Who has the best footage from a CHEAP DIY stabilizer?

MattinSTL

MattinSTL

Sound Modulator
I've been looking through the archives for the last hour and I'm getting tired. I'm wondering what some of the best stabilizer footage looks like? Notice I didn't say steadicam... I'm curious about the results people are getting for under a hundred bucks DIY... the cheaper the better.

Bottom line is this. I've used cam brackets that stabilized my footage a lot, and I've used weighted monopods that helped lots... I've been wanting to try an experiment for a while now... to combine the benefits of both the bracket and the pod... spread the center of gravity out and down.

I may just be making a few film tools for a few broke friends... but I'm curious what I'm up against in terms of quality output?

Once again let me say that I do NOT want to compare this to anything serious... unless you want to include the very bottom-most Glidecam or FlowPod... I wouldn't mind seeing if a DIY is much worse then a $300 stabilizer in that case.

I guess I have a couple questions popping up... like, "what does stable enough look like?" I'm talking purely for low-to-no budget stuff.

A few days ago a kid had a thread asking us to analyze his footage... and more then anything I was gripped by the fact that it could be improved SO much SO easily... and then I decided to test my own advice. These DIY stabilizer ideas are not professional solutions... but I don't think the results should be much different then a figrig?

Thoughts? Do you remember a really impressive DIY stabilizer clip that you can link me to? (Not Cory's clip... I said CHEAP!)
 
Matt...you have way too much energy man :)

That being said, I'm not sure if practice and technique aren't more of an issue than the specifics of how you built a low-end stabilizer. I've built a few and gotten mixed results, mostly due to getting frustrated, and not working harder with what I had.

The best design I've ever seen is in Dan Selakovich's book. I haven't built it yet, but it's on my list.

http://www.dvcamerarigs.com/stabilizermovie.html
 
I do, they are in the book.

Honestly, this book was one of the best purchases I ever made. The plans are clear, with lots of pictures and tips. The projects range from the complex (like the stabilizer and a couple of cranes) to the simple (Sandbags and a spreader) Dan Selakovich is the author's name, and he is a DVXuser member. Last I heard he was working on a second book which would inclde a stabilizer/vest system. I am looking forward to that, and it is one of the reasons i have put off building the one in the first book.
 
Dan is a terrific guy and barely breaks even on the book. What you pay is pretty much what it cost him to produce the book.

His rigs are pretty neat and his instructions are detailed and thoroughly accompanied with pictures (even the raw materials checklist and tools).

It's worth buying a copy of the book. Especially since he's about to run out of the spiral bound version. (For cost reasons, he's going to a paperback bind.)

Although... you'll never catch me attaching my DVX-100A to a bunch of helium balloons... I don't care HOW cool the shot looks! :undecided
 
Yea ...that was kinda nuts. :beer:

I'm bummed about the book not being spiral though. That's one of the things I like about it.

Any clue as to when the next one will be out?
 
One of the things I've noticed about many GlideCam style stabilizers is that it's kind of tricky controlling the gymbal... like the cam "drifts" off with inexperienced operators... It can look entirely appropriate, but on that video I think that's what's happening. Don't get me wrong it looks GREAT... this is what I wanted to see! But you see on the steps the shot drifts down and up again... and it drifts to the rails and back straight again. If he says this is what he wanted to do then that's cool... but it looks like operator drift without knowing for sure.

The biggest problem that I've encountered with the lowest end GlideCams and weighted pods or camera brackets is that it's hard to completely eliminate some minor "jolting" (for lack of a better term) motion... it's not really a "jolt" but you can definitely tell the cam isn't FLOATING, but rather it's helped by moving the center of gravity. Some of the video I've seen, like the heavy pipe stabilizer... shows this... and I'm trying to defeat this action myself with a cheapy JigRig (can I call it that? Huh? No? Oh sorry...)

Anyway... when I look at systems like the FigRig... in all their simplicity what they are really doing is distributing the center of gravity over a much larger area... and this DOES help the shots out a lot, but nobody would confuse it with real steadycam work.

I'd like to see more of THAT kind of stuff... and I'd also like to hear some opinion about that LOWEST level of stabilizer and the value in it. To me it's amazing how much a project can be improved with even the simplest device... and this takes that project from super-crappy to watchable. The next level would be REAL steadicams at high prices and high skill-level... which takes a project from watchable to ART FORM.

But this isn't about THAT... it's about taking newbies from super-crappy to watchable.

I'm bangin' out a bunch of these little contraptions which I'll toss on the marketplace for dirt cheap... I'll post some pics here... and some footage. I just played with the prototype for 15 minutes and the footage isn't too bad... with some practice I think a broke filmmaker could get his cinematography well into the middle ground of "watchable". :grin:

Jim... it's not that I have so much energy... it's that I have a neurosis... if I hit the lottery then you guys would drown in production crap. I think it feeds some primal need for a sense of accomplishment on the most basic level. I really like extremely simple things that work well. :thumbsup:
 
You know what I'm talkin' about Mikko! I think the German films of the late 80's started the style of shooting that we ALL use now... it's a sort of roaming camera... where the cam seems to be exploring the set almost... and it actually helps make so-so productions more interesting. There are times when I'll see a steady shot drift a bit and I notice that it's also drifting off level... usually when I see that I assume it is operator drift. (like on that sample clip with the stairs)

I know we're joking... but you do know what I mean right? (obviously) And more importantly... that's what it looks like to you also... right? Maybe you see it from experience and can instantly say, "watch this op try to get his frame back without anybody noticing."

I'm a big fan of shows like 24 or Arrested Development... and 24 appears to use some crude form of stabilization for running shots, which actually works for that show because it gives you the feeling of running with the person. AD was shot with shoulder mounted cams... so it had it's own flavor as well.

What I'm getting at is I think there is a place for a minimalist approach to smoothing shots a bit. Like I said nobody is going to mistake these techniques for REAL steady work.

I can't think of a better example then the FigRig. Wouldn't you call that the most rudimentary stabilizing device? Do you think they sell many of those? The shows like 24, which sometimes appear to be going handheld... do you think that's still steadycam? (like the operator is actually intending to float/drift the cam?) or do you think it's just shoulder cams?
 
MattinSTL said:
The shows like 24, which sometimes appear to be going handheld... do you think that's still steadycam? (like the operator is actually intending to float/drift the cam?) or do you think it's just shoulder cams?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that 24 is shoulder cam...
 
Mattin, I love your passion to make something that works better than what we got!
I hear what you're saying about operator drift, but I think a lot of that can be overcome by PRACTICE. I think it's difficult to see when you're using such a small screen like the lcd, it's a lot easier to notice once you use a larger monitor and you are paying attention. It really is a skill, like anything else, that has to be developed. Very few tools will ever make up for time spent developing skills in camera control, ie control our own bodies. That's why there are dedicated steadi-cam flyers out there.
I'm all for a new, cheap, great device. But I think a lot of footage could be significantly improved by simple practice with the tools we already have.
 
Maybe I should clarify. I'm making crappy little wooden stabilizer deals as an experiment... something for broke wanna' be filmmakers. :grin: (Jeez, didn't I make that clear?) I'm thinking of selling these for $50. This would be along the lines of a FigRig... but with more steady action from a counterweight at the bottom.

This is an area where I don't think I can make something "better then what we got", but instead maybe offer a pretty darn cheap option for a certain niche... you know the one... THAT niche... you know... THAT niche? :lipsrseal

Sorry, I'm just getting silly... this is one project that I don't want you to take too seriously. These things are costing me about $20 or so to make... just in parts.

Cut a ladder just outside of two rungs... take that section... add a stick with a weight on the end... now you have a square FigRig with a counter-balance to further remove the center of gravity. Simple no?

I'm talking about the sub-$100 consumer here... and probably the sub $50 consumer! :grin:

Okay I gotta' go bang these things out... pics and video later.
 
My little stabilizer works incredibly well. Up and down stairs without a bounce, and the video clip included on this link is of me SPRINTING to get to the car with the bride and groom. Watch the movement of the Stabilizer as I sprint. I would love to see a way for a design this solid to help minimize "operator drift" as well, like gimble control. I will be interested to see your plans.
Hopefully these plans will help you. The weight must be extended from the center to stop horizontal camera shake. I find that having a weight under the nose of the camera and another under the rear of the camera make a very "On Weels" look.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43652
 
Alright kiddies... yeah Mikko, Pookie, and the rest of you operators... I KNOW this has some shake and wobble... that's why I said from the start, "what is stable ENOUGH?"

This thing costs me about $20 (at the most). I was considering selling them for $49... but that depends on whether or not the results are worth it. If not then I'm going back to the drawing board and look at some gymbal designs.

In my own experience with GlideCams of any level from 2000 up to V8... I found it a challenge to keep the cam where you wanted it... even though the gymbal did remove the "bounce" that you see in these handheld devices.

Anyway... this is day 2 of trying it out... and the question is this:

Is it WORTH it? Is this a waste of time or are these results reasonably acceptable for something that costs $50?

In most of these shots I'm actually RUNNING... the speed is always realtime. I'm thinking that more practice will yield better results also. The weight of this thing in total is under 4 lbs... so it's not a big deal to manage. (probably about 3.5)

Anyway... here it is: CLICK HERE

Please give me a serious analysis... feel free to be brutally honest or say anything you like. This is nothing more then an idea for a dirt cheap convenience for the expected market... so if you think this footage is junk you aren't going to hurt my feelings.
 
Seems surprisingly stable if it's just like a base with fig-rig handles. I'd be interested to see how it would look on-set. I bet you can get it to move really smooth.

Have you though of putting a weight at the bottom of the base? Like 2 or 3 pound weights 6 or 7 inches below the base?

That might get rid of the subtle shakiness. It's worth a try.
 
:grin: Yeah it's got 2.5 lbs at the bottom of a 20" long pole.

I'll post a pic of it along with a more careful attempt at a smooth shot in a day or two. I need some buddy to be on cam so you can see a practical application rather then shots of me running around at my parents' house.

I was trying to go like a nut... so the shots could have been more stable.

When I come to a stop and pan around... that stability is coming from a 2" nylon belt around my back... if you hooked your tripod bag shoulder strap to both sides of a FigRig... and then extended your arms out to put the rig under tension, then you can brace it really well... it locks the rig to your body and you get a 3rd dimension of stability. The only downside is that you must release that tension and float the rig again when you start walking... otherwise the muscles in your back will introduce EVEN MORE instability then just trying to float it with your arms alone.

I've been experimenting with this simple idea all week (in my spare time) and I think I'm getting to the point of diminishing returns.

The FigRig is just a frame surrounding your cam... to pull the center of gravity off the tight little cam-axis... that frame can be ANY shape and it's going to do the same thing. Technically when you hold the rig out to the sides... neither the top, nor the bottom is doing anything... it's the mass relationship between your hands and the camera.

In careless hands you can shake a shot with either a round hoop (FigRig) or a square frame (my setup). Either one is going to require you to be smooth with your body to avoid unwanted movement.

I wouldn't expect you to read the whole thread... but earlier on I explained the weighted bottom like you just suggested... and yes, it helps a lot.

I'll post some more footage and pics of the little rig pretty soon. We have a really cool park about 30 miles from my house... and as soon as I get my grips in (thick foam grips to further dampen it)... I'll go down there and get some interesting footage. Maybe I can drag somebody along to demonstrate a practical application... and don't forget that this is about CHEAP... This is bottom tier stabilization! I'm not going to imply that it's great... but I want to hear whether or not people consider this level of shake acceptable/watchable.

A FigRig is $300... this will be no more then $50... and if somebody wants to they can build their own for $20. I will gladly show them how... pics and more footage in the next day or two.
 
Why is is whenever someone gets a stabilizer, the first thing they do is try running with it?

Mattin, Sorry for the late review.

It looks decent. Definalty not "Steadicam like" in smoothness/floatyness. But it's looks prety stable for handheld. $50? yeah why not, thgouh i'd want to see the unit first of course, and chances are that I personally would homebrew something similar. But depending on what you've put into it, it might not be too bad.
But yes, as you said, not a Steradicam alternative.

As for that running coment, I'd be interested in seeing some slower footage, that's where a stabilizer really proves itself.

Steve, I'll coment on yours too. Nice editing. I liked it. Your rig appears to be a good lowmode support if nothign else, getting that cam nice and low. As for it's stability, It's hard to tell with you having shot so wide, it hides most shakes.
Not sure about your name for it, but that's irrelevent.

Nice job homebuilding both of you!

- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top