Slashdot Mirror
Build Your Own Steadicam
John Jorsett writes "Always wanted to film one of those cool 'walking' sequences, where the camera stays rock-steady as you trudge along? Well, so did Johnny Chung Lee, except he didn't want to lay out major cash for a professional Steadicam rig, so he built his own for $14. He further claims you can do it in about 20 minutes if you know what you're doing. What more could a cheap, impatient Spielberg wannabe ask for?"
How about talent?
"What more could a cheap, impatient Spielberg wannabe ask for?"
Talent.
How about a better room to film in than the bathroom? Seriously, are we going to be expected to line up around the block for "SteadyShit"
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
I stumbled upon this site about a year ago and, being an ametur filmmaker, decided to give it a try. The parts were cheap and it really was quite easy to put together. But don't expect it to be perfect. It takes a little while to get the feel of it, and even then you won't be getting perfectly steady shots while running quickly. But for the price, it's tough to beat.
YEAY!...Now I can look even stupider when I visit other places and take meaningless film I'll never watch again.
Every windows user is a sadomasochist.
The videos are pretty interesting. Sony should make a commercial version of this, if they can make it for $14. Isn't it amazing how much cooler things sound with a soundtrack.
more links and such.
memepool
These are cheap enough to use with a picture phone. And with the inverting bracket, we can now have upskirt shots without the blur!
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
How'd he manage to build it without Duct tape!? Now that's impressive.
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
Wow thats got a dual purpose, works to keep your movement from interefeing with the shot and if the actors get out of line you can break it down and beat em with the pipe, also works great for self-defense when shooting ghetto style.
Posted to /. with videos on the page to show sample footage. I'd say he's about to get hosed, but he is at CMU so I doubt it'll blink.
As I was reading his setup I was really expecting his footage to look like crap, but after watching the sample they really are incredibly smooth given that it was only $14 to make. Props.
"What more could a cheap, impatient Spielberg wannabe ask for?"
/."
/. readers, I'm sure it won't take long to bring his server to its knees.)
how about this?
"extra bandwidth to handle the impending server doom after somebody posted my page on
(in all fairness, his site loaded pretty quickly for me, but given the voracious behavior of
LEGO (C) Hand Held Stabilizer
xox,
Dead Nancy
I always wanted to use one of those industrial strength ones to build the machine gun supporting apparatus from Aliens. :)
Come on! We don't need racism here in Slashdot... Keep this kind of comments to yourself....
Everyone knows that REALITY is IN, HOT, HAPPENING... NOW! And what's more real than reality? Reality through a shaking camera! That's REAL.
Site is already loading slow, in firefox at least, and having half a dozen videos on it isnt exactly intelligent for front-page /.
---
$14 Steady-Cam
(the poor man's Steadicam®)
By Johnny Chung Lee
Why build a cheap steadycam?
Steadycams (or camera stabilizers) are attachtments used to capture smooth looking video even when the camera and camera operator are in motion. The camera operator may walk (or even jog), move through tight hallways and doorways, and even climb up and down stairs without shaking the camera. Unfortunately, professional steadycams cost around $1500. Even the cheap 3rd party ones cost $600+. Not exactly a bargain considering many of us use cameras in that price range. So, I decided to make my own version. It turns out, it only costs $14. Not too bad. And I'll show you how to build your own right here (or you may simply buy one from me). Whether you are an aspiring filmmaker, a videographer, the family documentarian, or just want more utility out of your video camera, you'll appreciate a steadycam.
If you know what you are doing, you can probably built one of these in about 20 minutes. It might take you an hour if you have to read this web page while you do it and aren't very good with tools.
This steadycam works with anything that has a tripod mount. However, I would not recommend attaching anything heavier than 5-6 pounds (without modification). This is because as camera weight increases, so does the likely hood that sudden movements will restult in physcial damage to the camera base (physics 101: larger mass = higher moment of inertia).
Tools
The main tools you'll need to get your hands on are a drill and a stationary vice. It's possible to do it without the vice, but it's far more difficult and potentially dangerous. You can buy a vice for about $15 from Lowes and it's well worth the money if you are going to do any future projects. It's meant to be table mounted, but I just bolted it to a big board that I can stand on while I use it. Mounting it is important. I tried doing this once without mounting it (didn't have spare board at the time) . It was a p-a-i-n.
You'll need drill and a 1/4" drill bit that can go into galvanized steel. So, cheap wood bits will probably not survive this project. This happens to be a very nice drill in this picture, but any power drill will do.
You also need a wrench, screwdriver (type depends on the bolts you get), and a hammer. I had a little combo thingy I got from the dollar store. It actually works pretty well because the wrench part is a little bit clawed, so it grips pipes really nicely.
Parts
Pipes
First you'll need three pipes. I like to use 1/2" galvanized steel. It's strong, threaded at the ends, and a comfortable thickness. You can use any length pipes you like, but this project uses three 12" pipes (about $1.50 from Lowes).
End caps You'll also need three end caps. You can get away with just two, but the last one is used to cover up those nasty sharp threads on the end of the pipes. I've gotten cuts while building these things by accidentally grabbing the threads too hard . These are about 80 cents a piece. Make sure they fit the pipes, 1/2" diameter.
Tee
Basic T-joint. Again, make sure it fits the pipes. If Lowes doesn't have this, try Noland plumbing near the downtown mall. About $1.30.
Weight This is just a simple barbell weight from a sports store. The one shown in the picture is 2.5 pounds, but you can buy any weight you want. But, anything heavier than 5 pounds starts getting too heavy to carry around. Get a weight that has a 1 1/4" diameter hole. These are about $3. Other small parts Here's a break down of what you'll need: A - two 1-1/2" 1/4" machine bolts B - one 1/4" wing nut C - three 1-1/2" diameter flange washers for 1/4" bolts D - three lock washers for 1/4" bolts. E - two 1/4" machine nuts.
All these together costs about two dollars. You can find these for really cheap at Philips Hardware. Lowes charges
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
Saw this in RES magazine last year. Built one in under 30 mintues and with exactly $16 worth of parts. It actually works too, though you do have to practice with it to get good at controling your own body movement. Also, I reccomend making the lower section about 50% longer than the upper section to further even out movement.
Please mark as "Overrated" due to poster's plea not to be moderated as redundant and the fact it's boring and not really related to this discussion at all.
Especially since the original steadicam design was based on a principle obtained from the "rickshaw".
I used to work for the company that made the steadicam (Cinema Products). But that was a long-ass time ago.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Don't really have the urge to build one... can I just see some more video of the girl?
Actually, more of a Kubrick wannabe
Bruce Campbell in "If Chins Could Kill" relates some of the improvised steady-cams used in 'Evil Dead', especially for running shots or window shots.
They just had 2 people carry a heavy board with the camera through the forest, and had a 'camera plus battering ram' for the crash-through bits.
A lot less elegant than this design, basically, the idea of "really heavy = not much vibation or wobble" worked for them.
A.
How the fsck do you /. a .edu system?
Holy shit!
tool
Like any of you jog, let alone with a camcorder.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
with a background in marching band (or martial arts) and steady hands.
All he's doing is adding a weight to make it hard for you to move your hands. And you can tell he's having a rough time with it as many of the shots are crooked. It's not properly weighted on the other side so he has to push down with one hand, up with the other and maintain a horizontal position throughout the shot. And he can't do it so the image is tilted most of the time. He'd have a chance of keeping the horizontal straight if he made a "T" instead of an "L"
This is why real steady cams are mounted on the chest like a snare drum. The springs/hydrolics take care of the vertical bounce and the mounting position balances the horizontal. The operator would have to bend over to one side to tilt the shot. If you want to get an "up" shot you bend over, point the camera up and walk backwards.
This is also why most movies move the camera around a lot. Besides it adding to the scene. It's actually easier to keep a steady path of movement than to hold a camera still.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I was able to load the site, and printed a copy to PDF. Download it here! (right-click, save as)
The $14 Steadycam
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
I wonder what Garrett Brown thinks about about Dogma95.
I've built one of these too, and all things being equal, I think you would be better off spending $120 to get one of the Steady cam clones. True, he has some cool shots on his page but those are not nearly as easy as he makes it out to be. Maybe I am just clumsy.
When I walk forward my system wants to behave like a pendulum causing the camera to rock forward and back around the horizonal fulcrum. If things aren't perfectly balanced it is very difficult to keep the cameras tilt at a given attitude. Your left hand (if you were the author in the photo on the page) will not be able to keep the attitude without pendulum style oscillation. It's also difficult to make the camera turn around the camera of the horiontal bar and the fact that the rotational inertia of the person-pipe-camera system is not appropriate for turning around the camera.
Beyond those basic problems: it's also hard to hold on to and I tend to smack into door frames and innocent bystanders with the horizonal pipe.
One of the key parts to a steady cam rig is a gimbal joint that isolates tilt/tip motions of your hand from the "mass" that has the camera. Without this isolation it's really hard to get good shots without Zen master balance or just being lucky.
If anyone out there wants to make a Steady-cam like rig, I suggest they copy something like the Flowpod. Note the gimbal connecting the handle to the body of the device.
/. the only place you can refresh a link and see 1000+ more hits since you loaded the page.
I know that some directors in their DVD commentaries have lamented about the overuse of steadicam and the excessively smooth camera movements it can create.
Cripes, it's a T-shaped pipe arrangement with a weight. Steadicam it ain't.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
In the two minutes it took me to skim the page and hit reload, his counter went up by 780. I wonder how long it will take before either the network admin shuts down his account or it wraps around. :)
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Getting good results is not so much about the equipment, but how you use it.
I tried that bit on my girlfriend but she didn't fall for it.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Another possibility, if you don't want to or can't shell out for a Steadicam, is a Glidecam. A Glidecam 4000 or 2000 mated with a body vest shouldn't put out a videographer who has already shelled out for a good camera.
Or, collect them and dispose of them properly so they don't get in other people's (or animals) skin, etc. Sheesh.
Also, isn't this just a nice weighted handle? It doesn't appear to be a dynamic balance. Or does it actually have moving points?
This "dude" has obviously violated the SteaduCam patent as per the DMCA. Gentlemen, quite simply, this is IP rape, of the vilest order. I'm notifying the patent holder immediately.
What's even more scary is realizing that bathroom in the picture is in the dorm you stayed in freshman year.
I went to CMU, and I'm pretty sure that's Hammerschlag.
--- witty signature
"This is also why most movies move the camera around a lot. Besides it adding to the scene. It's actually easier to keep a steady path of movement than to hold a camera still."
Keeping a camera still is trivial if you use a tripod. A steady path of movement gets expensive (in crew and equipment) quickly. The steadier you want it the more it costs. Even getting a non-jerky pan multiplies the cost of a tripod time ten.
The reason that movies move the camera a lot is because that is usually what tells the story best.
...you can use it for combat videography (?)
It ran in the 80's, briefly. It was a special-effects howto for 16mm and 8mm. There was an article in one that described how to build a better "steadicam" than this, using pvc pipe and springs. I think that one actually worked better than the one in this article, as it handled horizontal as well as vertical. It also strapped to the body. The author received a cease & desist from the Steadicam people (he offered to sell completed versions of his as well).
Its a obviously a dorm, probably the only place with a mirror large enough to do that picture is the bathroom.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I think he did a great job of capturing how a woman looks from the average slashdotter's point of view.
That was the "Shaky Cam." The "Steady Cam" involved vaseline, AFAIR.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This would seem to be a half-a$$ed solution at best. The expensive units have gyroscopes to keep them steady under extreme conditions. This thing just uses a bar and a weight.
--
All I know about Bush is that Clinton had a job before he was president.
The 14$ thingy is pure crap...
if you want some real inspiration check out the following websites:
http://homebuiltstabilizers.com/
The original site for all your home built video needs
http://pub173.ezboard.com/bhomebuiltstabilizers
Discussion forum full of lots of useful information
http://www.codydeegan.com/
Might take a bit more effort, but the results are incredible. Cody's plans are awesome, and I would gladly purchase them again.
The expensive units have gyroscopes to keep them steady under extreme conditions.
Maybe the most elaborate, custom built steadicams have gyroscopes, but according to this faq, most, including the $44,000 model, do not, as gyroscopes increase mass.
With the exception of the Steadicam JR, most Steadicams have a body harness. That makes them much more stable than using you hand.
This is really more similiar to a lower end Glidecam stabilizer (even this is floating).
There are also some rather cheap alternatives out there to make a camcorder smoother.
Granted this is significantly cheaper to make than these products, but from my experience anything that is handheld doesn't work as well as the bodyrigs. Personally, I'd rather just do it by hand alone.
You also might want to check out a relatively cheap jib too.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
Why not correct for camera jitter by digitally re-aligning the frames afterwards? Ok, you'd lose the edges of your image, and parallax might be a problem, but I doubt these would be major issues in most movie sequences.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
This is not a "steadicam". This is what is known as in the industry as a "pogo cam". Tons of people have made these out of pipes and weights.
Some type of stedicam can really make a difference in low budget films. Sure wish I had one back in the day. I did buy a Glidecam 3000 (discontinued... but very similar to the one on the right) for $300 on ebay a couple years back. It works quite well though it gets mighty tiring on the arm after a few minutes. I'm using a Canon GL1 these days, which is a bit heavier than most consumer cameras.
One thing that I found very interesting about the whole steadicam thing is that it's not so much XYZ movement that causes visible camera shake, but the rotational movements (heading, pitch, bearing). That's what the gimbal mechanism on a steadicam eliminates. My model is handheld and doesn't have a spring loaded arm or vest, so there's still a fair amount of XYZ movement... but the shots still look stable.
With the camera usually looking at objects several feet away, moving up or down a fraction of an inch doesn't change the field of view much. But tilting the camera forward or back even a tiny amount changes the field of view a great deal. This wasn't intuitive to me until I tried the thing out.
Without any real experience, I doubt this guy's rig (basically a big weighted handle) is going to make shots much steadier than a careful handheld shot. I'd surely give it a try though, if I wasn't already set.
Anyways, steadicams are pretty cool.
Cheers.
I saw a documentary about Garrett Brown, and it showed his various prototype stages. The original one looked exactly like this - a length of pipe. The second one was more like a pantograph to try to keep the camera level. Then he added the seperate handle connected to the upright portion wih a gimbal. The rest of the development was on the counter-balance arm and the vest. All of this was necessary because Brown was building these for 35mm film cameras.
If you're looking to improve this design, the things I'd look at are: a gimbal, so allow the operator to hold the unit more comfortably and lightly, and avoid transferring hand motion to the camera; a sliding mount at the top, to allow the camera's balance to be shifted forward and back to tilt up or down.
The Steadycam JR Lite is a great one to look at. It was designed by the great Frogdesign studio (the NeXT cube). The camera sits on top of a slide, and right on top of the gimbal and handle. The arm is divided into two parts at a 90 degree angle, connected to the slide at 45 degrees. And the whole thing folds up. It's a wonderfully slick design - and obscenely overpriced.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
A monopod with a handle isn't a steadycam. Steadycam uses gimbals, springs and a bodymount to basically put a shock absorber between you and the camera.
All this does is add more weight - which will help you hold your modern teeny-tiny camera steady, but's that's far cry from being able to hold the camera still while you jog up the Art Museum steps.
Clear, Dark Skies
Site is already loading slow, in firefox at least, and having half a dozen videos on it isnt exactly intelligent for front-page /. --- $14 Steady-Cam (the poor man's Steadicam®) By Johnny Chung Lee
Why build a cheap steadycam?
Steadycams (or camera stabilizers) are attachtments used to capture smooth looking video even when the camera and camera operator are in motion. The camera operator may walk (or even jog), move through tight hallways and doorways, and even climb up and down stairs without shaking the camera. Unfortunately, professional steadycams cost around $1500. Even the cheap 3rd party ones cost $600+. Not exactly a bargain considering many of us use cameras in that price range. So, I decided to make my own version. It turns out, it only costs $14. Not too bad. And I'll show you how to build your own right here (or you may simply buy one from me). Whether you are an aspiring filmmaker, a videographer, the family documentarian, or just want more utility out of your video camera, you'll appreciate a steadycam.
If you know what you are doing, you can probably built one of these in about 20 minutes. It might take you an hour if you have to read this web page while you do it and aren't very good with tools.
This steadycam works with anything that has a tripod mount. However, I would not recommend attaching anything heavier than 5-6 pounds (without modification). This is because as camera weight increases, so does the likely hood that sudden movements will restult in physcial damage to the camera base (physics 101: larger mass = higher moment of inertia).
Tools
The main tools you'll need to get your hands on are a drill and a stationary vice. It's possible to do it without the vice, but it's far more difficult and potentially dangerous. You can buy a vice for about $15 from Lowes and it's well worth the money if you are going to do any future projects. It's meant to be table mounted, but I just bolted it to a big board that I can stand on while I use it. Mounting it is important. I tried doing this once without mounting it (didn't have spare board at the time) . It was a p-a-i-n.
You'll need drill and a 1/4" drill bit that can go into galvanized steel. So, cheap wood bits will probably not survive this project. This happens to be a very nice drill in this picture, but any power drill will do.
You also need a wrench, screwdriver (type depends on the bolts you get), and a hammer. I had a little combo thingy I got from the dollar store. It actually works pretty well because the wrench part is a little bit clawed, so it grips pipes really nicely.
Parts
Pipes
First you'll need three pipes. I like to use 1/2" galvanized steel. It's strong, threaded at the ends, and a comfortable thickness. You can use any length pipes you like, but this project uses three 12" pipes (about $1.50 from Lowes).
End caps You'll also need three end caps. You can get away with just two, but the last one is used to cover up those nasty sharp threads on the end of the pipes. I've gotten cuts while building these things by accidentally grabbing the threads too hard . These are about 80 cents a piece. Make sure they fit the pipes, 1/2" diameter.
Tee
Basic T-joint. Again, make sure it fits the pipes. If Lowes doesn't have this, try Noland plumbing near the downtown mall. About $1.30.
Weight This is just a simple barbell weight from a sports store. The one shown in the picture is 2.5 pounds, but you can buy any weight you want. But, anything heavier than 5 pounds starts getting too heavy to carry around. Get a weight that has a 1 1/4" diameter hole. These are about $3. Other small parts Here's a break down of what you'll need: A - two 1-1/2" 1/4" machine bolts B - one 1/4" wing nut C - three 1-1/2" diameter flange washers for 1/4" bolts D - three lock washers for 1/4" bolts. E - two 1/4" machine nuts.
All these together costs about two dollars. You can find these for really cheap at Philips Hardware. Lowes charges a lot for the specialty washers and nut
But more often, the server. I've worked at the same university for about 6 years now, and at the various departments, we've been slashdotted a few times. Biggest difference between problems and smooth sailing? Dynamic content. At the school paper, it's a 100% static system. A PERL script takes all the stories and images and composes a bunch of static pages. This works well since the old content never changes (it's an archive of the news as released on that day). It ran on a dual P2 system and just laughed it off. I mean the system could have served more than it's 10MB link, if it has been asked to.
Just receantly the department I now work at got slashdotted (the meteor impact simulator). It was on a Sunblade with deceant stats, and the load average shot to 98 within a couple minutes. We finally offloaded it to a brand new (as in got it a week ago) Sun blade doing nothing but hosting that simulator and it was STILL at about a 25 load average, though it stayed up and serving.
Here we were on a much improved network (dual gig backbone to 3x OC-3s as opposed to the 10mb to 1x DS-3 back in the newspaper days), servers an couple orders of magnitude more powerful, and one dedidacted to serving, and yet got hit much harder. The big difference was the content was dynamic. The network wasn't even strained (it was all text anyhow) but the server was being asked to do a ton.
In this case it looks all static, so I'm guessing it's probably either the connection, or general load on the system. After all, this isn't his server, it's a departmental server, and probably one with a lot of users.
I did this 10 years ago in film school.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/10/news/to p_stories/19_55_164_9_04.txt
Just building a weighted shoulder mount. The problem with damn DV cams these days is they are TINY, Some of them, I can almost wrap my hand completely around. Little thing like that is really hard to keep steady. It's hard to even get a good 2-handed grip on it. Well you could probably get pretty good results be designing a mount for it that rested on your shoulder and added about 5-10 pounds. It then has a brace, and some weight to it, like a real professional camera.
I mean watch a football game. There are tons of shoulder mounted shots that are quite good. As with anything, the skill of the operator is a large factor, but you don't need a stedicam to get a deceant shot, just a solid unit on your shoulder. Probably better than this, since this unit is going to want to act like a pendulum when faced with motion.
Now if someone can just post how to make a $14 MG-42 I can throw together a $28 Aliens smart-gun.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
How weird is it to go to the site, read the text, then watch the movie, only to see some very familiar backgrounds. I then looked at the url and realized that it is from the same school I go to. No wonder the download was so fast :)
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
I have always wondered how many hit a site gets after a /. posting. This site has a meter and I noticed the hit rate is around 15 per second.
You must be new here...
haha thats wheredd
Just playin.
:->
Looks like a dam good piece of kit though.
Now if I can build something that cheap to setup my Matrix kicks.
In the end, it's not your equipment it's how you use it (no pun intended). So stop wasting your money on the latest 8 Megapixel digicam and 3 CCD camcorder. Read this guy's note: "These samples, as well as all of my own films, were captured with a $300 Sony Digital 8 Camcorder (the cheapest digital camcorder you can buy)." Until you shoot as good as he does (which is exceptional, have a look - click on his name at the very top and prepare to be amazed), you're completely wasting your money on even a $1000 camcorder. Accept it, learn from it.
Must-not-watch TV!
Geek builds heavyweight tripod for camera. Learns that weight makes tripod stable (The vertical shaking is pretty much dampened by the weight, unquoth.) Well, duh (O'K)
O'K. Does it with hand drill. Yay.
O'K. Stops selling them. "I have stopped selling these until Summer of 2004 at the earliest."
Gets posted on slashdot. Server burns/bandwidth bill causes heartattack.
O'K.
News for Nerds? Eh? Would you like to buy one? now that I've described how to make it?
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Buy a pair of wrist weights and wear them whenever you can.
Seriously.
I play baritone in a competitive drum & bugle corps, and the first thing I did when our winter rehearsals started was to purchase a pair of wrist weights (a G baritone bugle weighs about 7 pounds, and we are expected to hold them in front of our faces for up to two hours or more at a time, repeated throughout the day). I wear them whenever I practice, whenever I just hold the horn up, and anytime else where it's not blatantly inappropriate. After about a month, not only was the horn easier to hold up, but--surprise surprise--my hands were generally a hell of a lot steadier than before.
With steady hands, you don't need a steadying device for the camera--and the stronger arms are an added plus.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
this little device, though interesting, doesn't seem to give much difference in performance to just holding the camera.
Walkie-talkies.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So did Bush. Clinton has never held a private sector job though, Bush has. Clinton has never owned a Home, Bush has.
When I was in high school making short films, I tried building a ghetto steadicam, but found it much easier to not use one and fix the footage in post with some software I found called SteadyHand, from Dynapel. I bought it, but the demo version actually only puts a watermark in a corner, so theoretically you could just crop it out if you wanted to do it that way.
Nowadays I would probably fix it in combustion, where I'd have more control over it.
I belong to the ______ generation.
"Oh no, I am feeling a slight nausea"
"And the lack of my steadicam doesn't help either"
Joke's aside, these handheld movies makes me dizzy.
Maybe this will help out some of the people who make amateur porn and just can't seem to hold the camera still. Just don't let John Ashcroft find out.
Am I the only one who think's he's the real-life version of John Lithgow's character in Footloose?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Yeah, I remember building a camera stabilization system back in college and it was successfully used for a number of student productions. That one actually used a gimbaled handle and featured both camera and counterbalance adjustments. Worked good too.
Most camera stabilization rigs are nothing at all like a real Steadicam in terms of performance. I've flown the real thing, and it's amazing. You can run down the street and hardly see a bobble in the picture, mount it on the back of a pickup and shoot smooth as glass shots on a rutted road and if talented can make enough to pay for the thing, which is a heck a lot more than the $1500 listed in the article. It does require considerable skill to operate well and there are plenty of mediocre operators out there. (I include myself in that category since I only get to suit up a few times a year.)
Now that the patents are expiring on certain design elements of the Steadicam, some serious competitors have sprung up like mk-v (http://www.mk-v.com/) or Sachtler (http://www.sachtler.com/), but Steadicam still has the best arms at the high end of their product line.
Being a Steadicam Op is like a combination of linebacker and ballerina, with a bit of fighter pilot thrown in, and I personally think it's the sexiest job on the set.
It's not quite as cheap as it seems if you don't have a power drill, a 1/4" steel drill bit, a good wrench, and a hammer. I imagine the first item would be the most expensive, followed by the rench, the drill bit, and then the hammer. (I managed to grab a really nice hammer from Ace during their "dollar days" sale, a year or so ago. Oak handle, steel head... $1. :-) The others were around five bucks, though....)
Impoverished College Kid perspective by:
Undefined Parameter
Eat the Path.
Most folks here in the US are familiar with Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown's distinctive voice, featured, along with voiceover partner Anne Winn, in radio & TV commercials for Country Crock margarine, Moulsen Ale and countless other products. See TwoVoices.com. He's also a director and copywriter; saw him filming tourism spots here in Philadelphia (where Brown resides) many years ago.
The maker has obviously not seen a real, 200k+ rig. Thats a 100 dollar rig at the most. False advertising
www.GrenadeHop.com
Is not by holding a pipe or the camera when it is strapped to your torso.... I've had the opportunity to try a harness on once when I was on a production filming a museum exhibition for the archives. Anyone who knows that Stedicams are pretty damn heavy and hard to walk in unless you've got a VERY good center of gravity and the upperbody mass and strength to keep yourself steady despite the weight pressing against your back.
;) - But the end result, smooth view movements and changes, are what tech-weenies like myself really giggle with glee over whenever we watch movies.
The harness itself is quite interesting. The weight shifts from your hands to your torso and usually the vests will put it all square on your shoulders (not on top, against them) - This is quite a difficult balance to get used to initially. I felt like I couldn't move without falling over.
That's the fun part... I could use one finger to hold up the camera and move around as much as I wanted to. Even despite knowing how it works and trying one myself, Stedicam equipment still amaze the heck out of me.
The counterweights can be changed to reflect on the load... and in most cases, as long as you can remain upright with all the weight against your back, it works pretty well. Most of the times for running/high movement shots... a more stripped down version is used. The setup that I tried on myself had a monitor strapped against the weights so that you could look down at the screen to see what you were filming AND look down at the ground to see where you were stepping. A steadicam wipeout isn't pleasant at all.
The problem with this $14 setup is that you continue to put ALL of the weight on the hands/harms. Stedicams work better, as I said, by putting the weight against your back. The camera itself basically free-floats in the rig. Instant turns, swivels, tilts, pans and etc... it's really quite a trip if you've never tried it yourself. Sort of the idea like how you think everything moves when you hit acid. (Disclaimer: I've never done acid.
How about in place of the weight, you put a few 10,000 rpm hard drives. That would sure cut down on some of the jitter.
I built one for my XL-1. I got semi-reasonable results, but I found that after less than 5min, I had to put everything down because my arm/shoulder was tired. As other people have mentioned, the pros use a vest to hold a 30kg 35mm camera. Lots of practice is needed and good stedicam operators will never be out of a job in hollywood.
I think a MUCH better idea is building your own track/dolly system for around $60. Sure it takes longer to setup, but the shots will be far superior than anything short of a pro stedicam rig.
helped get me a modeling gig. Marching band teaches you how to walk both confidently and with style.
In my old school marching band was just walking up and down the street. In my new school it was walking up and down the street I think once or twice but the rest of the time it was doing half time shows and competitions with formations and whatnot which was really cool. I had to learn how to basically run and play at the same time while keeping the instrument level.
Kind of like running with a video camera and not bouncing it around.
A lot of people don't get the practical applications of things like that because they're too concerned with not being "geeky" and just plain short sighted.
And this is why schools tend to cut music programs while the athletic department gets gobs of money.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Yes they are interesting but what would the recoil do to the mount (particularly the gimbles)? Also the full harnesses make it rather difficult to hit the ground for cover. The other point is that a gun is rather heavier than a camera so you need more of a counterbalance.
The monitor aspect of the viewcam isn't really needed with a gun because of laser sights. You would only need to see through the scope when looking over a long distance.
A friend of mine spent about 12 months building this steadicam (http://www.sfinctre.com/baon/Production/Shooting_ Progress/scene_images/2/im000394.jpg/dtViewImag) for a film we have been working on for 3 years. . His steadicam is a bit more sophisticated and features things like low mode (as you can see in the pic) also remote control focus, video sender to remote field monitor, led based level indicators, extra power packs as ballast in the sled. Its designed for vx1000/PD150 sized equipement.
Works a treat!
I'm seeing a lot of replies about using camera technology to steady the picture. If you've ever done real work with real film cameras, like a Bolex 16mm or similar, you would know that a film camera costs a fortune for one that doesn't do much but allow exposure adjustments and focus. When I was doing amateur film on 16mm, the cheapest we could get a functional 16mm film camera for was about $500. Film costs a lot of money as well, plus paying for processing can really bankrupt a project. The last project I was involved in cost about $300 for processing and film on a 6 minute film at about 8:1 shooting to final ratio (so about 50 minutes of actual footage). Most amateur filmmakers I know cannot afford $300-500 for even a steadicam knockoff that would add 1 cool shot to their short. We actually rented a steadicam rig similar to what this guy did for $50 for a weekend on the 6 minute short, and I wish I had at least tried to build this. The filmmakers I used to work with are truly starving artists (what do we do-buy another 16mm roll or eat today?) and are very willing to save money on things like this. I think I will send this link to one of them. When you're dealing with classical film, it's not always as easy as "fixing it in final cut pro". Time in an editing studio, even if you do the work yourself, is always expensive. This guy has shown something that has real use to people who cannot afford "Image Stabilization" on their camera, and even if they could, wouldn't use it. Not everyone uses Hi8 or MiniDV, especially if they're a purist.
I always thought a steady cam used a spinning disk, rather than just relying on weight. Why? Because a spinning disk would act like a gyroscope, preventing the camera from tilting.
Most people have tried this in their physic lab back in school. If you haven't tried it, find a small wheel (like from a bicycle) set it in motion and try to tilt it to the sides.
If a steady cam were build using a gyroscope it would require a small electrical engine and some batteries - just a few bucks more. The spinning wheel (which may weight much less) should be encapsulated to prevent it from hitting anything. It may take some more time to build, but I'm pretty sure it would be more effective, than the solution of "just adding weight".
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
LotR Peter Jackson's first film, Bad Taste, apart from being completely superb, was done on an extremely low budget. The documentary about it, Good Taste Made Bad Taste, shows a lot of things they had to make themselves, including a steadicam. I'm not sure how little money they actually made it for, but it was bugger all and it was back in 1987.... Don't write people who make their own Steadicams off...
I've always wondered what sort of load a site experiences as a result of a SlashDot appearance, so I printed out his page before I submitted it. His counter was at 35546 at the time. I just checked and his counter is at 85266; almost 50,000 visitors as the result of SlashDot, and still climbing. Nothing like some major news site like the New York Times, I'm sure, but pretty impressive.
is that he complains about the price of a 5-cent wing nut at Lowes and seeks out another source. Now that is cheap!
And that's a bad thing? The $14 one shown here has a 2.5lb barbell weight attached. Why not make part of that weight a gyroscope and put the remainder into batteries/motor?
so they had to add a LCD Monitor to justfy charging 600$ for it, take away the price of a monitor and thats an expensive strip of steel
There's a cute trick you can use to do impromptu steadicam work.
All you need is a tripod (the heavier the better).
Collapse the legs so they are as short as possible.
Make a peace sign with your hand.
Use those two fingers, curled up (palm up) to hold the tripod under the camera base, so the whole thing is supported on the tips of your two fingers.
The weight of the tripod legs will put the center of mass under the support point (your fingers).
Your arm muscles, tendons and ligaments make natural dampeners.
I've use this several times with good results.
"World Domination - a fun, family activity"
Whatever it is, here's a hidden video
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Stanley Kubricks interpretation of the King novel "The Shining" was the first major usage of this technology. The Steadicam allowed for those all so eeary follow shots of Danny throughout The Outlook Hotel's expanses. DualityOfTheShining *Note: All interior shots in the Outlook are done on a sound stage, amazing.
Well, not if the mass is in the wrong place. And two much mass simply makes the whole rig difficult to maneuver.
As a bonus, he has a great sense of humor...
If you don't care the hours the building takes, then I'd suggest building something like this guy did: a full steadicam-like setup with a vest, two suspension arms, a fully working gimbal and all the stuff this $14 poor man's "steadicam" has. The costs? About $30, plus 20 hours of work. Sure, it looks ugly but you can't beat the price for the functionality. You'll need stabilizer arms for a stable picture while running or glimbing stairs.
(As a sidenote, "SteadiCam" is a trademarked term. Wikipedia has more information about steadicams in general.)
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Could even put the motor down with the batteries and use some kind of flexible drive cable, similar to the cable that drives the speedometer in a car.
"I've worked at the same university for about 6 years now...[snip]...receantly...deceant...dedidacted"
What frightens me is that anyone with spelling that bad can work at a university....
Unless these are new words:
"deceant" (dee-see-ant): An insect living in colonies that only operates on battery power.
"dedidacted" (dee-die-dak-ted): To have one's didactic traits removed; to be fired from a teaching position.
Great idea-- perhaps, after building a prototype, you can post to slashdot about it.
What i really want to know is...
where the heck can i play professional squash.
Oh yeah!
Johnny's girlfriend looks kinda cute. I want to see the action sequences he shot in his studio.
--
make install -not war
Basically, this guy's put a big weight on his camera. This does not a steadycam make.
There was me thinking steadycams were sprung and damped systems that the user attached to his/ser body so they don't have to carry the weight of the camera with their arms for extended periods. No? Oh well.
If I strap a five pound weight to my mouse, does that make it a 'steadymouse'?
Let's hear it for slow news days!
C-x C-s C-x k
Are you kidding? Have you ever worn a real (not Jr) Steadicam? I have many times - about the most uncomfortable thing ever, the strain on your body is unbelievable. But well worth it - there is no other way to get the shots that thing is capable of.
Still, I suppose it might be worth pursuing the cheapness angle and get one of those $11 Dakota digital cameras, which apparently can be put into webcam mode using the Linux driver. One of those, with a homemade steadicam and a backpack laptop... However, my laptop battery's fucked, so I get about 3 minutes runtime when off mains power. Sigh... I have *got* to get a tax refund next year... :)
Create Your Own Camera Boom
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
I haven't used these, but your comment about the modified monopod suggests that Chung Lee's design could be modified to make it lighter. If a weight at the end of (an aluminum) monopod works well, then the steel pipes in Lee's solution may not be the best solution.
What is the Physics? Is it the overall weight of the assembly with its CG (center of gravity) at your hand that helps? Or is it the counter balancing effect of the pedulum? Can you get a better smoothness to weight ratio by moving the weight out onto the pendulum head?
I don't have a great feel for this without trying it, but I suspect you would get better performance by increasing the lever arm. In the same way that a tight rope walker uses a longer pole, or a weight lifter uses a longer bar, moving the weight out on the lever arm helps maintain balance.
You can probably use this design with aluminum struts instead of steel pipe struts and get similar performance, though you will probably have to increase the pendulum weight a little. The total weight may be less. I wonder how much raw carbon-fiber tube costs? Maybe it is affordable if you buy it as a material.
The real issue here, what makes this solution viable, is low head weight. The expensive solutions are targeted towards professional cameras that easily weigh 15 lbs: Sony Betacams, the DSR 300 - 500s and such, and the the top of the line steadycams are for 35mm film cameras. Smoothing a consumer handycam is a much easier problem. As the image quality on tiny cameras goes up homemade solutions will become much more significant.
The previous poster mentioned that a "REAL STEADYCAM"(tm) is waaaay better than this. The vest, the LCD mounted display, the spring arms and weights and automagic push-button controls for automatic centering of camera loads. Yep, it's true. The complaints about this product are true, it doesn't do all of that. My main reply is: OH, and so are YOU going to sell me vest, lcd, onboard computer and so on for $14? That's the going price here. If you can provide all that you say at the price that I want (or something even within 200% of the price of this), then I'll take three. Otherwise, keep your complaints to yourself. I'm sure I could build something for a million and a half dollars much much better than "STEADYCAM"(tm), but would you buy one?
Getting good results is not so much about the equipment, but how you use it.
:)
You just keep telling yourself that stumpy
The dude makes it out of steel pipe. Sheesh... I'm surprised he overlooked the fact that he could have filled the pipe with sand or water or mercury or something.
Seriously, though, there are several sites out there that deal with the topic of home-made steadicams. Most of the others, although a little more expensive and a little more complex, are lighter, easier to use, and they even discuss some of the physics behind the steadicam principle, like static vs. dynamic stability, etc. I guess what I'm getting at is: I'm really not impressed by this.
Don't expect this thing to perform miracles, you have to practice using your arms and body to create a smooth motion.
So, this steady-cam is only steady if you don't jostle it around at all? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a steady-cam?
Home made "steadicams", dollies, jibs, etc, etc...
www.homebuiltstabilizers.com
Sorry if this has already been posted...
An ordinary full-size tripod (like from a camera store) + a lightweight (in other words, any modern) mini-DV camera with built-in image stabilization and external viewfinder is a better combination. The tripod head lets you position the camera any way you want... You can let the tripod hang down folded for the counterweight... and you can extend the tripod for great aerial shots. You can run with it... You can get inches from the ground by holding the camera upside down with the tripod and flipping the shot over in post production with a PC-based video editor. The mass of the whole system keeps things steady.
Something else you can do with the tripod - film yourself anywhere, in motion. Extend the tripod and hold the legs against your waist, with the camera pointing back at you. You don't even need a really tight zoom to crop out your hands holding the tripod. And then you can spin around in a circle, and keep yourself perfectly framed while the background whirls. You can shoot yourself and all your friends walking down the street without needing an extra friend to hold the camera.
When I built a stabilizer rig, I used a nail and a Jack Daniels whisky shot glass for the gimbal. The nail's point was rounded, and was at the center of gravity of the rig. It sat in the shot glass, which I held. This allowed for plenty of horizontal rotation, and about 30 degrees of tilt.
I was thinking about the MOI, I just misspelled it "WEIGHT". Yeah. That's it. :-P
Seriously, you're right; although the two factors are related it's the inertia that's important relative here, not the weight per se.
Clear, Dark Skies