Early uses of Steadicam

Steadicam shots are used in several major motion pictures today, as several of these directors and cinematographers are reaching for the limitless possibilities of camera movement. Essentially, the steadicam stabilizes the camera from jitter due to the camera operator, giving a smoother image. Its use goes back to 1975 when it was first implemented in the film "Bound for Glory," shot by Haskell Wexler, which can be seen in this shot here:

Of coarse the running sequence from "Rocky" is another early use of the steadicam that was shot only one year later. Garrett Brown, the original inventor of the steadicam, was the operator for each of these notable sequences. Then in 1980, the invention was pushed even further when Stanley Kubrick and cinematographer John Alcott asked for the camera to be lower to the ground, for certain famous sequences in his film "The Shining".

MŌVI: The Future of Filmmaking

As I sat on my porch today enjoying the nice sunny weather, my roommate came out and showed me this new piece of technology made by FREEFLY.

Link to their homepage.

MŌVI (pronounced moe-vee) is a camera rig that breaks the process of cinematography into two pieces. Normally, the camera operator is focused on framing, focus, and the general movement their body needs to make in order to get the right shot. This can be very difficult, especially when you want a panning shot of someone in a car or someone running down the street. The steadiness of a camera can really define a quality film. With MŌVI, the process is broken up between two different operators. One is focused on getting the camera where it needs to be, and the other is concerned with framing and focus. How does this work? Think of it as advanced remote-controlled steadicam.  They have a few demo videos that explain it best.

The taxi shot they get about 3 minutes into this clip is incredible. To get a shot like this in the past you would need a substantial budget with several camera operators. They had two operators and a pair of rollerblades. Amazing. 

These rigs are not available to the public yet, and pricing has not been set. They say they will release them in the 4th quarter (October-January) and they probably wont be cheap. 

You can sign up for their newsletter to get updates and other information here.

I would consider a purchase like this a heavy investment that would pay off in the long run. If you put it to good use, you could probably compensate the price of the rig after just a few effective shots.

This second video goes even further into the possibilities of their products, especially the CINESTAR, a helicopter-like rig. We will probably have to be ready to drop several thousands of dollars for any of these products... but holy crap what a payoff. I myself will probably not be ready to purchase something like this for a while. But if anyone else is, let me know! I may want to borrow it. You know... if that's cool. 

Another Les Mis Post

Yes, I know we just had a Les Mis post.  And I just want to say that I agree with everything that was said.  I loved the film, it was a great adaptation of the musical, and the acting and singing was incredible.  In fact, I can almost say that Les Mis was my favorite movie of the year (there were so many good ones!).  That said, I liked it so much that I can afford to be nit-picky.  There were a few technical aspects that I thought suffered because of the uniqueness of the film.

Despite the great performance, the framing and eyeline do not match

In a way, this goes back to a lot of the discussion we had in class regarding acting for film and acting for theatre.  Much of the film was shot in such a way to let the actors act as they saw fit.  Because the musical performances set the pacing of the film, the cinematography suffered because the pacing was not as tight as it would be under normal conditions.  For instance, there were framing issues throughout, as the steadicam operators struggled to keep up with the actors moving around so freely.  There were also some weird eyeline issues.  It is obvious that from a directorial standpoint, the performance was placed above the cinematography in terms of choosing which take to put in the final cut.  That said, I am glad they made that choice because it led to the great performances that we saw.

Like I said, this was a great movie that I enjoyed very much, and it was innovative in a lot of respects.  But because of these innovations, it led to some neglect of the traditional approach.

Also, in no way do I mean to knock the steadicam operators.  They did some awesome work as seen in the behind the scenes video below.