Image Stabilization... at DVinfo.net

Nick Popa · February 4th, 2011, 07:00 PM

Hi, can someone explain Image Stabilization's effect on video (when using a DSLR).

From what I've always thought, it doesn't really make a difference because you're not gaining any stops using it since you still need to stay at either 1/60th or 1/50th. And, for example, even if your using a 70-200 with IS on... is it really going to do anything for you w/ or w/o a stabilization rig? I always thought it was more of a photography thing in which it allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds. I feel like I'm wrong though maybe? a nice explanation would be great. Thanks

Nigel Barker · February 6th, 2011, 04:09 AM

IS can make all the difference for hand held footage. It is able to minimise that shake & jitter. It doesn't work miracles however. You do still need a steady hand. It's definitely worth having if the option is there.

Daniel Karr · February 9th, 2011, 03:55 PM

I couldn't agree more. I use the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS and the Image Stabilization makes a huge difference. I can make hand held shots look supper steady. As long as you have a reasonably steady hand to begin with. I also have a 70-200 f4 without IS and any time I use it outside on a tripod, when its windy I find myself wishing I has The IS version. Although I think a better tripod would help too.

Martin Steimann · March 1st, 2011, 11:05 AM

Although not shot with a 7D, this example might help to show the effect an OIS has on the steadiness of the picture (please compare both „handheld only“ shots):

Marty Hudzik · March 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM

I also have the 17-55 2.8 IS and it makes a huge difference. With a DSLR package the shakiness is a little different than with a true HD camera since the size and shape of the unit factor in. The DSLR presents an anomoly that I have heard referred to as "micro shake". It is this crazy fast little oscillation that happens, even when you are holding really steady. It is not a floaty effect but a little "buzz saw" effect. I recently had the chance to work with the 85mm 1.8 Canon prime, and the images it produced were phenomenal. However, in the line of work that I shoot, I have to do a lot of "unscripted" shooting that does not allow for tripods or extra stabilizing gear.

I had previewed the footage on the camera and thought that the level of "unstable-ness" was acceptable. But when I viewed it on my large monitor later the micro shakes were there and ruined many shots. It was undetectable on the small LCD. The quality of the glass was obvious but the images were distracting....kind of like cell phone footage.

So....for now I am sticking to the IS lenses until a gig comes up that requires that extra light and DOF from the 85mm prime...then I'll buy that lens and make sure the client is willing to take the time to let me shoot with extra stabilization!

IS is an absolute must if shooting handheld at any level of zoom. Plus it really does help in low light photos too!

Dave Murray · March 1st, 2011, 03:54 PM

I have been pleasantly surprised and satisfied using Mocha for AE 2.5 to fix shakiness in post. As others have written, even with IS and a sturdy tripod, shake happens.

Lance Watts · March 9th, 2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

However, in the line of work that I shoot, I have to do a lot of "unscripted" shooting that does not allow for tripods or extra stabilizing gear.

Why not invest in a monopod or some sort of shoulder rig, or one of Zacuto's gunstock stabilizers. None of these will inhibit your movement and they will help stabilize your images tremendously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

IS is an absolute must if shooting handheld at any level of zoom. Plus it really does help in low light photos too!

You can shoot handheld with a wide lens and still capture very stable images without IS.

Marty Hudzik · March 16th, 2011, 07:32 AM

When I said "any level of zoom" I actually meant anything not wide. I wasn't actually saying it is absolutely essential for any focal length....just any focal length that would be considered telephoto.

Also, in my line of work and the budgets I am working within, getting a shoulder rig is not cost effective at this point. A monopod....perhaps. But I end up shooting a lot of hand held at odd angles that a mono pod could not easily accomodate.

The IS helps a lot for me...it removed the mico flutters in the image. Handheld shots are not rock steady though....there is a little bit of motion left and right but it is not distracting at all unless you were looking for a locked down shot.....

Thanks all.

Evan Donn · March 17th, 2011, 11:55 AM

I'd second the monopod suggestion, I've found mine to be one of the most useful and cost-effective accessories I've got. The thing is I rarely use it extended to the ground - I mostly use it braced against my thigh, waist, or folded up and on my shoulder instead of a dedicated shoulder rig. I'll also use it as a pseudo-steadicam by holding it at the top with one hand and letting it hang free beneath the camera. In all cases it really helps to minimize visible shake, and I can't imagine any odd angles where it wouldn't work and improve the shot. Mine's made by Enduro, carbon fiber, weighs less than a pound and runs about $100.

Markus Nord · March 17th, 2011, 02:13 PM

Manfrotto got a shoulder support that you put on top of your monopod. It will give it even more support. It's not a dedicated video accessory so it is not expensive... Like 30$

As long as it's pre DSLRvideo era, it's "cheap", post DSLRvideo era start and they put 00 on every price tag ;)

February 4th, 2011, 07:00 PM	#1
Nick Popa Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Flemington, NJ Posts: 120	Image Stabilization... Hi, can someone explain Image Stabilization's effect on video (when using a DSLR). From what I've always thought, it doesn't really make a difference because you're not gaining any stops using it since you still need to stay at either 1/60th or 1/50th. And, for example, even if your using a 70-200 with IS on... is it really going to do anything for you w/ or w/o a stabilization rig? I always thought it was more of a photography thing in which it allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds. I feel like I'm wrong though maybe? a nice explanation would be great. Thanks

March 1st, 2011, 11:05 AM	#4
Martin Steimann Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Hamburg, Germany Posts: 32	Re: Image Stabilization... Although not shot with a 7D, this example might help to show the effect an OIS has on the steadiness of the picture (please compare both „handheld only“ shots): Reduce 50mm shakiness on Vimeo __________________ www.martinifilm.de

March 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM	#5
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Re: Image Stabilization... I also have the 17-55 2.8 IS and it makes a huge difference. With a DSLR package the shakiness is a little different than with a true HD camera since the size and shape of the unit factor in. The DSLR presents an anomoly that I have heard referred to as "micro shake". It is this crazy fast little oscillation that happens, even when you are holding really steady. It is not a floaty effect but a little "buzz saw" effect. I recently had the chance to work with the 85mm 1.8 Canon prime, and the images it produced were phenomenal. However, in the line of work that I shoot, I have to do a lot of "unscripted" shooting that does not allow for tripods or extra stabilizing gear. I had previewed the footage on the camera and thought that the level of "unstable-ness" was acceptable. But when I viewed it on my large monitor later the micro shakes were there and ruined many shots. It was undetectable on the small LCD. The quality of the glass was obvious but the images were distracting....kind of like cell phone footage. So....for now I am sticking to the IS lenses until a gig comes up that requires that extra light and DOF from the 85mm prime...then I'll buy that lens and make sure the client is willing to take the time to let me shoot with extra stabilization! IS is an absolute must if shooting handheld at any level of zoom. Plus it really does help in low light photos too!

March 1st, 2011, 03:54 PM	#6
Dave Murray Tourist Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Oakland CA Posts: 4	Re: Image Stabilization... I have been pleasantly surprised and satisfied using Mocha for AE 2.5 to fix shakiness in post. As others have written, even with IS and a sturdy tripod, shake happens.

March 16th, 2011, 07:32 AM	#8
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Re: Image Stabilization... When I said "any level of zoom" I actually meant anything not wide. I wasn't actually saying it is absolutely essential for any focal length....just any focal length that would be considered telephoto. Also, in my line of work and the budgets I am working within, getting a shoulder rig is not cost effective at this point. A monopod....perhaps. But I end up shooting a lot of hand held at odd angles that a mono pod could not easily accomodate. The IS helps a lot for me...it removed the mico flutters in the image. Handheld shots are not rock steady though....there is a little bit of motion left and right but it is not distracting at all unless you were looking for a locked down shot..... Thanks all.

February 6th, 2011, 04:09 AM	#2
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	IS can make all the difference for hand held footage. It is able to minimise that shake & jitter. It doesn't work miracles however. You do still need a steady hand. It's definitely worth having if the option is there.

February 9th, 2011, 03:55 PM	#3
Daniel Karr New Boot Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 15	I couldn't agree more. I use the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS and the Image Stabilization makes a huge difference. I can make hand held shots look supper steady. As long as you have a reasonably steady hand to begin with. I also have a 70-200 f4 without IS and any time I use it outside on a tripod, when its windy I find myself wishing I has The IS version. Although I think a better tripod would help too.

March 17th, 2011, 11:55 AM	#9
Evan Donn Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 795	Re: Image Stabilization... I'd second the monopod suggestion, I've found mine to be one of the most useful and cost-effective accessories I've got. The thing is I rarely use it extended to the ground - I mostly use it braced against my thigh, waist, or folded up and on my shoulder instead of a dedicated shoulder rig. I'll also use it as a pseudo-steadicam by holding it at the top with one hand and letting it hang free beneath the camera. In all cases it really helps to minimize visible shake, and I can't imagine any odd angles where it wouldn't work and improve the shot. Mine's made by Enduro, carbon fiber, weighs less than a pound and runs about $100. __________________ My latest short documentary: "Four Pauls: Bring the Hat Back!"

March 17th, 2011, 02:13 PM	#10
Markus Nord Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vastervik ,Sweden Posts: 639	Re: Image Stabilization... Manfrotto got a shoulder support that you put on top of your monopod. It will give it even more support. It's not a dedicated video accessory so it is not expensive... Like 30$ As long as it's pre DSLRvideo era, it's "cheap", post DSLRvideo era start and they put 00 on every price tag ;) __________________ www.nordproduktion.se https://vimeo.com/nordproduktion