The Gimbal Thing Put to Bed.....For Now.
A decent Gimbal for me, probably a Ronin R3 mini or Crane 3R would cost me a s little as a cheap lens. $3-400 au and I am done.
I had a recent horror experience and it gave me the gimbal jitters, but looking into it with a solution in mind, even relenting and reviewing gimbals themselves as the only real option, I have come full circle (yet again).
I was asked to do two walk-and-talks, probably the hardest moves to pull of for a relatively inexperienced videographer.
You have backwards movement over about 40 meters of mixed surface (with no help-no guide, no soul or light assist), keeping two subjects in frame as steadily as possible, while matching their speed (none of the talent were practiced at this), while watching sound levels etc and in both cases, the subjects fluffing their lines most times (they only saw the script that day).
I did ok.
I felt I needed to do better.
I used the G9II, arguably the best self stabilised hybrid mirrorless camera available today with a stabilised lens (12-60), on a rail rig with side and rear weights, a top handle and stabe on maximum. I used a wide angle lens, I walked out the move several times and had some success, usually when the lines went wrong, and unfortunately the two complete takes were not the best footage overall.
The reality is, gimbal or not, this is a hard move to pull off if you have all done it before, much tougher if not.
I could have used my mechanical gimbal or reduced the duration of the move, slowed it down or even changed the shot to something else (if I had creative input), but I did not, so it was what it was.
When my little voice is talking, I have learned to listen and I have been trying as hard as I can to come up with another solution.
Why fight it, why be so anti-gimbal?
I don’t like the “do as everyone else does” mentality of the gimbal community. They are a handy tool if used wisely, but if over used, they tend to create the same movements, the same techniques as everyone else is using in the “on trend”world, but what about the other 99.9% of cinema history. What they then tend to do is become the one answer most need and a rigid corral is formed.
They are big and often clumsy to use, a bit like an Albatross, graceful in flight, less than impressive when not. I already have one man lighting, sound and camera gear stress, adding a gimbal is effectively another bag of gear, time to set up, something else to charge and something to fail. You could argue it is the one man band solution, but see above.
I have a natural aversion to over automation. I will use automatic features, even auto focus and exposure if relevant, but anything else is perilous and lazy. I also need to know I can do the very same thing without, have full control, which takes practice and commitment. Intuition takes a back seat or adapts to over-used tech. The more we rely on tech, the more it seems the tech dominates creative thinking.
Perfection is sometimes overrated and not appropriate. Some movement is accepted, perfection is like a lot of things, ideal sometimes, too much for others. It seems like it is a specialist bit of kit, with specialist, limited application. They create a very serious space, a look that suits slick music vids, they have big budget looking moves, when they are maybe not needed. The more “docco” style smooth but not perfect look is often more relevant to the space.
The big movement gimbals are still not perfect at fixing is the up-down walking roll, something that the “ninja” walk fixes, but I am so close to sorting that anyway. Is the complicated and expensive gimbal only going to offer a slight improvement in a hedge case? Most gimbal footage is reproduced in slo-mo, because it is still imperfect and needs to be smoothed or because the shot needs that look anyway. The walk-and-talk is a rare exception with real time movement and sound. It is the exception that has forced this thinking. A pain really. In stills, I would simply avoid what is not possible and come up with something else.
There are so many other options in both movements and ways of getting these movements to happen. Big cinema and broadcast cameras have been hand held for years without stabilising, they rely on their weight alone. Mechanical steady-cam stabilisers, shoulder rigs, counter weights, in camera and/or ens stabilising, tripods, sliders, practice, boom poles, straps etc have also been used in the past and the present.
Some prefer non-gimbal perfection, something smooth, but more organic, Guess the difference between micro jitters and perfect glides. Something that reminds us of human movement or the sort of semi-smooth look most movies use for action sequences (the rest is done with tripods etc). This also ties in with Panasonic and Olympus hand-held stabe.
I have the OSMO pocket with a mic jack etc. For the very rare times I need it, is this enough, better even in some situations. I did not get it set up on the day, but probably should have.
Setup and balancing is no easier than my mechanical gimbal and 100% harder than my hand held rig. My hand held rig takes literally less than a minute t set up and once mounted can be used all day, even on a tripod.
I have access to all or most of these now.
So, if I got one it would be used to accomplish the toughest of movements you can attempt, may still not nail it, may hold things up when needed, may fail, will become out dated and will improve my skills only in the context of their use.
Other options will not be limited to gear size or weight, will be applicable to any camera, are more controllable and intuitive and I feel often more natural.
This last is contentious. Is an obvious organic movement more natural than a smooth, near perfect one, or is that near, but not quite perfect movement even worse than more “organic” intentionally imperfect movement?
I have managed some very smooth footage with a basic steady-cam style gimbal, a home made rig, just the camera, a top handle and some body movements. There are some I cannot yet do, some I would never do.
As a test, I used my new rig (a work in progress), some good relaxed technique, which is so much easier when you are concentrating on a subject (Meg), not just walking around. Her response to the footage was “it looks natural and professional looking, like we often see on TV etc”. I had to agree, it was surprisingly fine.
Frankensteins monster works quite well. Coming in at 1900g, it is actually not heavy enough. If I add more weight, which I intend to, I have a shoulder strap for support, but the heavier, the steadier. Funny how stuff works out.
I have found the shoulder pad, mostly useless for a light weight rig is a brilliant hand cradle and seat for some weights, the side handles are not used as such, just balancing arms and the middle handle is probably not a real thing. Sometimes I struggle to balance a rig like this when changing camera settings, but this may not be needed. Usually the camera had a top handle, but I have experimented with a long straight handle for more “drop” weight.
Would a gimbal only add moves I don’t even use?
I will carry on as before. I have found in life, reacting to a single situation is often too much. Wait and see if it happens again and be prepared to fix it as you can. If that does not work, then maybe yes, I do need a fix that cannot be faked, replaced or ignored.