Jump to content



Photo

Pro2 Landing Pad 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2010 - 12:52 PM

hi guys.
Steve has made some mods to his Pro2 Landing Pad to make it lighter and able to work with the hc-90's. It's basically the same idea, but now you can put any plate you want on the bottom using the three 3/8th or two 1/4-20 tapped holes. With the 7" Pro plate attached it is several ounces lighter than the 1st version (bringing just under a pound). With no plate attached it's about .5 lb.

I just picked up his protoype and it's nice. The production one will put the plate about 1/8th inch lower for more clearance for the hc-90 (I have to smear Lisagav on the batt to squeeze it in to the front spot). I don't set my rig down regularly unless it's on my cart's foam pad, but it's nice to have the ability to do so without putting all that weight on the batteries. Using the new "foot" I'm also playing with the ability to move the front battery lower/adding a fourth battery (for beastly cameras) or moving the front battery way forward for lcd's (like Hugo's rig). I'm not a fan of adding dead weight so this will give me some options to fight the dreaded knee-banging post.

I'll fly around with it for a week or so and make sure all is well and report back. Here are a few snapshots:

rb

Attached Files


  • 0

#2 Steve Fracol SOC

Steve Fracol SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 148 posts
  • Thousand Oaks, CA

Posted 02 March 2010 - 02:04 PM

Just an FYI-

The production run will also have rounded over edges to make them look a little sexier (and not sharp)... especially for when the Lisagav is added. I am still checking when this next run will be ready but I am guessing 30-45 days as of now. Any direct questions please feel free to email me or call.

steve@fracol.com
323-301-6790

Best,

Steve
  • 0

#3 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2010 - 02:09 AM

Here are a few pics of the landing pad from the set today:

Attached File  IMG_5372.jpg   64.03KB   254 downloads

Attached File  IMG_5390.jpg   63.05KB   324 downloads

Attached File  IMG_5391.jpg   56.63KB   297 downloads

I'm not flying in the configuration pictured here -- this f-35 setup is only 28 lbs so the extra mass/power it's definitely not needed. I have been using an hc and 160 in the back which power the camera, aks and tb-6 for hours and weigh slightly less than 3 hc-90's. I just threw the extra battery on the bottom as an example of what can be done to help with heavier/top heavy cameras. The bottom battery can also be a 4th batt and power the monitor all by itself, leaving the other 3 to power the camera and all the aks separately.

The longer pro plate can also be used to move the battery forward for lcd monitors (which I'm looking forward to trying when the Nebtek's hd digi level is ready). Haven't had time to experiment with it too much yet but it seems to open up a lot of possibilities for keeping the post shorter/adding power without resorting to adding dead weight.

I have a pilot with a panavised f-900 coming up so I'll play with some different configurations with that oh so sweet camera.

I almost forgot to mention how great it is to have a nice flat surface to support the sled if/when I set it down.

rb
  • 0

#4 Jens Piotrowski SOC

Jens Piotrowski SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1656 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 12 March 2010 - 12:47 PM

Hi Ron,

talking about "dead weight". I would loose the camwave, the low mode bracket/plate, mount my motors lower, ......that should shorten your post by at least 2 inches.
  • 0

#5 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2010 - 02:13 PM

Hi Ron,

talking about "dead weight". I would loose the camwave, the low mode bracket/plate, mount my motors lower, ......that should shorten your post by at least 2 inches.


You are right, but the camera was only 28 lbs with everything so I didn't mind the extra wt...and the only way to shorten my post any farther is with a saw. As far as the motors, yes I would have lost the top wedge and put the motors lower if I didn't already have almost 2 inches above the gimbal so it really didn't matter. As i said, the foot will be a great advantage with heavy cameras and top heavy cameras, this setup is neither.

Ron
  • 0

#6 Charles Papert

Charles Papert

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2224 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:46 PM

Personally I would only lose a low-mode plate for a situation where its absolutely critical for lightest weight, like running, stairs or other unpleasantries. For a standard production environment where there is any possibility of low mode during the day (and not poor-man's low mode), I don't like having to add the low mode plate as that adds on to the time estimate and I think it's important to keep the flipover as quick as possible. But that's just me.
  • 0

#7 Jens Piotrowski SOC

Jens Piotrowski SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1656 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:26 PM

it's looks like an F35/F23, so I would be flipping the image rather than the camera, faster and more convenient.....but everybody has it's own preference...... :-)
  • 0

#8 Charles Papert

Charles Papert

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2224 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:00 PM

You're right Jens--I was sort of high on crack when I wrote that. Good times but it impairs my reasoning slightly.
  • 0

#9 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:58 AM

Yes, as mentioned it is an f-35. Didn't do any low mode on this pilot, but the dit and dp would have been fine to flip the image. I did however day-play on a show a few weeks ago where the dit wasn't so hip on the image flip thing so I had to do the usual camera flip - I'm not gonna argue when I'm the guest for a day unless I'm asked to do something really silly like add dead weight to the sled!

The camera was much lighter than I expected (not a lot of experience with this camera before this month). I piled the stuff on and it was still barely 28 lbs including the cables, plates, 2 motors, cinetape, 28 to 76mm/mattebox, camwave, fiber back and low mode wedge. As Jens mentioned about 2.5 lbs can be shaved off if the low mode stuff and camwave are lost.
  • 0

#10 Robert Starling SOC

Robert Starling SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1134 posts
  • Las Vegas, NV

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

I guess I've taken for granted that I can simply set my Tiffen rig down when needed on whatever there is close by and never thought about it; about all I have to do is make sure the rear battery area of my rig is hanging off the edge of whatever I'm resting the lower dovetail on.

Is it correct to assume this is the same challenge whether you run the bottom battery on the PRO or not because the battery plate is there? Is it the same with the XCS rigs?

Thanks!

Robert
  • 0

#11 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 March 2010 - 04:16 AM

I asked George about setting the sled down on the batts when I bought mine, he said it was designed for that. I am a bit uncomfortable putting all that weight on the batts/connectors but many have done it for years with no issues I know of. I'm guessing George angled the front battery so the two bottom batts (h-50's or d-90's) would give a flat surface to put the rig down onto -- it won't sit right unless both bottom batts are on. The hc's are a different shape so it doesn't sit flat.

rb
  • 0

#12 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2010 - 10:31 PM

here's a picture from today's "prep". I only had a few minutes to throw this all together and will not fly it this way -- I wanted to play with the front battery placement and see what kind of post length was required (and if I could even do it incase I was ever required to). Pictured is the sled with one d-160, two hc-90's, Steve's "foot"with a 7" pro plate, and an ab gold mount plate mounted to an old dovetail I had lying around in my garage.

Attached File  genesis:pro2.jpg   82.63KB   168 downloads

-the d-160 is 1.6 lbs heavier than an hc-90

-add another 1.6ish lbs for the "foot", pro plate, dovetail, and xlr plate for a total of 3.2 lbs over a stock pro2 with three hc-90's.

FWI: threw the camera onto a scale...Genesis, tape deck (no tape), down converter, lw zoom/mattebox, arf/filter, clockit box, audio reciever, 2 preston dm-1 motors, hill bracket, xsc plate, pana dovetail, cables -- 37 lbs. A schlepp to be sure but not as heavy as I thought. With a 50 primo it would become a beastly 41 lbs, oi!

rb
  • 0

#13 thomas-english

thomas-english

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1165 posts
  • UK

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:51 PM

What bracket is that you are using to attach a battery onto a dovetail plate?

Certainly the Baer-Bel Cat Griller could be used for this but I am very interested by what you are using.

Thanks

Thomas
  • 0

#14 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 May 2010 - 11:12 PM

What bracket is that you are using to attach a battery onto a dovetail plate?

Certainly the Baer-Bel Cat Griller could be used for this but I am very interested by what you are using.

Thanks

Thomas


that is a cobbled together last minute solution -- part of my old model 2 top stage and an extra ab plate I had lying around the garage (it seems no one makes a small lw dovetail plate...maybe Greg Bubb does?). I wanted to try it to be sure it worked well before having it made at a machine shop. Larry had a very simple one that he made that was nice, it's visible in some pictures I posted of his sled in December. If you find one let us know.

here are a few closer shots of the dovetail. With the hc-90 moved lower and farther back I could push the monitor out where I like it and keep the post extension at 1" or less (the xcs plate requires an extra 3/4" or so).

rb

Attached Files


  • 0




Boland Communications

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

BOXX

rebotnix Technologies

GPI Pro Systems

Wireless Video Systems

PLC Electronics Solutions

Omnishot Systems

Betz Tools for Stabilizers

Engineered Cinema Solutions

PLC - Bartech

Varizoom Follow Focus

IDX

Paralinx LLC

SkyDreams

Teradek

Ritter Battery