Steadicam

[twister!]

Yep, that'll be a monopod - ideal for above said purpose. They're quite cheap and more importantly a hell of a lot lighter.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 01, 2005 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>

[curtinparloe]

I've tried that monopod technique and although it's an improvement over handheld, it's pants compared to the real deal. The main difference is the gimbal, which absorbs the operator's movements COMPLETELY [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]

I'll capture some footage comparisons in a while (teatime...) so you can see the difference...

bnew - University of Bolton.

edit:

here's the footage with a comparison using the tripod method.
divx video - 1meg

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 02, 2005 09:11 PM: Message edited by: curtinparloe ]</font>

[occasus]

gee, that tripod method looks worse than handheld! The other one looks great though, did you use a real steadicam?

[curtinparloe]

It was a tricky movement, but I was less careful for the steadicam sequence (i was just chuffed I had it working at all!).

Originally posted by occasus:
did you use a real steadicam?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yes, it's a real one [img]wink.gif[/img]
Steadicam Jr.