![Hardware Hacking Hardware Hacking](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardhack_64.png)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
Ars Technica Builds Make Magazine's Steadicam 159
An anonymous reader writes "Make magazine has been out for a little over a month now and was given high marks in a Slashdot review. Ars Technica has taken their review one step further by building the $14 steadicam project and testing it out. (be sure to check out the QuickTime video at the end to see their results...)"
make magazine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:make magazine (Score:2)
Lego solves rubik's cube (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lego solves rubik's cube (Score:1)
Re:Lego solves rubik's cube (Score:2)
By the way, am I missing something? I RTFA, but I di
Something O'Reilly got high marks on Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Something O'Reilly got high marks on Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
As expected? (Score:4, Interesting)
For those stuck on dial-up, here is a quick summary of our results:
* Both "handheld" shots were very shaky with the electronic stabilization performing only marginally better.
* The "steadicam only" shot was a significant improvement over either "handheld" shot.
* Turning on the electronic stabilization made the "steadicam" shot even smoother.
Despite all of this, we found that there was still a little bit of shake in the picture. We expect that a little practice with the steadicam could have vastly improved our shooting technique. All in all, we would say that this project was a big success!
I saw the video. It was a little better, but the combination of the two made it much better. Unfortunately, it's still far too shaky to consider it useful for any indie film that doesn't want to be branded with the Blair Witch style. So why would you go to the trouble?
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are many thousands of us who shoot video on a level between "dad in the backyard with the kids" and "Oscar nominee" who might want some improvement in our quality?
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Informative)
One could easily add some small gyros to a handheld steadicam design and still come out fairly inexpensive. Take three 6v electric motors and a 6v battery. Add a wheel on the end of each motor, and mount them so that the wheels spin in three planes. Add weights to the wheels to balance them. Continue adding weights until you have enough stabilization. Place this apparatus in a padded box to keep it quiet, and mount the box.
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since all you really need to dampen is movement along the pitch and roll axes, a single gyroscope with the axis mounted vertically would be adequate. And rather than trying to build and balance your own, you'd do well to save yourself the headache and pick up a nice surplus military missile guidance gyroscope, like this [deutscheoptik.com]. Knock that spinner out of its gimbals and I bet it'd be just right...
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
Re:As expected? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say for sure, because I wound up chickening out and building the tail longer to improve longitudinal stability.
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
I was just thinking that some of the larger ones may oppose rotation.
Re:As expected? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As expected? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As expected? (Score:3)
Anyway, I -think- the stability, is related to some combination of the speed, the circumference, and the mass at the circumference. So something much smaller than the bike tire, but add weights and a motor
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
really? I cant find any gyros on the $13,000.00 steadicam outfit we have at work.
have you even seen a real steadicam setup?
The key is weight balance, high quality gimbals and a weight distribution system that does not kill the operator by transferring the weight to his hips and torso.
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
have you even seen a real steadicam setup?
The key is weight balance, high quality gimbals and a weight distribution system that does not kill the operator by transferring the weight to his hips and torso.
Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.
Steadicams do not work via gyroscopic precession, but rather through the careful use of inertial isolation between the rig and the operator as well as moving the center of gravity
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
I do a lot of editing of my home movies.
Most of the shots I'm personally in are
me & the boy in the back yard
howeverm I work at it, and research, and even scoured this topic for tidbits.
I even do simultaneous shots from different persepctives for the video in video overlay
I'm sorry, Dad in the backyard with the kids, is not the entry level (imho) of where bad video begins...
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Informative)
This is probably key - professional steadicam operators are trained specifically in how to operate a steadicam (they're not just camera operators who decide to strap on a rig one day for kicks). If you've ever seen any behind-the-scenes footage of steadicam shots being filmed, it's pretty amazing how smoothly these guys move.
A lot of amateur camera operators - be it still or motion picture cameras - think good camera work is almost entirely dependent on the equipment. In fact, I'd say way more than half of what it takes to get good results lies with the operator. You can't put together a steadicam rig and then walk down the street like you'd walk normally and expect a steady shot - that won't work even with a real steadicam. You need to walk as smoothly as possible and make smooth, even camera movements. It doesn't look like that was done here, although to Ars' credit, they do note that they probably could have gotten better results with a bit of practice.
I do think that a rig like this could be a pretty decent option for indie videographers willing to actually learn and practice the proper techniques.
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional steadicam operators use equipment that is completely different from consumer/prosumer 'steadicam'-ish gear. They come in teams of two: The one carrying the rig isn't able to look through a viewfinder, so a second person has to control focus, aperture etc. The apparatus has so much inertia that the carrier can actually hop up and down and the camera will still hardly move, let alone rotate. Lots of practice is only half of the story: the huge weight strapped to the body kind of forces the operator to move smoothly, anything else would be totally exhausting.
Equipment in the two figure dollar range, on the other hand, isn't more than a handheld tripod that keeps the centre of gravity around your hands by introducing a counter-weight that roughly equals the weight of your camera. With consumer cameras becoming ever smaller and lighter, that isn't much. Jerks introduced by shaky hands are pretty much all they can compensate for somewhat adequately.
However, this isn't what ars technica actually tested: They walked down a street. The picture resulting from this has to be shaky hand cam style. The "little bit of shake" that the reviewer attested is actually insanely wild. If you haven't got a more expensive steadicam setup, you really only have these two options: Either purposely go for the blair witch style, or let only the actor walk (when shown in the picture, as opposed to the 1st person view) and put the camra person plus camera on some sort of wheeled vehicle, like a dolly with a tripod.
It seems like the ars techinca reviewers had too much fun doing their oh-so-cool project; not only were they too enthusiastic about the marginal improvement in image quality, they also didn't really factor in the problems they had (they needed much longer than the make mag instructions projected and ran into issues the instructions didn't even touch on) when writing the concluding summary.
Not that there's anything bad about this: With a USD 14 handheld tripod, you're supposed to have fun, not emulate Oscar-league steadicam gear. And yes you can train to move super-smooth, but still steadicam and steady camcorder are two entirely different issues.
Re:As expected? (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, it's still far too shaky to consider it useful for any indie film that doesn't want to be branded with the Blair Witch style. So why would you go to the trouble?
I'll offer up an answer, since I wrote the review.
I realized today that there was a small problem with our video test: we weren't following any subject. Most steadicam shots are either following a subject or moving around a subject within a few feet of the camera. As you saw in the test, there was no subject. Consequently, even the tiniest movements seemed to make the whole world shake.
The other half (as I mentioned in the review) was that we didn't practice much with the steadicam. I imagine with a little work, we could have gotten a really nice shot. One of the areas that could have used some practice was paying attention to how the side bar is held (since it controls the side-to-side motion). You'll see in the last shot that overall it is very smooth, except that there is a little side to side movement.
All in all, the $14 steadicam was a fun build and worthwhile if you don't have a few thousands dollars for a real steadicam.
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
The next project I have is to make a 1/2 decent PVC ride-able track dolly. I've got some good ideas for building a fairly light and durable one - now I just have to make some time to actually assemble it
(the dolly part is pretty easy, but I want to make track sections that clamp/screw together to keep the joint between the pipes as seamless as possible). Again, I have some ideas that I hashed-out with a colleague of mine, but I need to move from the "planning" to "building" stage. Poss
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
I've got an idea for your next project, after you perfect your PVC dolly track. A home built jib! I've seen a few of these used on various low budget shows, and they seem to work really well. I talked to one DP who built his own, and he said the hardest part was figuring out the math, which wasn't his forte.
Well, they haven't trained to use a Steadicam (Score:4, Informative)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadyc
It has testimonies of pro's who have used this hand made rig and a $800 steadicam rig, and they say both are great. What you get with the $800 right is a full body vest mount that allows you to mount the camera on your hip, for even smoother shots.
As someone who has used a steadicam professional rig, i can say that with image stabilization on, the image actually produces strange movement, once you learn how to use the steadicam.
You can't just pickup a camera attached to a steadicam and notice an amazing difference unless you have learned how to carry your body with the camera. What the steadicam does is make it a lot easier to do so (first your arm is extended at a lot lower angle than holding the camera in your hand and second, the added weight lessens shakes cause by your body).
If you have ever seen someone use a steadicam, they walk more like a dancer than a doofus with a handicam.
So to answer you question, after you train to use the steadicam (and have degeeked your forearm strength to be able to hold it for 45 minutes or so at a stretch without tiring) you can achieve shots that would have cost you $800 before, now for only $14. the remaining $786 could be spent on a 3ccd panasonic camera. Or saved for a dvx100 or a wireless mic set, etc.
Re:Well, they haven't trained to use a Steadicam (Score:2)
Just the bracket [yahoo.com] used to convert the steadicam to a really low to the ground shot can run about $800.
Re:Well, they haven't trained to use a Steadicam (Score:2)
What you linked is "prosumer". Extremely pricey prosumer, with many advantages over cheaper solutions and home made kit, but not what I'd call fully professional. (Yes, you can probably do professional work with it, if you know how to use it.)
* They don't even quote prices on the Steadicam [steadicam.com] site, but if you dig a little, you'll see that it costs $2900 to attend a training workshop for their pro rigs. I remember Steadicam rigs costing $70,000 fifteen years ago, so my
Re:Well, they haven't trained to use a Steadicam (Score:2)
Re:As expected? (Score:4, Insightful)
How you use it is 80% of the smoothness. This even is true for the professional stuff with all the fancy shocks and hydraulics. Don't expect this thing to perform miracles, you have to practice using your arms and body to create a smooth motion. Watch your hands while you walk, and see how level you can keep them relative to the ground. Watching the shadow of your hands on a sunny say is an easy way to isolate thier movement. Keep your legs bent and learn how to "glide". I talked with someone who has used professional steady-cams and they said this was, "really, just as good." Getting good results is not so much about the equipment, but how you use it. That's really true about everything.
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
A person who does non-steadicam camerawork as their day job still comes up with a shaky picture when walking around in a shot with a steadicam.
What I would have like to have seen is a steadicam operator (one raking in $1000 a day) attempt to use it.
Re:As expected? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Informative? WTF? IT'S A JOKE PEOPLE! (Score:2)
Check out the link. Ted Churchill was a very funny guy, and was an asset to any set for making the day go by more quickly. He is greatly missed.
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
2. The instructions seem to be ripped straight from one guy who makes these.. No matter, I recall he has released his plans for any use. Hope he was credited anyway.
The video is pretty much useless. You can see he doesn't even try to compensate for his own shakiness. These kind of little steadysticks need s
Re:As expected? (Score:2)
The big disadvantage of these "steadicam" sticks is apparent as soon as you try to turn. The momentum will cause the whole rig to tilt. The greater the momentum and the sharper the turn, the greater the tilt.
Re:As expected? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any fool can build something that emulates a steadicam, it takes practice and talent to actually operat
The article was a reprint... (Score:5, Informative)
I was a bit disappointed to see the article, actually -- when a "cool" new print mag recycles the Internet, you know the end of paper is nigh.
Re:The article was a reprint... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but in 15 years, my kids can flip through my old issues of Make and find fun projects.. while that dude's site is going to be long gone.
The internet is great, but far too many sites are gone forever.
mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
As the parent poster noted - sites go away. Even if you archive stuff, you can lose 'em. Sure, paper burns too, but my parents had decades of National Geographic for me to peruse when I was a young'in and I'm glad they did.
Some stuff needs to be more permanent than bits. In 50 years you may have technology to read electronically archived data from DVD-R and the like. But you'll still only need your eyeballs and a pair of hands to read Make or National Geographic.
The advantage of the paper magazine (Score:2)
Re:archive.org? (Score:2)
I wouldn't count on it. Paper is remarkably resilient - acid free archival paper in particular. I'm not sure how glossy fares. Depending upon how it's stored paper can last for centuries; millenia in some cases. And you can manually copy paper.
Digital archives are sweet; I love 'em - I'm an IT geek after all. But you simply can't count on the ab
Saw this 3 years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
I loved it, but the whole time I was using it, I kept thinking of possible ways to improve it without spending any money if possible. I tried using more weight, which helps, but only very marginally. Anyone know a way to improve it inexpensively without electronic stabilization?
Re:Saw this 3 years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
In marching band, you have to learn how to walk without disturbing your airflow due to steps, and that should translate very well into camera work, with the weighted cam evening out any missteps and normal hand jitters.
Re:Saw this 3 years ago (Score:2)
I just thought that my band teachers wanted us to walk funny... like an overtrained animal, I glidestepped much of my way through highschool unwittingly after the many hours a day I spent correcting my normal walking style my freshman year.
Very good point. (Score:3, Interesting)
When you have 15-20+ pounds of brass held to your mouth, you want to be moving up and down as little as possible while you march. The bras has this tendency to want to stay in place, resulting in lots of relative motion if you're bouncing.
Don't know of any good way to teach/explain roll stepping to someone without actually having them join a marching band.
ot: Very good point. (Score:2)
I've learned something on Slashdot!
Re:ot: Very good point. (Score:2)
Most modern bands go for the glidestep/rollstep to sound better, even though it may not look as flashy. Glidestep/rollstep is very smooth and pretty difficult to tell from normal walking at a distance.
Re:Saw this 3 years ago (Score:1)
that steadycam everywhere (Score:2, Informative)
Re:that steadycam everywhere (Score:1)
No kidding. (Score:2)
We're the results really that good? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We're the results really that good? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/ [cmu.edu]
Impractical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impractical (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if I decided to make an indie movie, I'd give it a go.
"Why is it difficult to do the same while keeping the techie edge?"
What's wrong with somebody cheaply solving a problem and publishing it? Should they hoard the knowledge or share it? That's the neat thing about the internet: publishing is cheap.
Re:Impractical (Score:2)
None of the videos looked good. (Score:1)
Ripoff? (Score:5, Informative)
Not to review a review of an instruction, but I think Ars Technica is being a little hard on the Chung. Operating a steadycam is a bit of an artform unto itself.
A steadycam will not turn Shakes the Clown into the next Scorsese, but once you learn the limitations of the axes you'll get results like Mr. Lee posts as samples on his site (see the bottom of the page, under "Using Your Steadycam").
agree (Score:1)
Chungs third video http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/girl3.mov [cmu.edu] looks simply amazing.
Lousy test video (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas, had they walked with someone down the street, it would have shown off the differences quite well.
Soldering breadboards (Score:1, Funny)
I can't wait to drop $15 on this mag so I too can solder breadboards!
Steadycam deja vu (Score:1, Insightful)
$15 an issue (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to tell you this but..... (Score:2, Informative)
use a monopod instead (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/froogle?q=monopod&btnG=Sear
Re:use a monopod instead (Score:2)
Re:use a monopod instead (Score:2)
OT: Russian Ark (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OT: Russian Ark (Score:1)
Re:Hitchcock's "Rope" (Score:2)
Takes practice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Takes practice (Score:1)
cbarker at bucknell edu
I can host about 40-80 megs on my webspace and piss off my university admins.
Mac-bias? 'bout time (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, 'bout time. As a long-time mac user, I can't begin to number the times I read PC-biased articles that are not PC specific.
Taking it to the next level (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is great, but... (Score:1)
Re:This is great, but... (Score:2)
See it in action (Score:1)
A lot of the shots in this film [sickdimension.net] were used with that same design.
Specifically any of the "lead cam" shots, where the camera car is leading the picture car with the camera shooting backwards.
It works very well, the only issue being keeping the whole setup from rotating side to side. Its very difficult to hold in this position for extended periods of time (just try holding a 30lb weight straight out in front of you for 3 minutes).
You can see the rotating movement in some of the shots... but overall they
Why even post about this? (Score:2, Informative)
Coincidentally, I received my copy today.. (Score:2)
Calling it a Steadicam is overselling a bit it... (Score:2)
The real Steadicam, invented by Garrett Brown, counterweighs the camera on a thing called the "sled" which also has a preview monitor for the operator from the video tap (if it's a film camera) or camera output. The sled has significant weight on the bottom from
Re:Calling it a Steadicam is overselling a bit it. (Score:2)
Hilarious line in the Kite Photog article (Score:2)
For those of you who have this issue of make but haven't read every single sentence, check out the Kite Photography article. There's like a safety checklist on page 81 where they warn potential kite photographers of dangers such as sun exposure but fail to mention power lines. Perhaps they've pegged their readership as being comfortable around electricity, but not necessarily being outside in the sun.
Seth
This is not a steadicam (Score:1)
Peter Jackson built a $15 steadicam (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Peter Jackson built a $15 steadicam (Score:2)
Not very. His had a full arm and vest like the real steadicams.
Hmmmm... No so steady-cam (Score:2)
OF COURSE IT WORKS BETTER IF YOU HOLD IT STEADY!
That's like all the diet pill commercials that say you'll lose weight if you take the pills and diet and exercise and catch giardia and aomebic dysentery.
Also their web page shows some distressing proofreading
Practice, Practice, Practice x10 (Score:2, Interesting)
The one thing that is very important to understand about Steadicam operation - whether its the $1400 or $14 version:
Steadicam takes a LOT of practice to get smooth fluid results. There is a reason a good Steadicam operator can demand high wages on big shoots (and is well out of the budget of small indie productions; which is why I applaud Make's article, I'm going to make one of these).
If you want some
Here I was thinking... (Score:2)
So - first I look up some information on what a SteadiCam is, how it works, what it consists of - then I am thinking, "ok, maybe they haven't miniturized it too much - likely something for a hand
Cheaper still .. (Score:2)
http://biphome.spray.se/gunnart/video/deshaker.ht
I've done bike rides and kung fu competions with this. Works great, but takes lots of CPU.
Mac-specific (Score:2)
Ho-hum. Having just spent the weekend trying to get a printer to work, whose manufacturer (Canon) never even imagined it might be used with a non-Windows computer, I say "good on them" for giving Windows users a turn at being excluded.
Re:Timmy Boi's new payola scam... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:store bought steadycam (Score:1)
Re:store bought steadycam (Score:2)
Re:store bought steadycam (Score:1)
Re:store bought steadycam (Score:1)
This just goes to show that occasionally... or in fact often, the Bazaar model fails due to the incompetence of the masses.
Not very clevevr (Score:2)
I have this steadycam and it works very well for me
That's not a steadycam (mods); that's a tripod. Let's just say that any shots you take of a moving subject with the "steadycam" you linked to are either going to be even more shaky than without the "steadycam" or are going to see a gradual diminishing of the size of the subject in comparison to the rest of the scene.
Re:store bought steadycam (Score:2)