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.

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.

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/

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.

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.