I got the dual adjustable tilt plates from Quadrocopter which allowed me to move the camera mounting tube so the camera can sit much higher than it was. The only downside is that the camera is now upside down and I do not see any provision in the menu settings or manual to flip the picture in the camera. Has anyone been able to flip the image with a Sony 760? The tilt balance comes in so much better (night and day) with the camera in this position but it would be a pain in the butt to have to flip the picture in post. Anyone?
Rather doubt it since doing it camera would only add more processing power/time. Haven't seen any photos of anyone else's 760 rig where they needed to hang it upside down. Why don't you put it right side up and tilt the side bars up along with the additional adjustment from the dual adjustable tilt bars? Send photos?
Dave, you'll need to use a non-linear editor (Final Cut or Premiere, etc.) to invert the video. But try Gary's idea first... Andy.
I just got the tilt bars myself, and I'm going to try and mount & balance my Sony CX tonight (if I have time). If it works, I'll post photos. But I see no reason to hang the camera in "bat mode" (as many have done with the big cameras like REDs). Should not be necessary.
I have them too, and CX 730. With the bars all the way up the CX730 cog's perfect on the tilt, cam center to tilt axel center. No "bat-mode" here
Dammit I'm frustrated. It turns out that the dual adjustable bars require longer booms. Mine don't seem to fit.
Steve I left you a message to call me. I spent about 8 hours messing with it to figure out what the heck works the best. The dual adjustable tilt plates are designed to move the camera mount boom above the tilt bearing for taller cameras. This works great for taller cameras because their CG is in a way that the side booms don't have to be higher for balance. However for the Sony cameras to properly get the roll balanced you need the 2 side booms to be tilting upward which causes the dual adjustable tilt plates to hit the top of the gimbal and you lose your roll range of motion. I even cut the tilt plates down see the picture below and found it still doesn't not give you enough clearance. Even if it did give enough clearance I didn't want the camera upside down because there's no way to flip the image in the camera settings. So what I did was simply drill a hole in the adjustable plate (3rd hole on the tilt bar from the top) so that it would raise the center of gravity of the camera and bring the camera closer to the centerline of the tilt bearing. As you can see from this picture the camera is very close to the centereline of the servo shaft on the right which is the same exact height as the tilt servo shaft on the other side. I was able to raise the camera 9/16" of an inch and it did wonders for the balance of the tilt. As you can see by the bottom picture the camera could ultimately be raised a little more in relation to the centereline of the shaft but it definetely helped a lot. As you can see from the picture it looks like you can even drill the hole a little higher but you have to take in to account the actual tilt servo. Right now I balance the camera's tilt where it will stay without moving in almost the complete range of motion of the camera. It's definetely in balance for 99% of the usable range of motions the camera will see which is at least a 50% improvement. Drilling the hole another 1/8 to 1/4" higher will probably be absolutely perfect but I don't see any need to do so.
Dave I don't understand the comment about the adjustable bars hitting the top of the gimbal and causing interference. Can you elaborate?
Sure, if you look at the picture below the adjustable plates are actually almost 2 inches taller where I cut it where the arrow is. When I had the camera mounted upside down with the camera tubing up high, I was experiencing that the extension bars were hitting the top tubing on the gimbal when it was rolling on an angle. Especially where the servo is next to the arrow. It's not a problem where the camera and tubing is mounted now, but when the tubing is mounted above the shafts the clearance gets really narrow. The reason why the extension bars work on the taller cameras is because the CG of those type of cameras don't need the side bars angled up like they are shown in the picture below. If the tubing is angled straight across the centerline it gives more clearance between the extension bars and the upper tubing on the gimbal. The Sony 760 needs those side tubes angled upward to get the roll balanced correctly (at least mine). The only way I can get the Sony 760 to balance on the vertical roll axis is angle those side tubes like they are below.
Ok that makes sense. The original post implied that you cut them off for the setup that was shown. Don't want folks thinking that they are going to buy a $100 pair of bars only to have to cut them down.
The tilt bars are meant to lower cameras, like the 5D where the CG is very high. For the Sony you could just add height to the center area by using longer bolts, bushings and or washers. Maybe easier than hacking carbon also. I did just that when testing a 760
And the other option if you need to run the tilt bar on the top is to buy a slightly longer vertical tube to get the clearance you need.
To be honest you can save the $100 and use the stock rails if you drill the bottom mounting holes. I just used the new plates since I had them.
I bailed on the V2 adjustable bars (they're too long for me, too) and went back to the V1 adjustable bars (with grooves at only one end) and instead, just added about 20mm spacers to raise the camera up a bit. It finally balances, although it won't tilt down to 90° because the viewfinder hits the top of the gimbal. So, one way or the other, I guess I need longer boom arms (both single vertical and dual tilt booms). I'm a little frustrated (as usual) at the lack of documentation. And as much as I give lots of kudos to the Quadrocopter guys, I've grown frustrated with their lack of transparency about what parts work in what configuration. In particular, Jeff seems to post a ton of "look at how smooth my video is" links, but has never answered any of my emails about how the heck he has achieved balance with the Sony 760, for example. It's not clear that the QC RTF gimbals can do this without quite a few parts being swapped out. Anyway, to put my money where my mouth is, here's the little mod I did. I am waiting on delivery of some longer M3 screws and proper spacers, but in the meantime, I used some of the M3s I had laying around, and used a threaded spacer nut in between. Not a great solution, but it did the trick.
Steve see if a longer vertical drop tube would give you the additional height so you can clear the frame for vertical 90 degree shots.
I know...I just have to measure what I have and make sure I don't order something too long, or else I'll have clearance problems below. It Never Ends.™
I just noticed something interesting on the Quadrocopter home page. One of their rotating photos shows a Cinestar with a Sony CX on board, and it appears they did exactly what I did (added spacers to raise the camera). I wish somebody had told me this before I tried a bunch of other stuff. Sigh.
Steve, there are so many adjustment possibilities on the gimbal that you can end up with many different setups from person to person. While this is frustrating, it also allows for flexability. While I don't believe I got any photos of my 760 setup for the month I had it, the setup was similar to QC. It seems their side tubes are at a greater angle than mine but not far off. I would be more than happy to photo and share my 5Dmk3 setup with 16-35 for whoever is interested. I have done a few mods since mounting the 760 on the stock gimbal so I know it worked stock with just a few mm of spacers to lift the mount plate. I was also able to go vertical. It is possible that I wasn't fully balanced on tilt to achieve the clearance but the BOSS on the 760 can take it.
I ended up using some of the flexible rubber standoffs that are normally under the FC to lift the CX760 up, which serves three purposes, (1) it lifts the CoG into line with the roll axis, (2) it allows the camera to sit right above the front transverse boom, and (b) it adds a little bit more isolations from high frequency vibes. I think that QC would find it hard to address all of the myriad combinations of things out there... Andy.