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?"
Actually, what I noticed was that he really, really loves chopping people's heads off, which might not be the most brainy scheme for an actual production.
That nonwithstanding, this is still a pretty cool idea. I may ask my shop guy to give it a try since it would be really cool to have that for my XL1 - and he's right, these things really are pretty pricey.
D
"How the fsck do you /. a .edu system?"
Bandwidth shaping?
Erm, you dont? This is CMU were talking about. Packing more bandwidth than the state of Pennsylvania can shake a stick at. :)
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
That's not at all what he's doing. The key to the steadycam is that the center of gravity of the apparatus is inside the handle (which is why you need a weight on the end of a pole to counterbalance the camcorder). This means that as you yank the camcorder around by the handle, *only* the position of the camera changes, not the orientation. This removes the much of the "jerkiness" of handheld shots that otherwise screams "low-budget amateur video!" Even without a gimbal mount for the handle, this device can still reduce handheld video jerkiness by a significant amount. Of course a gimbal-mounted handle would be better and would allow easier smooth panning, but it would be hard to do for $14 with commonly-available parts and easy assembly.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
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!
I can kinda understand where you're coming from, but honestly, it kind of erks me. And I've started seeing quite a few of these in this article. This guy spent $14 and maybe thirty minutes to an hour learning how to get the thing to work well, and yet for some reason paying nine times as much and also taking some time to learn to use it seems like a better idea?
Maybe if you can afford it. I'm a poor college kid who has several expensive hobbies. What you are saying is, I would be better off taking my car to a car audio store and having them install my stereo system for me, at the cost of $300 or so. That or I can do it myself, take a few days longer, for $40, and maybe not look quite as good. In my case I thought it was pretty damned close, and even though it took me a lot longer, I got the satisfaction of doing it myself. Thats the key thing here, I think, that most people miss.
He improvised, saved some money, and made a pretty good gadget himself. Decent accomplishment even if it isn't as good as something that costs nine times more. And thats just the cheap one, right?
Now, as far as him trying to make money off of it, I might see where you could complain about that. I think I would in his case too, but I don't think that would bother me as much.
In-Camera stabilization? What the hell are you shooting with, your mom's Hi-8 Camcorder? Dude, if you're shooting on low end DV don't even begin to talk about the quality of a $14 steady cam shot. Because you are now here near the level to begin using these techniques and expecting a high quality image. At that level focus on story and acting. If you can't con/direct $5K out of somebody to afford the best equipment, then how do you expect to control anybody on a set?
sometimes it seems, no one wants to suffer for their art anymore
So if you don't have the money to it "right" you shouldn't try?? That seems off...
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
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?
I think thats a fairly bad attitude. Some people do the best with what they've got. Maybe they don't want to sped the money on a steadycam, maybe the money is better spent on actors. Saving where you can isn't a vice. Also I think directors are talented because they can direct, being a bad executive producer doesn't neccisarily make you a bad director.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
What about Kevin Smith? He does projects very low budget, casts his friends. He makes good movies. There are diffrent levels. Not everyone is out to make a hollywood blockbuster, and not everyone makes a hollywood blockbuster as their very first movie.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Who the hell is talking about a Hollywood Blockbuster? Even Kevin Smith uses a cinematographer and producer since Clerks. Those were people that he had to talk into supporting his work. Yes, there are different levels of filmmaking. That's why I thought it was shitty that you were talking smack on the guy's low budget steady cam. His steadicam was a good solution for a small project but you declared your frame-stabilizing camera as being better. If you have a frame-stabilizing camera then it is most likely a consumer level piece of ass. So talking smack on a shaky steadicam as if your image-stabilizing camera is the savior is like a cripple saying that plastic prosthetics are better than wooden ones. You still don't have a leg. Yes his steadicam was shaky but your camera sucks and a shaky shot is the least of your worries if you're using that for an image. So, throw all of that crap out the window and focus on things more feasible at that level, a script and great talent.