Hello, Tell me I'm crazy

C

ChrisForbes

Well-known member
I've looked at a lot of home built camera stabilizers and they all seem to have the weight distributed in a line parallel to the center line of the camera. I am thinking of doing a stabilizer with three arms on the bottom arranged like points on a triangle.

Has anyone seen plans like this? I think moving the weight away
from the center point would give you more of a dampning effect for pitch and yaw.

Also it would allow you to use the stabilizer as a tripod, or just to be able to set it down.

Thanks
 
it should work just as well, I don't know how much good it would do though. A triangle would be an odd thing to hold on to. Maybe I'm not picturing it right. Maybe you could make a diagram?
 
Welcome to DVXuser Chris! That qualifies you as both a genius and crazy. (Or as I prefer to be called: "Insane")


Yes this will work to improve stability over just one (centered) weight.

Of course you have all the other bits to get right, the gimble, balance, camera mount (and balance), etc..

Also note that that pattern may cause you to have to hold the rig further out for clearance, which will make it heavier to carry.

- Mikko
 
Last edited:
I like to think Im "Quirky"

I like to think Im "Quirky"

Thanks for the replies.

ideally the weight would be attached to the bottom of a ultra compact monopod.
with the weight arms no longer than 12 in.

When i get the prototype built i'll post photos

Great fourm guys.
 
What if you were to cross two triangles so they bisect one another right at the point... that way the weight distribution would not only be spread out side to side, but also front to back?
 
This might be the way to go...

This might be the way to go...

We should wait and see what this guy's thing is all about (once commercially available):

http://tinyurl.com/7bqq6
and
http://tinyurl.com/maoog

It uses gyroscopic sensors and servo motors. And I think this might be the way to go, for any betterment of the currently available systems.
 
Hey i have done a fair amount of research on stabilization and what not. I have a video that you should watch. The stabilizer shown works well. The video isn't that beneficial until you get about half way through. They show in the set-up, how to balance, and it just proves that "homemade" stabilizer, if not a steady cam is all about balace. anyway, if you balance it on all axis (X,Y,Z). However, i think your concept could be very useful, let us know how it works.

http://www.steadytracker.com/assembly.html
(the link for the video is on the right side of this page)

Ideally though you would have a system that would take all the weight off your arms so that your hands are free to position the camera. a.k.a. steadicam.
 
The 3 legs won't do what you expect... you are looking at a compromise of weight distribution for stability... and outright MASS. The function of a basic stabilizing device is to pull the center of gravity off the cam as much as possible. Technically ANY introduced mass attached to the cam... via the cam being mounted in a device with spars leading out to weighted ends... will improve stability... but the effect you are picturing doesn't play out in the real world... at least not like you THINK it would.

In my FigRig post that thing I show pictured... I've made a lot of those in varying proportions in an effort to see what works best. One of the first ones I made had the two legs going all the way down to weighted ends. I thought that would be the obvious fix because you'd have the counterbalance mass at the extreme edges of the device... meaning as far as possible from the cam, both down and out. When I started experimenting with it I found that if you split the counterbalance weight anyway... that the rig was actually EASIER to wobble off-center. After thinking about it this made sense to me.

In a dual-weighted (or triangularly weighted) system you only have 1/2... or with triangle 1/3 of the mass to pull off center... or induce a jerk/wobble. Why? Because your arms and body are trying to yield smooth shots... without bounce... so there you are holding your arms out and trying to fly the cam at a single plane in space... simulating a dolly that can change height... but desiring a tracking appearance. So if that rig is balanced at any particular point... fighting bounce by YOU while it tries to control unwanted motion... any pull or jerk off center will RAISE one weight while LOWERING one or two other weights! The end result is that the total mass is less effective because part of the mass is actually HELPING to lift the rest of the mass... the camera part of the rig simply becomes the fulcrum.

Follow me? Try it and see if you get a different result then I did. I wanted to like an idea similar to your's... because if you put the triangle legs in such a way that you can tilt the cam down as the legs sweep past your own legs (around you) it would be a lot nicer then having to consider where the single weighted leg is going (oops in the crotch)... but with my twin leg design it just didn't play out like I'd hoped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top