Here's the same video I posted earlier but this time with a light touch of post process to clean it up a bit. Problem with this is the limitations of the Nex 5N begin to really show themselves in anything other than straight fore/aft motion as the stabilization takes its toll and I can see some slight pixelation in places where the movement is on the pan axis. I know that I can slow it down on the manual pan or leave those clips out altogether where appropriate but I'd much rather not be restricted because of what needs to be done on the backend to get decent output. A couple solutions could be a better camera with more pixel density so there's less loss in post and/or a better high end NLE app that doesn't butcher the data quite as much, and of course there's always the holy grail of having the camera platform stabilized well enough that post process isn't needed, much easier said than done. None of the solutions are inexpensive and not anything I'm going to pursue anytime soon...
I'm not so sure where the roll wiggle is coming from although I suspect that some is a direct result of the Cinestar isolation mount system. Two things I see there, one is the mounts are too soft allowing for motion in directions the RSGS can't compensate for very well if at all such as vertical and direct side to side (the cause of the slight rolling in the vid I suspect). The other is the number of mounting points of the Cinestar system. On the CS 6 there are only three points at which the gimbal mounting plate is attached via the isolation mounts while there is the possiblilty to utilize all 6 spots on the lower center plate. I think a 6 point mounting using the existing design of the isolation mounts may be a possible cure for the wiggle and wobble by removing or at least restricting the motion of the mounting plate in those directions. Problem is it would take a custom cut mounting plate plus an additional 3 isolation mounts to test that theory and that would not be a cheap proposition especially if it proved to be only slightly better if at all.
I do agree the Z-15 would certainly give me what I'm trying to achieve but at a high buy-in cost with the added inflexibility of being locked into a single camera and lens, not to mention the WKM requirement on top of all of it. Given how quickly the technology is evolving I simply cannot justify that kind of expense for something that limited that will also certainly be displaced by something better in the not too distant future the way things are headed.
Raining here again today, been very wet fall so far and unfortunately by the time conditions improve enough for APV I think the foliage will be past its peak and a lot of it already on ther ground...
Ken
