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...)"

Comments

The article was a reprint...

[Dzimas]

Johnny Lee originally published detailed instructions for making the cheap Steadicam on the 'net well over a year ago. See http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/ for details. Anyone with semi-reasonable googling skills can have this information without having to pay almost $15 to get it in a mag with pretty pictures.

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.

that steadycam everywhere

[mako1138]

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.

We're the results really that good?

[kizzbizz]

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.

Re:We're the results really that good?

[j1ggl3x]

Just because they built the tool doesn't mean they're pros at using it. I've read that even after you build the steadycam, it'll take awhile to get used to and become good at. For a better idea of the usefulness of building the steadycam, check out the movies near the bottom of the page by the original creator (especially where he follows the walking subject):

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/

Ripoff?

[plimsoll]

I was kind of relieved to see that the reviewed Make article was written by the author of the original $14 Steadycam site, Johnny Chung Lee. The man's a hack, and I mean that in the most endearing way.

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").

Re:As expected?

[dgatwood]

I would add that most of these $15 'steadicams' are equivalent to many of the low-end steadicams that normally don't sell for that much money. The really high-end stuff (e.g. for helicopters) involves gyros to maintain stability against the natural tendency to vibrate, while still allowing gradual motion.

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?

[Slack3r78]

Ars' video samples are really subpar for this type of device. Slashdot covered a story on a nearly identical setup here about a year ago and the results are *much* more impressive. As with anything, experience and practice make all the difference in the world. Ars is a great site, but film isn't exactly their focus. :-)

Re:As expected?

[Deffexor]

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.

Well, they haven't trained to use a Steadicam

[Pfhor]

I don't know if they cite the original source of the project:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadyca m/
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:As expected?

[badasscat]

Ars' video samples are really subpar for this type of device. Slashdot covered a story on a nearly identical setup here about a year ago and the results are *much* more impressive. As with anything, experience and practice make all the difference in the world.

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.

I hate to tell you this but.....

[frelancr]

...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

Takes practice

[plutonium83]

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.

Taking it to the next level

[plutonium83]

If you want to take home build stabilizers to the next level, check this out. The test videos are VERY impressive.

Why even post about this?

[pfizzle]

/. first posted the $14 steadicam over a year ago. I know because I saved it, built it and used it a year ago...

Re:As expected?

[Ohreally_factor]

$1000? $1000 is just for openers. See this typical rate schedule from The Steadicam Operator's Manual of Style:

$ 1000.00 at the time of your appearance on the set
$ 2.00 per foot forward (walking)
$ 5.00 per foot forward (running)
$ 3.50 per foot backward (walking)
$ 7.00 per foot backward (running)
$ 10.00 actor in the shot
$ 15.00 actor not in the shot
$ 20.00 per flight of stairs (up)
$ 15.00 per flight of stairs (down)
$ 10.00 each additional consecutive flight
$ 25.00 to put the camera in the Low-Mode
$ 15.00 to put it back
$ 35.00 to change sides with the Arm
$ 25.00 to put it back
$ 5.00 per rehearsal minute, 16mm & Arri 2C
$ 10.00 per rehearsal minute, Arri 35BL
$ 15.00 per rehearsal minute, Panaflex on Steadicam
$ 35.00 per rehearsal minute, Panaglide
$ 3.50 per focus change
$ 2.50 per iris change
$ 8.50 both focus & iris at the same time

Remind the producer that the above costs are on a per take basis and not on a per shot basis. Further more the above costs vary according to the length of the lens used. Additional cost for the16 or 18mm is negligible but repeated takes with the 50 or 85mm can become prohibitively expensive.

Peter Jackson built a $15 steadicam

[Cramit]

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.