and I've used the Ronin-S quite a bit with my Blackmagic Pocket camera. 

For quick stuff, you can't beat them. The Ronin-S is a really easy to setup and when ya just need something stabilized, they can work pretty good.

The downside of course is that you'll always see the bouncing of your body in the shot and doing complex moves can be more tricky. I VASTLY prefer steadicam over gimbals because in my opinion, they're a more natural feeling shot. You don't get the footsteps in them at all, which is super nice, plus they're way easier to pan and tilt. I always find it tricky to do pan and tilts with the lower-end gimbals. You either have to twist your entire body around OR use the pan tilt joystick, which is for better or worse, pretty bad on the DJI's. I can never get it just right and trust me, I've tried lol. 

Of course with a DSLR, steadicam's are a bit over-kill, they really work much better with heavier cameras. With the lightweight cameras, they can be a bit odd to use, too easy to bump and knock your shot off sorta deal. There are some hand held steadicam style models that are just sticks that have counterbalance weights on the bottom. I actually built one of those when I was a kid to get stabilized shots and it kinda worked? The ones you buy are much better, but they're still kind of junk in the long run. The best solution is always the ones with the vests and spring arms. 

[Bruce Greene]

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

If I'm not too late to reply, I think the answer is "sort of, sometimes."

The apparent smoothness of gimbals starts to fail when you want to exploit parallax, as we often do in two-dimensional filmmaking so that the audience can perceive depth. Objects near the lens will reveal the the translational instability that the gimbal doesn't solve, while a Steadicam (to an extent governed by the ability of the operator) doesn't have that problem. You can do deep-parallax tracking shots with Steadicam that you can't do very well with a gimbal.

I think in most practical circumstances, it's not generally an either-or choice but I have to say I like gimbals. A gimbal will give you a shot that is well-stabilised in rotation with almost no skill required. You still have to frame and block, but you have to do that with Steadicam too, and a poorly-operated Steadicam really doesn't work very well at all. It is extremely difficult to operate Steadicam even moderately well, and you can end up with a terrible drunken mess, and people often do. If you can't afford the very best Steadicam operators, I think the gimbal is a safer choice. There isn't really any such thing as a middling Steadicam operator. They're either spectacular or it really isn't great.

And in the end, a lot of the stuff that Steadicam does particularly well are things like walk-and-talks, where massive script page counts are shot in a continuous take as the operator strolls around a huge set on some LA sound stage. That works extremely well if you have a big set that's wonderfully production designed and lit to look great from every angle. It works very poorly if you need to be careful what you're seeing especially, as I say, if you have a less-than-high-end operator. But either way, that is something that you can to some extent do on a gimbal, with the added advantage that the horizon will stay level as you go around corners. Yes, a really, really good steadicam operator will get this exactly right - but can you afford that really, really good operator?

 

Hmmm... Agreed, except I should point out that Steadicam also can show off parallax issues when still or moving slowly with a foreground element in frame, no matter how good the operator ?  But, for covering actors playing a scene, the Steadicam is still my choice as it's much more responsive to the performance, and much easier to frame accurately... with a good operator required, of course ?

It is interesting to me, to see the style of filmmaking has changed since the arrival of the gimbals.  By the middle of the 1990's Steadicam had become part of the grammar of filmmaking, and the non-perfect horizon issue had become part of the style.  With the gimbals holding near perfect level, films have become again more "formalist" in style, and less "free" and non-perfect.  I'm not sure I prefer the "new" style, but it's here ?

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Bruce Greene said:

It is interesting to me, to see the style of filmmaking has changed since the arrival of the gimbals.  By the middle of the 1990's Steadicam had become part of the grammar of filmmaking, and the non-perfect horizon issue had become part of the style.  With the gimbals holding near perfect level, films have become again more "formalist" in style, and less "free" and non-perfect.  I'm not sure I prefer the "new" style, but it's here ?

Yea steadicam was so ubiquitous once it became mainstream. I never really liked it when I was younger, it seemed over-used. I just preferred the look of hand held, it was more intimate. I'd just sit on a doorway dolly and hand hold, that was kind of the look I was after. Now many years later, I actually like steadicam more and more. I finally bought one and now use it all the time, but only with wide angle lenses. When I use longer focal lengths, I go back to dolly work. 

[Phil Connolly]

5 hours ago, Bruce Greene said:

It is interesting to me, to see the style of filmmaking has changed since the arrival of the gimbals.  By the middle of the 1990's Steadicam had become part of the grammar of filmmaking, and the non-perfect horizon issue had become part of the style.  With the gimbals holding near perfect level, films have become again more "formalist" in style, and less "free" and non-perfect.  I'm not sure I prefer the "new" style, but it's here ?

Gimbals can look a bit "robotic" at times. I prefer steadicam, but you need a op and that gets expensive. It's not something as a very, part-time camera operator, i'd try and do myself . I think you have to fully commited to the art of Steadicam to really excel. Gimbals are better for those of us who have to do a bit of everything...

Recently I've been embracing hand held a lot in my own work, maybe that's a reaction to the gimbals and an attempt to have a more human feel. 

[Bruce Greene]

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea steadicam was so ubiquitous once it became mainstream. I never really liked it when I was younger, it seemed over-used. I just preferred the look of hand held, it was more intimate. I'd just sit on a doorway dolly and hand hold, that was kind of the look I was after. Now many years later, I actually like steadicam more and more. I finally bought one and now use it all the time, but only with wide angle lenses. When I use longer focal lengths, I go back to dolly work. 

Tyler, you just need a little practice and you'll be flying the 135mm lens!

[Tyler Purcell]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Greene said:

Tyler, you just need a little practice and you'll be flying the 135mm lens!

If you saw my rig, you'd first say "you need a new rig" lol ?

But yes, if I had a better rig, it wouldn't take but more of a few months of shooting and I'd be able to fly it no problem. 

[Bruce Greene]

17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

If you saw my rig, you'd first say "you need a new rig" lol ?

But yes, if I had a better rig, it wouldn't take but more of a few months of shooting and I'd be able to fly it no problem. 

I don't think it's the rig. Just the operator ? Happy Thanksgiving Tyler!