Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Builds Make Magazine's Steadicam
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: *** No rule to make target `magazine'. Stop.
I like the Lego solving a rubik's cube... I thought of some great ideas using the Lego computer, but I never had _that_ kind of vision!
What's next? People around here will praise Linux? ;)
DBA? Software Engineer? My company is hiring! Click
From the article:
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?
Timmy Boi's new payola scam: Ars Technica!
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.
In the summer of 2002 I saw an article about the homemade steadicam on slashdot. I then used it for many shots of this independent production of dubious artistic or technical merit.
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?
I Want To Believe
I think everybody I know has built a steadycam by now. There was a guy using one on campus the other day. So it's getting kind of ho-hum. There's always a Video of Steadiness published, and this article is no exception.
I watched the movie, and really didn't notice ANYTHING that would warrant the time invested in building it. The electronic stabilation sucked, but the steadycam wasn't a vast improvement. Maybe it's just me though.
How many of you are going to build this? Maybe for fun, but imagine taking one of those along on a vacation or a trip or something. I don't think so. I realize that that is besides the point, but shouldn't some of these projects actually appeal to more tech people, as opposed to a tiny portion who produce movies and such? Recall the Popular Science and Popular Mechanics stuff from teh 60s and 70s: they *had* a purpose and appealed to a much larger audience. Why is it difficult to do the same while keeping the techie edge?
A blog like any other.
Oh well, nice try.
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").
Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch
I appreciate the effort, but a test video with no subject to focus attention on doesn't really show off how well any of the four tests are working. All I see are tarred cracks in the pavement jiggling in all four.
Whereas, had they walked with someone down the street, it would have shown off the differences quite well.
Jory
I can't wait to drop $15 on this mag so I too can solder breadboards!
I have this steadycam and it works very well for me.
I don't know if they cite the original source of the project:a m/
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.
Their steady cam is the same design/concept as another which was online 2 years-ish ago, where the guy had video of him skateboarding etc. I hope this magazine does more than dig up things that are on the hazy boundries of my overblogged memory.
I am going to wait until it comes out in paperback.
[1]
The first 40 or so pages of the magazine were about various topics such as time-life management for tech geeks, making a miniature "rail gun," backyard monorails, and a myriad of other things that technology hobbyists and hackers were cobbling together using their own ingenuity, passion, and free time (the last of which, most of us never seem to have enough of...) The next 50 or so pages were dedicated to the four featured projects in the issue
[2
The article rates the complexity of this project as "Low" and estimates the time to completion at around "45 minutes." This is particularly smart because it gives the reader a quick gauge on whether this is a simple afternoon task or something that would be a more challenging weekend project
[3]
Whether it has to do with lack of demand or just protection against digital piracy of the magazine, we are not certain.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
blog
...but this http://steadicam.com/ is a real steadicam (please to note the 'i')...Invented by Garrett Brown and first used on "Bound for Glory" in 1975, but made famous chasing a little-known boxer up the steps of teh Philadelphia Museum of Art 2 years later. And it don't cost $10K...more like $60k (before the extry $40k you can spend on silly accessories...like remote focus control & motors & extra brackets & wireless video & cases for alla yer stuff & other impliments of destruction). What was made here is a crude version of the former SteadicamJR (jay-ar), which is actually closer to some of the other knock-offs that are out there. It isn't a 'true' steadicam since there is no isolation from your body, which is the whole point of the steadicam! Now, if they were able to build one with a 3-axis gimbal and an articulating, springed arm, THEN I'd be impressed
"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."
Call me a pessimist but I have a feeling that the Internet Archive at archive.org may be a little bit more enduring than a paper magazine 50 years down the line. Your kids will prefer reading the archived article on the web to handling a musty old magazine. But hey, justify paying for content that's already available for free, in this case for 2 years already, any way that you want.
Looking at the design I'd have to opine that while the galvanized steel pipe may be nice and rigid it's really heavy and adds a lot to the weight you'd need to carry. I'd recommend spending $20-30 on a cheap camera monopod and using that instead of the vertical pipe piece. It's much lighter weight aluminum, and you'll already have a camera mount on top saving you a lot of effort and trouble.
c h+Froogle
http://www.google.com/froogle?q=monopod&btnG=Sear
Since people reading this article are theoretically interested in Steadicam work, I thought I'd link to the movie Russian Ark. It's claim to fame is that it is a 90 minute movie that was shot in real-time in one-take on a steadicam. I've never seen it, but folks on a camcorder board I go to praise it (or at least the camera work.)
I don't know about you all, but I had the hardest time parsing this title. Perhaps if /. article titles could feature italics or something, that would help...
What do you want from arstechnica, quality? LOL... they're the arsholes of the internet!
The way people in marching band walk is usually referred to as a "glide step" or a "roll step".
:)
:)
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.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I've built the said $14 steadicam and here are some thoughts: 1) First of all, it wasn't $14. It was more like $25 (without buying weights, they where a waste of money) 2) It takes immense practice to use it very well. 3) The sidearm makes this better than any tripod or monopod 4) The rotations are the most impressive part of it. The shots generated are really smooth. If someone will generously provide me with hosting, I can post a compilation of shots I did using the cheap steadicam.
from the article: "We also could not help but notice two or three articles that seemed to be written exclusively for Macintosh users. Normally, this is not a particularly worrisome issue since there are some things that you can do only on the Mac platform. What made these articles somewhat offensive was that the articles were addressing concepts that were not Mac-specific."
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.
If you want to take home build stabilizers to the next level, check this out. The test videos are VERY impressive.
G5ARTEB
Too bad their subscription order form sucks. I signed up with my credit card, and it brought me to a page that said they would invoice me, or I could pay online with my card (wtf? I just did that). So I click the link to pay (again), and put in my info, and it fails with some sort of no phone number error. There's not even a spot to enter your phone number.
This was last night, maybe they fixed it now. I'm annoyed. I still have not received a response from their customer service, and it's been more than 24 hours.
Hopefully the magazine is better than their crappy ordering process and support.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
how do I build a shakicam like I've seen on Battlestar Galactica and Lost? ;)
A lot of the shots in this film 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 didn't come out too bad considering I was hanging out of the back of a convertible rabbit while doing 50 mph :)
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
/. first posted the $14 steadicam over a year ago. I know because I saved it, built it and used it a year ago...
It was intriguing enough by the initial ads and the fact that it's an O'Reilly publication that I subscribed. I think that the articles are a little elementary for serious geeks, but overall it's an OK mag for the general reader. Since it's got articles you can read in a few minutes, it's a nice addition to the collection in the "Reading Room" The price, $14.99, is what I'd expect to pay for a book instead of a magazine, but it's well illustrated and printed in color on good paper stock. I'm seeing some other mags that are pushing this price point, too. I'll be interested to see how this magazine plays out.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
It's probably better to call it a combination of a vibration isolator (your arm) that counter balances the camera weight (the barbell). It's got some basic concepts of the real system sort of the way a model rocket is like a Saturn moon rocket :)
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 the batteries used to power the monitor/camera. The rig's real innovation comes from a patented isoelastic arm which attaches the sled onto the vest of the operator.
The entire affair, for the film models is $30-60K, though most professional ops seem to make this back due to the specialized nature of the work. There's all sorts of variations, remote focus control, tilting camera decks, etc the the operators often customize them extensively. Lower end models range from $5-15K, but they don't support heavier cameras or have some "bones" removed from the arm, limiting their flexibility.
Steadicam did at one point make a JR model which was for consumer cameras, it featured a counter weight but no arm, you held the contraption with a grip that was attached to the camera/counterweight attached with a gimbal/u-joint (not sure exactly). It was priced around $1500 originally.
Over the years, many firms have tried to make balancing stablizers, much like this thing. They vary in quality, both construction and smoothness. The gimbal adds a lot to it on the JR model, but it may very well be better just to put the damned thing on a tripod if you can't afford a JR off eBay.
The other thing I forgot to mention is that the are some non-Steadicam ways to get good motion shots-two of the time trusted ones are using a wheelchair pulled by another person, as well as building a dolly to ride on PVC track. They're covered pretty extensively on Usenet and indie film newsgroups.
Thanks so much. I've always wondered if there was a reason bands marched that way, or if it was just a traditional thing. Seems so clear now...
I've learned something on Slashdot!
Wake up.
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
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Oh, I think we all _know that_!! Steadycams come in at a cool what 4 million, 5 million dollars? We _all_ know that real steadycams come with milions of gyros, de-stabilization and re-stabilization computers, G.I.S. sensors, temperature compensation, harmonic vibration detectors and electrodynamic flux capacitors. They are packed with more magic and wonder than even *you've* ever heard of! Fourteen bucks puts it in the range of what most people are willing to spend. For most people, 10-15% improvement provided by these _not_really_a_steadycam_s_ is all they are looking for. Apparently _you_ were the _only_ one who didn't get that.
I resent that!! You obviously haven't seen Raging Bozo.
Sincerely,
Shakes the Clown
Apparently by those in the film industry.
I totally agree. Ars video looks like a poo.
Chungs third video http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/girl3.mov looks simply amazing.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
This is a pogocam. A steadicam is a mechanical device and a pogocam is just a weight camera base.
I take it you haven't actually tried building one of your 3-motor gyros. It won't work. At all.
You will need wheels of significant mass (high polar moment). And you'll need counter-rotating pairs. And the right kind of mounts to keep them from adding more high-frequency vibration while resisting shock damage.
I'd love to see lower cost alternatives to what's out there, but there are also technical reasons why they're expensive gadgets
Back in his early days, filming Bad Taste, Peter jackson (of LoTR fame) built a $15 steadicam. The efect was very good in the film (well good for the obvious budget of the film). I wounder how similar this design is to the one he used back then.
It's a clever idea, but screwing a few galvanized pipe fittings together hardly qualifies as a "project" worth a whole article, let alone a review. I've seen more complicated things in the "shop tips" section of American Woodworker magazine.
by just leaving an aluminum tripod attached to the camera and folded up. hold the camera rig by a point further down on the folded tripod and you'll get the same look. plus, you get a nifty device for holding your camera up off the ground! this is really just a counterweight to move the COG further away from the lens.
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. "Get a sneak Peak", and they don't mean adopt-a-mountain.
I'm all for a new "Popular Electronics" for this century, but really now....
Isn't the Make article just a reprint of the popular design of a CMU (I think) student which I first saw on /. about a year and a half ago?
Also, about Make...
I had high hopes for Make when I saw it previewed on the O'Reilly site as I'm a big fan of the books they publish.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the steep price ($14.99) for little more than a compilation of articles that I've already seen on /. or in 2600 over the past 2 years.
Make needs more original content or a more frequent schedule (monthly) and lower price ($5) imo.
Now if someone would just send a copy of the mag to the producers of the new Battlestar Galactica series. Maybe then I wouldn't feel queasy after every episode.
Was that you could peruse interesting Amazonian cultures under the bedcovers ;)
I'm a video professional and do a lot of freelance cinematography and DVD work and editing for clients.
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 something that looks and moves really steady like a real Steadicam - all you need to do is keep electronic stabalization on if you are using a consumer/prosumer camera and PRACTICE. Reherase your shots!
Steadicam is just a tool and it can't substitute for good shooting practices.
That all being said - to see some really innovative Steadicam work, check out the films Pi and Requiem for a Dream (directed by Darren Aronofsky). Really impressive stuff.
I looked at websites describing how to make stabelizers 4 years ago.
Proofreading? "Aomebic"?
:P
Let he who is without etc..
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 handheld camcorder, but still cool" - thinking maybe they took a Luxo-like lamp or similar thing, added beefier springs, mounted it to some hard vest system (maybe a football player's vest or something)...
When Make first came out, I looked at the reviews, I read what the first issue was supposed to contain, I looked at the layout - and I thought "Blah - cheap crap off a hundred web-sites out there, I already have subscriptions to Nuts and Volts as well as Servo Magazine - do I need this?", and I passed on it. I really didn't think that it could be a cool magazine, in comparison to Nuts and Volts which I have subscribed to since 1991...
Here is this article on a SteadiCam - and I was this close to subscribing, thinking maybe I was wrong. I guess now I am glad I took a moment to read the Ars Technica review and see what a "Make SteadiCam" was...
A camera on a pole with weights! While I can't fault it in theory (it does seem to do the job well based on AT's quicktime shots) - it just isn't a real SteadiCam or even close to it! Where is the iso-elastic articulated arm system? This could have been done so much better, so much cooler (though probably a little pricier - say $50-100.00 instead of $14.00)! Furthermore this doesn't help me with my situation, which needs small size (I have ideas here, though). It isn't a bad simple project, and to be fair, that is what it was presented as in the magazine...
But am I going to fork over money for something like this? NO WAY! I get way more out of Nuts and Volts as well as Servo Magazine - anything else can be done with some thought and googling. Hopefully Make will become better and more challenging, with more expansive articles with real meat...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Just do it in software:m
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.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
"We also could not help but notice two or three articles that seemed to be written exclusively for Macintosh users... What made these articles somewhat offensive was that the articles were addressing concepts that were not Mac-specific."
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.
This variant, found in the fan-mail section of the article's author's original web page, is a superior design, IMHO. It does not require any drilling, and uses an actual camera mounting head from a mono-pod. Yeah, it's more expensive to build, but it's still way cheaper than a comercial stabilizer.
Here's a schematic of the improved design. (PDF file)
You have got to be kidding me. This was modded "Informative"? Is everyone's sense of humor on vacation?
Amazing.
-MJ
Bend your knees, heel-toe when you take steps, etc. As others have mentioned, the smoothness of the shot is directly related to how you handle a camera stabilizer.
However, having used a Glidecam 2000 for some time now, I've realized that how the device is weighted and balanced is a huge factor. People tend to over-weight a camera stabilizer, be it a $14 stabilizer, or a $300 Glidecam. On a Glidecam, you should work to find a neutral balance...the weight on the lower plate should only be slightly more than the weight on the business end. A properly balanced Glidecam, when held horizontally, will take a full 2-mississippi-count for the lower plate to drop completely. This eliminates that rocking motion you get when you are gliding fwd and suddenly stop. A properly balanced Glidecam can be traveling at a high rate of speed, and stop on a dime with only very minimal rocking. It's a beautiful thing, and works very well for whip pans and quick action dialog. Lot of fun.
That all being said, I have spend hours of time and around $100 building a stabilizer that looks much like the SteadiCam JR out of copper pipe and various Johnnycam variety parts. The results are better than the $14 stabilizer, but it is nothing compared to a $300 Glidecam. I wish I had invested the money to do it right from the very beginning.