Helicopter mount or handheld [Archive]

View Full Version : Helicopter mount or handheld

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-22-2007, 12:18 PM

I am comfortable shooting out of an open helicopter door (leaning out, standing on the sleds).

Yes, I know what I´m talking about. Did it. Hung out, hung under, on long ropes, abseiled to whatever, etc.)

Just never with a camera. So here comes the newbee question: Whats the advantage of a helicopter mount? Is handheld too shaky no matter what?

Jochen

Ace

07-22-2007, 01:15 PM

Josch, if never with a camera, just curious, what were you doing hanging under a helicopter?

Manfred Lopez

07-22-2007, 03:02 PM

I just shot some aerial photography with an HVX200 handheld. I have some footage I could show... but I need to know how to post it (I can't release the footage on youtube... but here no problem).

Manfred Lopez

07-22-2007, 03:19 PM

Okay... figured it out. I am uploading as I type to Photobucket. I didn't realize they also allow videos. So in a couple of minutes it should be uploaded.

Petr Dvorak

07-22-2007, 03:38 PM

or try some free public share sites like
www.flyupload.com (2GB)
or http://sdobart.com/upload/pupload/

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-22-2007, 04:20 PM

Josch, if never with a camera, just curious, what were you doing hanging under a helicopter?

Mountain rescue.
To rephrase the question: Should I forget about aerial shots without a helicopter mount?
I´m talking about medium lenses, not extrem Planet Earth type tele.

Manfred Lopez

07-22-2007, 04:28 PM

Okay, here it is. Handheld, airborne with an HVX. This was done for an industrial video. Now lets see if the link works.

http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s313/manfredlopez/?action=view&current=e3e90a7e.flv

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-22-2007, 04:43 PM

Manfred Lopez

07-23-2007, 07:20 AM

Whow, that is excellent!

And you did not SmoothCam it or anything, right? Because I dont see any rubberyness in the images. (I´m making my english vocabulary up as I need it)

I guess you´ve answered my question.

Jochen

Um, yes to smoothcam with shake (I am asuming you are being a bit sarcastic in your responce). In my haste to upload last night I forgot to mention the details of the shot, including that the footage was more fluid (or is it 'rubery'?) with the smoothcam filter. But that is the way the client wanted it. Without the filter --and without any stabilisation-- the footage ends up looking quite 'verite'... which might be a wanted quality or not. In this case they wanted it as close to a computer render as possible.

But the point is that even though handheld will be shaky no matter what... somewhat acceptable shots are possible on a very low budget if one is willing to use things like shake and the smoothcam filter (one can alway adjust the quantity of the 'smoothing-to-be' in shake).

And by the way, I found it hard as hell to "absorb" all the turbulance with my arms and hands while hanging out of the aircraft with just a rope around my waist as a safety net. Also it's hard to shoot this sort of thing with small format cameras.

But anyway, I was just trying to help.

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-23-2007, 07:45 AM

Um, yes to smoothcam with shake (I am asuming you are being a bit sarcastic in your responce). In my haste to upload last night I forgot to mention the details of the shot, including that the footage was more fluid (or is it 'rubery'?) with the smoothcam filter. But that is the way the client wanted it. Without the filter --and without any stabilisation-- the footage ends up looking quite 'verite'... which might be a wanted quality or not. In this case they wanted it as close to a computer render as possible.

Oh, no no. No sarcasm at all.And by rubbery I meant that particular side effect that SmoothCam has where parts of the image get x/y distorted. Like a projection on a cotton screen with a bit of wind.

Check out http://postproduction.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=162747

At the last quarter of the page there´s a SmoothCam demo (With the 2 actors). Watch the leaves in the upper right quadrant in the last 2 seconds of the shot. I find that happens a lot with smoothcam.

But the point is that even though handheld will be shaky no matter what... somewhat acceptable shots are possible on a very low budget if one is willing to use things like shake and the smoothcam filter (one can alway adjust the quantity of the 'smoothing-to-be' in shake).

And by the way, I found it hard as hell to "absorb" all the turbulance with my arms and hands while hanging out of the aircraft with just a rope around my waist as a safety net. Also it's hard to shoot this sort of thing with small format cameras.

But anyway, I was just trying to help.

Thank you, you did. The reason for my query is that is have access to a helicopter (oh, and a pilot) and thought about shooting some stock footage. But renting a mount would probably blow any possible profit away.

With the Red being somewhat heavier a handheld shot might be ok (?) On a windless morning. Shooting wide angle. Trying not to breathe for some minutes.

Jochen

Manfred Lopez

07-23-2007, 05:34 PM

Oh, no no. No sarcasm at all...

Jochen

Oops... I appologize... I completelly missinterpreted your post. I haven't slept much in the last few days. Also the aerial shots that I posted are my first ones ever... so I guess I was also being oversensitive. I was just excited to be able to pull it off in the first place (I had to sort of... er... lead the clients to believe that I had done this sort of thing before without actually lying... that in itself was tricky :devil: ).

By the way, it was people from this board who helped me out with some pointers (thank you all :turned: ). So, if you need any additional pointers or answers don't hesitate to post away...

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-23-2007, 11:41 PM

Did you try any longer lenses on this shot (or zoom in more)?

Jochen

Manfred Lopez

07-24-2007, 01:54 AM

Yes, but it got too unstable after a certain point. I would stay as wide as possible. One solution is to shoot at a bigger resolution than the delivery format and then just choose the part of the frame that you need. This would be like a virtual zoom. For example, if you are using an HVX and intend to deliver SD, then shoot wide at 1080P and just crop the image to get the area you need. With RED it would be using 4k to deliver 2k or HD.

If your footage absolutely requires focal length and visual characteristics of a long lens, then you pretty much need a Tyler mount.

http://www.tylermount.com/frameshome.html

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

07-24-2007, 03:45 AM

I tried this virtual zoom thing once and failed.

Because of too many frames containing motion blur. The image was steady but looked like an autofocus on drugs.

Jochen

Oliver Roetz

07-24-2007, 03:50 PM

I did quite a lot of helicopter filming over the last couple of years...most of that stuff was done with the camera on my lap. For me it is the best way to absorb at least some of the vibrations. But this is just a compromise which means that a camera movement is not possible (and doesn't make sense).Long lens stuff is difficult and always depending on the wind. If it is calm up there it should be ok to zoom in a bit.
Check out if the pilot has some filming experience - in the end he is doing the pictures...you are just holding the camera...:biggrin:
Seriously, it is important that he understands what you want. And make sure you feel comfortable with your setup - once in the air it's hard to change things.
For the mounts you pay quite some money.
The Tyler middle mount I recently worked with was about 750€/hour. Trouble is, you can not just get in the chopper and do it. You really got to get used to it which needs some time.
Wescam is MUCH more. Both systems need experienced operators - but if you have the money AND the experience you can do awesome stuff.

@TheThe: Your footage looks pretty good, especially for a small cam - no need to be oversensitive. Nice stuff.

Regards, Oliver

Manfred Lopez

07-24-2007, 10:22 PM

@TheThe: Your footage looks pretty good, especially for a small cam - no need to be oversensitive. Nice stuff.

Regards, Oliver

Thank you so much. I really apreciate the feedback. Like I said, it was my first ever airborne shooting session. One of the mistakes I did was to allow the client to convince me that three hours of non-stop shooting was okay... my arms, legs and fingers have never been that sore before. :weight_lift:

By the way, I completely agree with the bit about having good communication with the pilot. Since I did use my body as a virtual steadicam (from the waist up... what a workout for three hours!) I therefore was able to do some basic camera moves (like the last shot in my clip)... but these where totally dependent on coordination with the pilot so the aircraft would do its half of the movement.

But anyway, now I am totally addicted to airborne photography... For my upcomming feature I'll be writting in whole new scenes and shots that utilize these types of shots.

Mathew Mackereth

07-26-2007, 07:29 AM

for chopper shots on a budget i can seriously recommend hiring a canon image stabiliser (i think it was an IS-20 or something) which can fit on the front of a canon ENG-style lens. it has a system of lens plates that are electronically powered to move in the reverse direction to the camera's movement.

I have used it shooting digibeta from a jet-ranger - these things do an incredible job of knocking out a lot of the vibration.

$300 australian a day hire if in Australia - although very different in style from a mount - it is a hell of a lot cheaper, and avoids the "shaky cam".

Robert Mott

07-26-2007, 06:35 PM