I thought this had some funny mistakes in it.
Nothing to beat them up about but fun to read.
For Steadicam was not just a body-brace that strapped a camera to an operator. It was a motorized, multi-directional, DC-powered mechanical arm that linked a padded vest on the operator's body with a sensitive "gimble" used for fingertip control of the camera head's pans and tilts. Without the gravity-bound lock of traditional camera supports (e.g. a tripod), Steadicam relied on the operator's physical skills to move nimbly through sets. Operators likened the task to the demands of ballet or long distance running.
Although orthodox production wisdom held that any given technique brought with it this type of distinct stylistic function, many practitioners in the early 1980s simply embraced CP's more pragmatic hype: that Steadicam was also a cost effective substitute for dolly or crane shots. Not only could the device preempt costly crane and dolly rentals, and the time needed to lay track across a set or location, but it cut to the heart of the stratified labor equation that producers imported to primetime from Hollywood. On scenes demanding Steadicam, the Director of Photography, the 'A' camera operator, the focus-puller, and one or more assistants would merely stand aside as a single Steadicam operator executed lengthy moves that could previously consume inordinate amounts of program time. Steadicam was, then, not just a stylistic edge; it was also offered concrete production economies.
I can't even grasp part of it but it would be fun to Google the author!
Museum of Broadcasting/Steadicam
No replies to this topic