Cameraman wearing steadycam vest in helicopter
Thread Starter
Cameraman wearing steadycam vest in helicopter
This clip in Gordys reply belowm shows a recent rehearsal for a video where the public of Grand Rapids are filmed "lip synching" to the song "American Pie".
The question I have regards the safety of the cameraman in the event of a ditching or crash into the river. The aircraft had no floats fitted and a standard life vest would be problematic worn over a steadycam vest,
What are the options to perform this kind of shot, especially over water, whilst maximizing safety of the cameraman?
Mickjoebill
The question I have regards the safety of the cameraman in the event of a ditching or crash into the river. The aircraft had no floats fitted and a standard life vest would be problematic worn over a steadycam vest,
What are the options to perform this kind of shot, especially over water, whilst maximizing safety of the cameraman?
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 28th May 2011 at 23:38.
Next...
To answer your question---the cameraman would simply get out and swim. I personally do NOT advocate the wearing of a typical life vest over water. If you crash, there will be flying debris which could puncture the vest, also as you swim out of the wreckage, chances are you will snag the vest also. The only option really would be to wear one of the "stole" type vests...or one of the vests in a pouch around your waist. He was using a "glidecam" NOT a "steadicam". The Glidecam is a simpler system utilizing weights, (I have one). Any of the vests I mentioned can be worn with a glidecam system.
There are some jobs that have risk associated with them. All one can do is mitigate those risks to the best of your ability with the production funds available. The production I am guessing was doing it on the "cheap", although I like it---it does have an "amateurish" look to it. One could argue using a float equipped helicopter or twin engine. Most companies who do this type of work in the US have FAA approved "Movie Production Manuals", along with all the required waivers. I suspect the helicopter in this case was just a local operator with no movie background.
A couple of observations:
1. At minute 2:24 you can see the reflection of the camera platform in a window---not good.
2. The helicopter shots were not the smoothest......
3. Towards the end, they show the helicopter. I realize it probably had something to do with "product placement", but it was tacky. IMHO it would have been better to not show how the last shot was obtained. The ultimate goal of any helicopter shoot is to NOT give away that it was filmed from a helicopter. Next time you watch a movie---pay attention and see if you can tell which scenes, if any, are filmed from a helicopter.
Having said all that----I kinda like the movie.
Edited to add: Mickjoebill...just looked at your profile and saw you are a cameraman....I suspect you have more "observations" about the technical aspect of the filming than me...
To answer your question---the cameraman would simply get out and swim. I personally do NOT advocate the wearing of a typical life vest over water. If you crash, there will be flying debris which could puncture the vest, also as you swim out of the wreckage, chances are you will snag the vest also. The only option really would be to wear one of the "stole" type vests...or one of the vests in a pouch around your waist. He was using a "glidecam" NOT a "steadicam". The Glidecam is a simpler system utilizing weights, (I have one). Any of the vests I mentioned can be worn with a glidecam system.
There are some jobs that have risk associated with them. All one can do is mitigate those risks to the best of your ability with the production funds available. The production I am guessing was doing it on the "cheap", although I like it---it does have an "amateurish" look to it. One could argue using a float equipped helicopter or twin engine. Most companies who do this type of work in the US have FAA approved "Movie Production Manuals", along with all the required waivers. I suspect the helicopter in this case was just a local operator with no movie background.
A couple of observations:
1. At minute 2:24 you can see the reflection of the camera platform in a window---not good.
2. The helicopter shots were not the smoothest......
3. Towards the end, they show the helicopter. I realize it probably had something to do with "product placement", but it was tacky. IMHO it would have been better to not show how the last shot was obtained. The ultimate goal of any helicopter shoot is to NOT give away that it was filmed from a helicopter. Next time you watch a movie---pay attention and see if you can tell which scenes, if any, are filmed from a helicopter.
Having said all that----I kinda like the movie.
Edited to add: Mickjoebill...just looked at your profile and saw you are a cameraman....I suspect you have more "observations" about the technical aspect of the filming than me...
Last edited by Gordy; 28th May 2011 at 16:30. Reason: Looked at your profile
Thread Starter
To answer your question---the cameraman would simply get out and swim.
A cameraman drowned a few years back because he became entangled in his camera mount when the Cessna he was filming from made a controlled ditching, but 3 other persons on board simply got out and swam.
Like that incident, this video is a worthy idea shot on a limited budget with willing participants, this is a common mix of factors in helicopter accidents involving filming. Just like the one two weeks ago shooting the skateboard competition. No question the Grand Rapids shoot was better planned than most, which makes me more curious as to PPruners' opinion if the rehearsal and shooting flights could have given the cameraman a greater safety factor.ie a safety boat? floats? helmet? ect
Mickjoebill
There have been more than enough injuries to camera operators hanging out the side of helicopters. I know of one chap who is still fighting to get back the cost of his equipment lost in a USA accident whilst filming for the BBC. He was severely injured and his medical costs were covered - but they have so far refused to pay for the gear lost when the heli landed side down after some stupid flying.
Mickjoebill - isn't it about time that gyrostab camera mounts with doors on and operator safely inside are mandated?
Mickjoebill - isn't it about time that gyrostab camera mounts with doors on and operator safely inside are mandated?
Jim...
We both know it comes down to cost. There are companies out here in the US that have the required manuals and waivers---and those that do not. I suspect that most of the "low budget" filming is done with small companies who get a last minute call to go do some ad-hoc filming. By mandating the rules you suggest, it will prevent many of the lower budget productions from getting some good footage.
For those who do not know---there are ways to stay inside...Wescam or Spacecam systems Nose mount:
Tyler side mount:
I even flew a Schweizer with a non-gyro stabilized ball but a stabilized lens:
We both know it comes down to cost. There are companies out here in the US that have the required manuals and waivers---and those that do not. I suspect that most of the "low budget" filming is done with small companies who get a last minute call to go do some ad-hoc filming. By mandating the rules you suggest, it will prevent many of the lower budget productions from getting some good footage.
For those who do not know---there are ways to stay inside...Wescam or Spacecam systems Nose mount:
Tyler side mount:
I even flew a Schweizer with a non-gyro stabilized ball but a stabilized lens:
