2005Cameras (Film/Video/HD) forum
Using Panavision film cameras on Steadicam EFP rigs for vehicle-mounted work
21 years old. Gear and prices may have changed since.
What the thread found
- The Panavision Millennium XL camera is considerably heavier than smaller film cameras and pushes an EFP arm with blue springs near or beyond its design limits
- Using 200-foot film magazines on a vehicle mount requires frequent magazine changes and is operationally inefficient
- A 24-volt power supply can be provided to a Panavision XL through a 12v-to-24v converter with XLR connectors
- Upgrading an EFP arm's blue springs to gold springs without replacing the entire rig creates serious safety risks because the dogbones, hinges, gimbal ring, bearing races, yoke, and vest structure are not engineered for increased load capacity
- Overloading an EFP arm can cause metal fatigue and failure in components including the arm socket plate, the upper Y-spar of the vest, and the gimbal assembly
- Hard-mounting an overloaded Steadicam arm on an ATV during vehicle work creates risk of catastrophic arm failure that could injure the operator
- Production insurance may not cover damage resulting from equipment failure caused by exceeding design specifications
- Renting or borrowing a complete Steadicam rig suitable for heavy cinema cameras is safer and more cost-effective than modifying an EFP system beyond its capacity
- The Panavision XL2 camera is feasible to fly on an EFP with blue springs set near maximum, though it operates at the upper limit of the arm's capability
Depends on
- The discussion involves equipment and practices from 2005 and earlier Steadicam generations; modern equipment may have different specifications
- Limited availability of alternative Steadicam rigs in some geographic markets may constrain rental options
- Camera rental decisions are ultimately made by production, not the operator
- One operator reported occasional video-tap issues with an XL2 but noted this may be unit-specific