Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ars Technica Builds Make Magazine's Steadicam

Posted by timothy on from the proof-in-pudding dept.

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...)"

13 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. As expected? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:As expected? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      Since all you really need to dampen is movement along the pitch and roll axes, a single gyroscope with the axis mounted vertically would be adequate. And rather than trying to build and balance your own, you'd do well to save yourself the headache and pick up a nice surplus military missile guidance gyroscope, like this. Knock that spinner out of its gimbals and I bet it'd be just right...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:As expected? by goon+america · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you really think you have a better idea, figure out the details, write up an outline and propose it to Make yourself. Make is written almost entirely by freelancers IIRC.

    3. Re:As expected? by ibennetch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd just like to point out that the stabilization that goes in to a helicopter gyro is different from even the more expensive steadicam rigs(1) that you need for a heafty camera. Most helicopter gyros that I'm aware of run 6 figures, mount to the helicopter itself, and use gryoscopes rather than counterweights and springs (disclaimer: I don't actually work with helicopter mounts so I may be in error with regards to common technique. I can only repeat what I've heard from a reputable source). So yes, what you've said here is correct, but I believe you're comparing two different technologies.

      I have a friend with a Steadicam (I think his was around $20,000, but I forget the exact number) and he can work magic with it...I really love the look of something that's been shot on one, but there's a trend now to over-use them in a lot of situations where it's not needed :-/

      And finally, I like your idea of trying a couple of gyroscopes to balance it out. Many of us have tried that experiement with the rotating bicycle tire; I'm guessing it wouldn't take nearly that much effort to keep a smallish camcorder steady...you could shrink down the diameter a bit and speeding it up gains you even more; so I imagine something like you propose is very viable...maybe a good weekend project.

      (1) I can't find the link right now but I think spending about $60,000 on a Steadicam rig will get a "decent" one for a heavy camera. But what do I know, I work in TV, not film.

    4. Re:As expected? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A steadicam requires someone to be able to use it. anyone off the stteet can not use a steadicam and have instant smooth shots. Steadicam operators command the highest per hour fees of any camera operator because it is an art and an insanely hard thing to do. Try wearing a full steadicam outfit with a 48 pound camera and lens on it for 2 hours while you run up the stairs after the actors for the 5th time.

      Any fool can build something that emulates a steadicam, it takes practice and talent to actually operate one.

      Personally I built my steadicam out of my monopod and a bag of lead shot taped to the bottom. my steadicam cost $4.95 for the 12 pounds of lead shot and 3 feet of gaffers tape.

      On a contructive note, the smooth shot is easy to get, what is hard is keeping the viewers from getting seasick because of a rocking motion that is hard to notice as you are operating the camera + steadicam.

      Even a light XL1 and weight you need to balance it will get massively heavy on the end of your arm in 20 minutes of shooting. A vest rig is the only way to get a useable steadicam with a decent camera. using one of the really low quality palmcorders you can significantly reduce the weight but you also significantly reduce the video and audio quality.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  2. Saw this 3 years ago by filmmaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Saw this 3 years ago by DianeOfTheMoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think some time in a marching band would probably eliminate most of the shake, with the "steadicam" removing the rest...

      In marching band, you have to learn how to walk without disturbing your airflow due to steps, and that should translate very well into camera work, with the weighted cam evening out any missteps and normal hand jitters.

      --
      Problems are like gifts, it's better to give than to receive
  3. Re:Timmy Boi's new payola scam... by ArsEric · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're referring to the subscription links, we don't get anything in return from the publisher, financial or otherwise. It's strictly there for the readers' benefit, should they decide to subscribe.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. OT: Russian Ark by angle_slam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

  6. Very good point. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?
  7. Expect to be surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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

  8. Practice, Practice, Practice x10 by 8bitmachinegun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.