The Movi // Revolutionary camera stabilizer

Downtofilm

Downtofilm

Active member
Easily the coolest stabilizer I have ever seen, one part of me is hoping that it doesnt take away from Steadicam ops seeing as very few people actually do it but one part of me is tickling inside with excitement.

Vincents movie shot on the Movi

MōVI from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.

Behind the scenes of the movie

MōVI BTS from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.

 
that was soo sweet. twas crazy how he was able to get such a smooth shot even when rollerblading after a car decently fast
 
I'm amazed at how many threads have been made on this considering the cost, who here needs this?
 
I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal, many of those shots looked just like what I've seen from a glidecam and the aerials had noticeable jerk going on.
 
came to M&A to post this

rage.gif
 
do you see how little effort it takes to get the shot? Most of those shots were shot with one hand carrying the rig, that's insane
 
this is insane to me. i mean, to be honest, i feel like they saw what some A/V RC Heli guys were using and made a system based off of that. for 7.5k, you could get this same technology in a very nice, stable piece of flying equipment. i mean fuck, i could take my gimble and gyro/servos off my heli and mount it to my glidecam and get something comparable (obviously i know its not that easy) for a fraction of the price. If anyone is trying to DIY one of these setups, i suggest you study up on some of the stuff the A/V RC Heli world has been working with and i guarantee you can get one comparable for a much more reasonable price.
 
So sick, anybody know the price for one of these right now? it probs could be built if you know somebody that can get the right materials and figure out the balancing
 
Wow...JUST posted this cause I though it was cool. Although you posted it a bit before me.

Fail on my part. I apologize newschoolers
 
I find the price very reasonable. you seem to forget hes controling the pan and tilt of the camera and also pulling focus. all from a distance with a wireless monitor.

 
I have to agree with PBraunstein. It's pretty expensive, I think most people that need this technology already have it.
 
Paul, have any links to forums/information about heli gyros and stabilizers? I'd love to see if it's a reasonable summer project to build something like this.
 
no, i didnt forget that one bit. what do you think is needed when controlling one of these same systems WHILE HANGING ON A HELICOPTER? for 7.5k, you could literally have this technology IN THE AIR.

i have no doubt they're using a 3axis gimbal (im sure custom made, but the same exact style rigs are being used in the air), some sort of 3axis gyro (heli guys use the same type of gyros you would use to actually fly the heli on the camera gimbals themselves, enabling the gimbal to produce counter movements of the heli), and using some type of 2.4mhz radio system (or something comparable) for the actual downlink and control of the gimbal.

1337- head on over the A/V forum at helifreak.com and start browsing your ass off. the search engine on helifreak is decent enough. lots and lots of valuable info over there for anyone tyring to get a DIY project of these sort. Also, feel free to pm me if you have any other questions.
 
PB:

This system was originally flown on a quadcopter, under the company called "Freefly," headed by a chap named Tabb Firschau. Here's their Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/freeflycinema.

I believe the idea for this project was to create something unique. As you said, there are already heaps of people flying gimbals from multi-copter platforms. This is a unique design that allows for seemingly any camera to be mounted to a hand held gimbal.

Laws for UAV flight in civilian airspace are beginning to get more strict. Hollywood can't fly UAVs without a special permit (if at all?), but who's going to stop you from running around the street with this thing in your hands.
 
I think the point is that for the same price, you can have what's essentially this system AND a helicopter. He's saying that this movi thing is overpriced and isn't unique as it's already being done, not arguing the merits of helicopters over handheld stabilization.
 
I see your guys' point but do not agree that its over priced whatsoever.

I would, however, love for someone to link me to a product as robust and with as accurate stabilization as this for a similar price, flying or not. At some level of videography, stable images are valued much higher than a couple G's.
 
exactly, but these stabilized products already exist. This product seems to be marketing to the hobbyist/am filmer who doesn't have 10k to drop on a stabilizer. Otherwise, there wasn't a shot in that promo edit that I haven't already seen done just as smoothly.
 
And at that level of cinematography, people are generally not using DSLRs and handheld stabilizers. I really just don't see the point of this thing.
 
it is significantly overpriced.

if the "pro" unit (15k) was priced at the smaller units price (7K) than you could say that it is reasonably priced. While it is a great looking product, I wouldn't call it revolutionary in the indie world (the technology has been around for a minute now) unless it came in a price point comparable to other top tier "indie" rigs- ie. Steadycam, Glidecam x-22
 
it looks like they're using brushless motors at each axis, does anyone think that this same design could work with just bearings at each axis? it'd probably be a bitch to balance, but i feel like a simplified version of that design might work, and i feel like it couldn't possibly be that expensive.

for handheld use, i'd probably leave out the bearing at the pan axis, and maybe hang a counterweight below the camera. i think i might build a PVC version just for shits and giggles.
 
Totally fair, and I think Tabb is probably aware of this concern.

I worked for an engineering company this summer that specializes in much more advanced stabilization systems for UAV imagers. We were approached by a striving-to-be-professional videographer with an idea to make this exact product, but in the end the company decided not to because of this exact complaint: the market for a high-performance (and reflectively high-priced) stabilizer just doesn't exist. Or at least the target market isn't willing to pay up.

People in the film industry are generally not willing to spend too much money to slightly increase their shot quality.

This is why wars fuel innovations and technology booms, not Hollywood. The unfortunate truth.
 
Interested to know who you worked for.. I was working out of grass valley (home of general dynamics-Cineflex) a couple months ago and talked to a guy at the airport about the cineflex I was shooting with. He said a large part of the stabilized camera market wasn't Hollywood anymore, it's law enforcement/military. That being said, I think the film industry can justify investments in high end stabilizers. But you're right, all these technologies have been around and were most likely developed for the military
 
Some one needs to implement object tracking into these, and eliminate the need for a camera driver. Even further, if someone can write a fast algorithm for focusing you could completely eliminate the need for a camera operator.

Check this thing out:

http://soloshot.com/

Definitely a start.
 
i feel like you could do it without object tracking, even a simple controller on the grips for the yaw and pitch axes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top