Why wouldn't a company like Flotrack always insist on using a gimbal when shooting?

not having to haul a heavy-ass camera around is the main advantage.

Mobile cameras have lowered the bar so far that you can easily impress with a simple camcorder.

Bad Wigins wrote:

not having to haul a heavy-ass camera around is the main advantage.

Mobile cameras have lowered the bar so far that you can easily impress with a simple camcorder.

Exactly my point. You can easily impress with a simple camcorder IF the image is stable. You can get a couple hundred dollar gimbal that weighs less than a pound for a simple camcorder and the film suddenly looks professional. Flotrack's race videos are not even at a basic amateur level and I can't figure out if they are stubborn or just that dumb.

I would have assumed using a gimbal would almost always make for better film, but it seems like Flotrack never uses them. What's the advantage of not filming with a gimbal?

this is because these gimbals for professional cameras are f*cking expensive! Just check the prices on these gimbals

Really, I understand, that a company with a large number of employees can afford the purchase of professional gimbals instead of simple users that try to take professional pictures. For example, recently I decided to buy a gimbal for my friend as a present for his birthday. He has Sony FX100, and I found the article with gimbals for this camera and I really was shocked by prices. My friend is not so good for such an expensive gift...

You do understand that

Flosports.tv/Milesplit.com

employees have to buy their own equipment

and basically work for free?

It's a shame because like the rest of the World we also must eat.

Would a gimbal not be tax deductible?

Not everything companies do make sense.

What's the advantage of having Gordon Mack constantly broing-out in front of the camera?

who knows....

Radical CJ wrote:

Would a gimbal not be tax deductible?

you need to have earnings before you can deduct against them

Radical CJ wrote:

Would a gimbal not be tax deductible?

Even if it is it's not like they would get reimbursed for the full cost.

not a videographer wrote:

I would have assumed using a gimbal would almost always make for better film, but it seems like Flotrack never uses them. What's the advantage of not filming with a gimbal?

Huh? These buffoons often don't even know how to pronounce the names many times...seems they do zero homework..,you think they give a flip about film quality?!

not a videographer wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

not having to haul a heavy-ass camera around is the main advantage.

Mobile cameras have lowered the bar so far that you can easily impress with a simple camcorder.

Exactly my point. You can easily impress with a simple camcorder IF the image is stable. You can get a couple hundred dollar gimbal that weighs less than a pound for a simple camcorder and the film suddenly looks professional. Flotrack's race videos are not even at a basic amateur level and I can't figure out if they are stubborn or just that dumb.

Isn't flotrak basically just an amateur operation? Expecting much in the line of production quality seems delusional. Do you think they would get much more in the way of sales with better quality? I sort of doubt it.

But from a pride point of view you think they would spring for it.