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?
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
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.
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
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/
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.
I am going to wait until it comes out in paperback.
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
"How many of you are going to build this?"
Well, if I decided to make an indie movie, I'd give it a go.
"Why is it difficult to do the same while keeping the techie edge?"
What's wrong with somebody cheaply solving a problem and publishing it? Should they hoard the knowledge or share it? That's the neat thing about the internet: publishing is cheap.
"Derp de derp."
If you want to take home build stabilizers to the next level, check this out. The test videos are VERY impressive.