Game changing stabilizing device?

[Paul F]

Well, I'm still impressed with the demo footage I've seen. I guess the operator is just really good at absorbing the up/down movements with their arms.

Which begs the question - what are we really looking at in those videos? If they can run down steps with no vertical compensation from the gimbal, and the compensation for up/down is done by hand, and the vertical stability looks good, then you have to ask just what the gimbal is adding to the stability. Yes, of course, I understand what it is doing, but if it isn't compensating for vertical, and we are satisfied with the vertical stability, then just how much is the expensive gimbal adding to the stability? Is it that the lens is so wide, it's taken most of the stability issues out of the shots?

I find the videos deceiving as most are using very wide focal lengths and the framing is not good, even with the very wide lens.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Paul, that one is pretty simple to answer.

There are 6 axes of movement; 3 angular (pan, tilt, roll, aka pitch, yaw, roll, aka X, Y, Z) and 3 lateral (forward and backward, side to side and up and down). The most critical as far as our perception of a stabilized image are the angular axes, and that is how all 3 axis stabilized heads (like those on a news helicopter) work. The eye can very easily detect variation in those axes because the perspective in the image changes.

When it comes to the lateral axes, we see those visually as shifts in parallax, meaning that they are most detectable when there are foreground objects that will appear to move relative to the background. Think of walking alongside a picket fence; with a 3 axis head the background will look stable but the fence may appear to bob about in the frame as the camera is shifted around in space. Think about those demo videos where the gimbal is being violently rotated around and while the camera still points forward, it is being deflected in space quite a bit. In comparison, a properly operated Steadicam will work on all six axes. The operator can lean this way and that, even walk 360 degrees around the camera and the lens stays in the same place.

On a helicopter, stabilization of the lateral axes are far less important because in most instances the subjects are far enough away that parallax is undetectable. On the ground, we tend to move around and next to objects and variation is going to be noticeable in the frame.

Our arms are fairly good stabilizers, which is why the handheld Steadicams, Glidecams etc work. They take care of the angular axes, and our "human servo" system do a respectable job of the lateral ones. It's why you can carry a full glass of water without spilling it. Same thing with the gimbal: hold it out in front of you and a lot of the shock will be absorbed. However, a good Steadicam arm and proper operation is able to dial ALL of that deflection out of the frame.

So to circle back to your question; the gimbal does quite a bit to providing stability to the image. Easy enough to prove: load a camera down to the same weight as a gimbal, hold it out in your hands and go for a walk. Compare to the gimbal footage. The resulting variations in pan, tilt and roll in the first instance are going to be far more aggressive than the stabilized version.

 

[Paul F]

Good points about the axis Charles. Indeed, I'm not a gamer, so that muscle memory is not developed.

 

[Silenkiller]

The more I watch the demo footage though the more I'm noticing like. shall I call it, micro-movements. Like little stutters, here for example, I was linked to this video from customer support at freefly. http://vimeo.com/63710003 note at 2:26-2:32, if you look closely, that shot, while pretty smooth, it doesn't actually feel like a nice floating steadicam shot. it seems to like have little jitters as it moves backwards. is anyone else seeing this? ive noticed it in a lot of the shots actually.

Am I being over-critical here, am I imagining things, or is this really a problem?

 

[Paul F]

It's real, but it is because of the operator's handling of the gimbal. Notice at 2:07 where they show how they shot 2:26, the handling of the gimbal is not super smooth, especially the handoff. While the gimbals can take out axis movement, the can't smooth out moves left/right/up/down. But this is the best footage I've seen. They are not using a really wide lens and the framing looks to be purposeful and under control. It also looks like the remote operator has two joysticks, which would help tremendously in making control easier. My previous discussion about joysticks assumed one stick for both axis.

[edit] Hmm. The horizon on the 2:26 shot is not level.

 

[Silenkiller]

Yeaah, from a ease of use standpoint, less gear, so much easier to just pickup and use.. I want to believe this product is much better for my wedding work than my full steadicam setup which is cumbersome for that type of stuff but alas I think I won't know til they get more mainstream. I don't want to sell my flyer to fund this thing and then it not do what I need it to do.

 

[epsom salt]

Sorry fore replying at the tail end on this post, The Chinese have one out alread http://www.goodluckbuy.com/3-axis-dslr-brushless-gimbal-carbon-fiber-handle-camera-mount-w-5208-brushless-motor-for-fpv-photography.html at the price of $483.61 including shipping
View attachment 74189

IF you want the DIY version which has no handles or bars at the top of the unit it will cost $103 including free shipping,
All it will cost to get it working is a bit of time a very few dollars and you have you own unit much cheaper . I may be wrong but some of these companies are just importing similar units and rebrand it and selling it on at at a very high price. I found this on many occasions with other products which I have bought over the net these days.
http://www.goodluckbuy.com/3-axis-fiberglass-ptz-5n-7n-gh2-brushess-gimbal-for-muiltcopter-fpv-photography-lg-002-.html

looks good. is that sight legit?

 

[Paul F]

The problem with that one is that it is far from complete. It is just the gimbals and motors. There is no gyros, no motor controllers, no battery, no RC, nothing. So you would have to figure all that out for yourself.

 

[dustylense]

The more I watch the demo footage though the more I'm noticing like. shall I call it, micro-movements. Like little stutters, here for example, I was linked to this video from customer support at freefly. http://vimeo.com/63710003 note at 2:26-2:32, if you look closely, that shot, while pretty smooth, it doesn't actually feel like a nice floating steadicam shot. it seems to like have little jitters as it moves backwards. is anyone else seeing this? ive noticed it in a lot of the shots actually.

Am I being over-critical here, am I imagining things, or is this really a problem?

Go stand on a chase car with your steadicam and see what kind of results you get. THen, hand off your steadicam to another operator and see what kind of results you get.. Then, mount your steadicam to a quadcopter and see what kind of results you get.

 

[Silenkiller]

Go stand on a chase car with your steadicam and see what kind of results you get. THen, hand off your steadicam to another operator and see what kind of results you get.. Then, mount your steadicam to a quadcopter and see what kind of results you get.

My problem is that I'm finding the video footage of these "great amazing things" to be still sloppy. Sure its *passable* but I don't want to buy something and end up with a bunch of cool shots that are still half-ass.

 

[dustylense]

My problem is that I'm finding the video footage of these "great amazing things" to be still sloppy. Sure its *passable* but I don't want to buy something and end up with a bunch of cool shots that are still half-ass.

But you're trying to make this a steadicam replacement. It's not. Again, I challenge you to hang your steadicam out of a car window. I challenge you to move your camera through a window on a steadicam. Go down a spiral staircase with your steadicam. It's just a tool to obtain different shots that would have been otherwise much harder to do. If you like your steadicam, then use it. If you don't like these gimbal systems, then don't bother with them. I would love to have an affordable one of these that could mount up to 10lbs. I soon that should be a reality. Whats to not like about that? Just more tools to express what you want to do in motion imaging. Keep in mind you can still do some post stabilization to these shots to clean them up further (like many do with steadicams)....

 

[Silenkiller]

But you're trying to make this a steadicam replacement. It's not. Again, I challenge you to hang your steadicam out of a car window. I challenge you to move your camera through a window on a steadicam. Go down a spiral staircase with your steadicam. It's just a tool to obtain different shots that would have been otherwise much harder to do. If you like your steadicam, then use it. If you don't like these gimbal systems, then don't bother with them. I would love to have an affordable one of these that could mount up to 10lbs. I soon that should be a reality. Whats to not like about that? Just more tools to express what you want to do in motion imaging. Keep in mind you can still do some post stabilization to these shots to clean them up further (like many do with steadicams)....

Yeah I think what buyers have to consider is it is not a replacement, its an addition to for other purposes. Word.

 

[kicap]

Have you seen the BeSteady Pro product? It is quite convincing and the price point is reasonable too.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/besteady/besteady-one-next-generation-camera-stabiliser

Check it out

 

[CharlesPapert]

Dustylense, of the "challenges" you posed for Steadicam, both the chase car and spiral staircase are within the realm of Steadicam (although hard-mounting vs wearing the rig is far preferable for the car-to-car work).

 

[Guest]

But the point remains. It is not a steadicam replacement. Though there are definite cross overs.

 

[CharlesPapert]

True that: it isn't at this point, primarily because the technology does not yet allow it to do everything that a Steadicam can do such as pan at high speeds, deliver a fine degree of accuracy and response, stabilize in linear axes as well as angular. In very short order, someone will provide a demo with a gimbal perched on a Steadicam arm, and that will take care of the arguments that it can't be carried as long and that it doesn't manage vertical displacement. Eventually the one-man mode will be refined to where it has a more refined response curve in pan and tilt.

We are a few generations away but I think that this tech indeed has the potential of replacing Steadicam down the road. For a certain percentage of users, the current version will satisfy many of their needs in that department. Brace yourself, folks, for the coming onslaught in Youtube videos; long meandering pointless single takes with plenty of misframed headroom, jitter and mechanical looking pans. The only plus is that most will realize they need to shoot with plenty of depth of field, so at least the uber-shallow wide open look (i.e. the previous trend) may start to pass.

 

[Guest]

True that: it isn't at this point, primarily because the technology does not yet allow it to do everything that a Steadicam can do such as pan at high speeds, deliver a fine degree of accuracy and response, stabilize in linear axes as well as angular. In very short order, someone will provide a demo with a gimbal perched on a Steadicam arm, and that will take care of the arguments that it can't be carried as long and that it doesn't manage vertical displacement. Eventually the one-man mode will be refined to where it has a more refined response curve in pan and tilt.

We are a few generations away but I think that this tech indeed has the potential of replacing Steadicam down the road. For a certain percentage of users, the current version will satisfy many of their needs in that department. Brace yourself, folks, for the coming onslaught in Youtube videos; long meandering pointless single takes with plenty of misframed headroom, jitter and mechanical looking pans. The only plus is that most will realize they need to shoot with plenty of depth of field, so at least the uber-shallow wide open look (i.e. the previous trend) may start to pass.

The mounting of the device onto a steadicam arm.... Ahem.... Kinda nulls the whole 'game changing' aspect. (not to mention is using half of Garrett Brown's invention in the process.) No doubt mounting on an arm will be worth while at times, but free flying is why this thing was invented. Don't put baby in the corner.

 

[dustylense]

The mounting of the device onto a steadicam arm.... Ahem.... Kinda nulls the whole 'game changing' aspect. (not to mention is using half of Garrett Brown's invention in the process.) No doubt mounting on an arm will be worth while at times, but free flying is why this thing was invented. Don't put baby in the corner.

The only thing I could see mounting this thing to would be an Easyrig. Just to make your arms last a bit longer on a long day. But people, this device will in NO WAY replace a steadicam. It's just another tool in the tool shed.

 

[CharlesPapert]

This "thing" was invented to mount to RC copters. It wasn't borne out of a dream to replace Steadicam, or solve handheld. It's an evolutionary concept, a moment in time. It's really not worth debating whether it will replace Steadicam in its current form, because that form will be quickly evolved.

Once the larger versions of these gimbals emerge that can handle cameras like the Epic etc., it will be unlikely that anyone will be sprinting around doing long takes with them without some sort of support system. Easyrigs are OK but I think more cumbersome than Steadicam vests and arms, and they don't stabilize vertically.

There's nothing wrong with combining technologies. Modern Steadicam arms represent 30 years of evolution and are incredible efficient at lifting and isolating. They are even being marketed to industry as a way to relieve the burden for assembly line workers. I can't see any reason not to combine forces and improve performance. In the Steadicam world there have been many attempts to incorporate electronic stabilization of one or more axes over the years.

Dustylense, I disagree on the hardline assertion that a gimbal stabilizer will not replace Steadicam in any way. I can obviously see where that tech is lacking in comparison, but the key is this: for a large percentage of those who are using the types of cameras that will mount on these stabilizers, this level of footage is good enough and their purposes, WILL replace Steadicam. It has a fraction of the learning curve and you can pick it up and put it down with ease. It's not about what is better or what is perfect, it's how people will use it, and how content they will be with the results. There are thousands of people who have bought Steadicam-type stabilizers and while their footage is full of what a critical eye would consider fatal operating issues, it likely satisfies them and even their clients. It's very much a relative thing.

 

[Andreas Kielb]

This "thing" was invented to mount to RC copters. It wasn't borne out of a dream to replace Steadicam, or solve handheld. It's an evolutionary concept, a moment in time. It's really not worth debating whether it will replace Steadicam in its current form, because that form will be quickly evolved.

Once the larger versions of these gimbals emerge that can handle cameras like the Epic etc., it will be unlikely that anyone will be sprinting around doing long takes with them without some sort of support system. Easyrigs are OK but I think more cumbersome than Steadicam vests and arms, and they don't stabilize vertically.

There's nothing wrong with combining technologies. Modern Steadicam arms represent 30 years of evolution and are incredible efficient at lifting and isolating. They are even being marketed to industry as a way to relieve the burden for assembly line workers. I can't see any reason not to combine forces and improve performance. In the Steadicam world there have been many attempts to incorporate electronic stabilization of one or more axes over the years.

Dustylense, I disagree on the hardline assertion that a gimbal stabilizer will not replace Steadicam in any way. I can obviously see where that tech is lacking in comparison, but the key is this: for a large percentage of those who are using the types of cameras that will mount on these stabilizers, this level of footage is good enough and their purposes, WILL replace Steadicam. It has a fraction of the learning curve and you can pick it up and put it down with ease. It's not about what is better or what is perfect, it's how people will use it, and how content they will be with the results. There are thousands of people who have bought Steadicam-type stabilizers and while their footage is full of what a critical eye would consider fatal operating issues, it likely satisfies them and even their clients. It's very much a relative thing.

We also started to build brushless stabilizers. At the moment we have prototypes for cameras up to 2 kg and another one up to 5 kg. While the lighter version with a DSLR or a blackmagic cinema camera for example is still ok to carry by hand, longer takes with a 5 kg camera and the 2 kg rig might already get difficult. Also holding the camera at eye level for longer time is exhausting. I see it as a good option to put the stabilized head overslung on a steadicam sled and will make a test soon. Having a connection which might be changed fast between the 'overslung steadicam mount' and the handgrips will give a smart tool which can easily do both, the long tracking shot at eye level and minutes later the action shot going from super low and up again, at least if the camera load is below 5 kg.

We also build a 3-axis prototype for cameras up to 10 kg, like the Arri Alexa. At least here an option for carrying the rig is absolutely necessary and I think the steadicam is the best choice. The largest easyrig will also fit, but the steadicam arm has the big benefit of vertical stabilization. But we also think about an option like the 'buddycam' for having two persons carry the rig for super low tracking shots (http://www.mikkowilson.com/photos/flying/pages/buddycam_2_SOA2004.html). I estimate the weight of the Porta Head 10 without camera between 8 and 10 kg, when it is ready.


Best Regards,
Andreas Kielb


www.portahead.de