Stabilization Gear Aesthetics: How Important?

[chriswatson]

This came up in another thread so instead of derailing that topic, I decided to start a new one.

There are so many stabilization devices out there from the Steady Stick to the Glide Cam. Where do we draw that line between getting great shots and the way we look getting those shots? I want to put this in context that I think these devices have opened up all sorts of creative avenues for our industry and I think they have a place in production setup of any videographer. So please don't see this as an indictment of using these peripherals. If anyone has seen my current work, they can attest than maybe I need to get one of those tools myself. :)

But I think we also have to face the reality that we are working in high end social events where discretion is just as important as the shots we get. In my case I would find it hard to do my job if I was using a peripheral that looked like a steering wheel or a stabilizer that utilized a backpack, a pole, and a string hanging in front of me. The secret to getting great candids is to make the bride and the people around her forget about your presence. Something I think that's difficult enough without all the extra gear.

I guess my question is, for those who use the extra gear, how do you overcome the obtrusiveness factor and blend into the surroundings? Again I want to stress that I have no ill will towards people who use such devices but I am curious about their experiences and how they overcome the challenges.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

[MediaConcepts]

I like the looks of the Tiffen Steadicam Jr. I don't know how well it works but it looks nice.

http://www.steadicam.com/handheldSteadicamJR.html

I agree with you about the steering wheel and others. If you want to be taken seriously you have to look the part. Sure it costs more, in some cases, but it's an investment in your business, your future and the overall acceptance of pro video at weddings.

Gotta go, my render's done.

Joe

[mazzystar]

chris not to go OT, but is that you in your avatar? for a minute there I thought it was eric model. :)

[chriswatson]

Hey Jason,

I'm sure Eric is deeply offended by that comment :smile: Anyway, that's me alright. I had some pics taken recently so I could have a decent head shot for seminars, website, etc. It was taken by Kevin Jairaj (http://www.kjimages.com), a very talented up and comer in the photography world and a good friend who owed me a favor or two.

Also, it's a little known fact but Eric, Randy Stubbs, and me are members of the Blue Man Group. Now it all makes sense....

Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

[mazzystar]

count me in, err, about three years ago, now, i just leave off an inch every haircut day.

Back on topic,

I feel there's a way we can utilize stablizing equipment without throwing attention to ourelves. But of course we never really are in the shoes of the spectators/guests so we can never really now unless told. Been using a GC since Feb and no complaints so far.

[chriswatson]

See that's what I was wondering about. Is the acclimation process about the same? I find it takes my brides a little time just to forget about my presence even with the gear stripped down to a cam and spiderbrace. Does personality and maybe self deprecating humor work to get brides comfortable with your presence even with unusual equipment strapped on you?

Chris Watson
Watson Videography

[mazzystar]

you got that right.

i always laugh/complain/make fun of myself while gliding. makes them more at ease with the whole thing. and also, though harder to do, i've tried my best to glide candidly (if ever there was such a thing). as a general rule of our shooting, we don't direct them to do anything or look whichever way.

it has also come to a point that, couples actually specify to have gliding shots in their video. so they pretty much expect the equipment.

[vegas06]

Well the other thread involved me so I'll chime in on this. For me it's dressing like I belong, which for me it's all black (black slacks, shirt/tie maybe tee depending on heat).
I mentioned this in the other thread, that the biggest problem that I face isn't my setup, whcih can be reduced considerably, but my on camera lighting, which I preffer to use in dark receptions. Myself with my light, in a dark reception, for guests is a heads up of "here comes the video guy".

When I don't use my light (not even attached), guests really don't react negatively to me. If I make sure to give every guest their space, they just go on as busines as usual and enjoy the night.

[chriswatson]

Hey Michael,

Thanks for responding. I was going to ask you this question in the other thread but it looks like you beat me to it over here. Do you think it's one of those things where you eventually get forgotten if they see you around long enough? That it doesn't matter what gear you have on, it all works the same? Thanks again for taking part and offering your perspective.

Chris W
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

[vegas06]

Hey Michael,

Thanks for responding. I was going to ask you this question in the other thread but it looks like you beat me to it over here. Do you think it's one of those things where you eventually get forgotten if they see you around long enough? That it doesn't matter what gear you have on, it all works the same? Thanks again for taking part and offering your perspective.

Chris W
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com (http://www.dallasweddingfilms.com)

Chris I do think that after a while you do become an afterthought of the guests. I agree whole-heartedly in yor post above, that the number one goal is to make everyone comfortable around you. Resepcting peoples space if imperative, so getting your shot and getting out is a must. Hell sometimes you you don't have to get the shot, but the shot finds you...I am editing a reception now where a circle formed around me, and a dance off insued. Not everyone is comfortable being shot, so those people I avoid.

Like Jason said above, I find, one of the best ways to make people comfortable is to crack jokes, especially on myself. Or maybe tell a dirty joke to the groom beforehand to losen him up, as my grooms seem to be more uptight and vervous than my brides.

As I said above, I think the biggest obsticle for me to overcome, when working with guests, is my camera light and not my stabilization setup. If you were to see my setup in person, you will realize it really isn't that big, although it definitely looked that way in my pictures.
Take the light out of the equasion and the guests don't pay me any mind at all.

So to answer your question, "boy I can ramble", I think our personality is more important than anything when shooting with extra equiptment. And in regards to the equiptment, they all do work about the same. as they help you stablize your shots better. Some give you more shooting options and do it better than others.
Some artists preffer charcoal, some acrylics, but they are just tools. The important thing is to find which tool best serves you.

[RatVega]

I like the looks of the Tiffen Steadicam Jr. I don't know how well it works but it looks nice.

http://www.steadicam.com/handheldSteadicamJR.html

I agree with you about the steering wheel and others. If you want to be taken seriously you have to look the part. Sure it costs more, in some cases, but it's an investment in your business, your future and the overall acceptance of pro video at weddings.

Gotta go, my render's done.

Joe

I own a Steadicam JR and a Varicam FloPod and had an opportunity to shoot a DVX on a FigRig (the "steering wheel") last wednesday night. Each has its own advantage. The Steadicam is by far the most fluid but also the most sensitive to use. The FigRig is actually quite nice for work where you want to be able to use a lot of angles. The FloPod has good flexibility and is the most versatile because you can go to the monopod to rest.

I have a fair amount of footage of me shooting with the Steadicam (usually at weddings) and I think I "fit in" as well as someone hand-holding. The difference I see is that most photogs are slightly fascinated by it and tend not to jam you up as much when you're tracking.

In trying to imagine shooting the FigRig at a wedding, I keep getting this image of people thinking you lost your way from the video arcade... Outside, I think it'd be fine. Of course this is just one guy's fears/opinion...

[AndrewMSV]

C-Wats, thanks for starting this thread. This is a question I've asked myself for a long time. So far the part that has won has always been the part that doesn't want to look like he's driving a pantomime invisible clown car or ready to fly away a la The Fall Guy intro-sequence jetpack.
http://www.defensetech.org/images/jetpack_485.jpg

I have to say that my attempts to get the "glide shot" without a glide device have failed most of the time. That is, I can use about 20% of the duration of the clip about 30% of the time. The rest of the time it hits the cutting room floor. Does that discourage me? Maybe a little - but it makes me want to do one of two things: either perfect the shot without a glide device or edit in a way that is equally dramatic but precludes that particular shot; both of which are virtuous.

I think, ultimately, Chris, your clients and your venues will dictate whether or not you can walk around with a robocop-looking device strapped to yourself without looking like you don't belong there (at best) and a $700-amateur (at worst.) Just remember that your clients hire you because of two things: they like your work and they like YOU. They like you because they think you are 'their kind of people' and can fit in at their event.

I'm sure that when they hired you they thought of you as a polite and professional nice-guy with great technical expertise and unmeasureable talent - I'm not sure they thought of you as a big sweaty dude with 30 lbs of iron strapped to your back, chest, and neck with springs and pulleys hanging off each side.

[vegas06]

Andrew, this is a bit off topic, but where did you find that pic. It's great!
I can see it now...I am not just a videographer, but the Rocketeer!

[AndrewMSV]

I think it was like 4 of 5 pages in on a Google image search for "jetpack". I couldn't find the original Colt Seavers version so I settled for this one.

[chriswatson]

I don't think this gear is a hindrance at all to getting high end work. Look at Dave Williams, Mark Von Lanken, and David Robin for proof of that. As you said, it really comes down to the work and the personality and not the tools we use. It's just that I see these manufacture's pics of these things on real people and think to myself "I can't go to a wedding in THAT". The gliding tools are not that bad but the "Fig Rig" and that backpack thing with the string (I think it's called the Tortoise Shell) are a little out of my comfort zone. Thanks everyone for chiming in.

Chris W
Watson Videography


C-Wats, thanks for starting this thread. This is a question I've asked myself for a long time. So far the part that has won has always been the part that doesn't want to look like he's driving a pantomime invisible clown car or ready to fly away a la The Fall Guy intro-sequence jetpack.
http://www.defensetech.org/images/jetpack_485.jpg

I have to say that my attempts to get the "glide shot" without a glide device have failed most of the time. That is, I can use about 20% of the duration of the clip about 30% of the time. The rest of the time it hits the cutting room floor. Does that discourage me? Maybe a little - but it makes me want to do one of two things: either perfect the shot without a glide device or edit in a way that is equally dramatic but precludes that particular shot; both of which are virtuous.

I think, ultimately, Chris, your clients and your venues will dictate whether or not you can walk around with a robocop-looking device strapped to yourself without looking like you don't belong there (at best) and a $700-amateur (at worst.) Just remember that your clients hire you because of two things: they like your work and they like YOU. They like you because they think you are 'their kind of people' and can fit in at their event.

I'm sure that when they hired you they thought of you as a polite and professional nice-guy with great technical expertise and unmeasureable talent - I'm not sure they thought of you as a big sweaty dude with 30 lbs of iron strapped to your back, chest, and neck with springs and pulleys hanging off each side.

[Darrell Aubert]

In regards to obtrusiveness, I know that many people view the smooth shooter as an eye sore to use at weddings. Since I actually use it, I can say that it really isn't so obtrusive. Certainly one must be aware that it could draw more attention to you, but as long as you're not out there to impress anyone or get in the way of anyone, you will be ignored.

[chriswatson]

But as long as you're not out there to impress anyone or get in the way of anyone, you will be ignored.

And here I thought it was all about impressing the ladies. You disappoint me, friend.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography

[AndrewMSV]

I will concede that with practice, any piece of equipment can be used with professionalism and discretion.
Likewise, without practice, the simplest handheld camera can be obnoxious and intrusive.
(I'm sure Eric Model is no longer running into tree branches with his smooth shooter and Unlce Charlie is still tripping little kids with his $39.99 Radio Shack tripod.)

But to address your question, Chris, I think your level of obtrusiveness is a state of mind. I'm sure, as unobtrusive as I think I am, there are still guests that think I shouldn't be there. How keen is my radar when it comes to picking up on these individuals and how well to I placate them? It's all in my own mind.
I know for a fact that a photographer friend of mine has commented about videoguys that he's shot with that wear the whole B&H Stabilization Department on their backs and how intrusive those guys are. If the photog thinks so, I'm sure there are a few cocktail guests that thought so too. But in the end, it's your mind that has to decide whether the heavy presence is worth the money shot or not.

[Darrell Aubert]

And here I thought it was all about impressing the ladies. You disappoint me, friend.

The ladies are impressed without effort. It's a side effect of using the SS you just need to get used to.

[docile]

The Glidecam 2000 or similar stabilizers (I use the Indicam stabilizer) take up less space than a monopod so I don't think it is any more obtrusive than a monopod.

I love it for bridal prep footage because it is so compact and gives me super steady footage without having to strap on a rig. Plus, I can make super smooth moving shots that you can't get with a monopod.

When I want a more stable shot with my Indicam, I rest the base of the stabilizer on top of the belt line of my pants so it functions more like a monopod when I need to give my forearms a break.

I haven't had any problems using my Indicam. In fact, I feel that the bridal party, guests, and others show me more respect when they see the Indicam and it piques some interest. When I do feel the, "What the heck are you doing?" from others is when I am trying to take artistic and/or detail shots. I feel like they are thinking, "Hey, the action is over there, what are you doing over there hunched over like that?"

With regards to the stabilizers impressing the ladies, it seems that the men are more impressed and interested than the ladies. The guys ask me questions about my stabilizer and start talking to me about it. I guess the girls seem to appreciate and understand what I am doing more than the guys as they let me do my job :grinning-smiley-021. All the ladies care about is if they look good, and of course, they look beautiful :grinning-smiley-021