$100K for a full kitted out professional camera is far from ridiculous.

Wow. If you have a minute; what gets a camera up to that cost? the sensors? the glass?

hell, you could spend that on the lens alone.

the "brain" itself will be ~$30K min. you need lenses, batteries/power supplies, drives to record to, viewfinders, cables, etc. on top of that. a steadicam rig will cost $50K+ too. the famous zeiss lens kubrick used (borrowed from NASA) cost over $23M (adjusted for inflation).

professional cameras are expensive. alexa and red are super cheap in comparison to traditional film camera set ups.

Thank you!
You know, now that you jog my memory, I remember the Kubrick story...
Wow.

He went full extension...you never go full extension! I suspect the designers never intended for the camera to ever be beyond arms length. At full extension with that large a camera the pressure on all the components was too great.

Like Archimedes said "Give me a place to stand and a long enough lever ... oops!"

As soon as I saw him dancing I thought "oh no the young and indestructible have struck again"

THOSE HIPS DON'T LIE!

The entire arm seems to twist and fails at the joint of the arm on the camera which seems offset from the center of gravity of the weight and camera. Probably the cutting and snapping of a 1/4th steel bolt or something. Camera-weight need to be completely leveled flush (+/- 0.6°) by the awesome weights as a closed object system. I believe correcting this torsion by putting that universal joint center in line with the center of gravity of the camera-weight would prevent that torsion. This would mean that the joint center would have to be somewhere central in that column tube thingy. The over extension and over snapping can only be fixed with built-in stops, I dunno.