14$ steadycam at DVinfo.net

Michael Gibbons · May 20th, 2004, 02:04 PM

I built a $14 steadycam last night (it actually cost me about $30, I had to buy a vise) for my pana dv53 (sub 2 pounds) . I was amazed by the results, I walked around the house with the thing and the moving camera shots looked suprisingly fluid and just darn cool.

Has any one else used one of these? What do you think?

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/

Michael

Rob Lohman · May 21st, 2004, 06:20 AM

Most people seem to go with the bigger solutions for more
stability and movement isolation. Can you post a clip of your
runs?

Michael Gibbons · May 21st, 2004, 08:44 AM

That makes sense Rob for an XL1 guy like you, but I have a tiny little cam- less than 1kg- as for posting a clip of some of my runs, I'm in 56k hell at home right now, and I don't even have my G5 on line. Next month when my oldest finishes up potty training and my youngest lays off the formula, my wife and I have decided to treat ourselves to a broadband connection. Aftert that I'm going to set up a webpage and start posting some of my stuff.

that said, I fooled with the thing last night, and my results were not as stunning as my first time out, but I think some practice might help with that, we'll see...

In the meantime, follow the link above for some clips from the gentleman who designed the thing. He's got three clips on the page.
Michael

Dennis Vogel · May 31st, 2004, 09:41 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Gibbons : Has any one else used one of these? What do you think?-->>>

I built one a few weeks ago. Only tried it once. It seemed to work OK. I have a bum leg so "gliding with knees bent" as suggested is not so easy for me. I do think a little more practice will make me better even so. I just need to get out and do it.

I'd say it is well worth the price for what it does.

Dennis Vogel

Charles Papert · May 31st, 2004, 10:35 AM

That link sure gets around...

The horizontal member held by the other hand is the problem with that design. It seems like a good idea but it really isn't. I'd recommend eliminating that part.

Randy Reyes · June 1st, 2004, 12:08 AM

Hi Michael! I've been through that website before and created that version of the steadicam. Being a nobudget student director it certainly served it's purpose. But it is difficult to work with as you really do have to try and be steady with it to really reap any benefits. Here is the student video I used it on:

http://www.chaoticempire.com/a.waken.html

I pretty much used it on most of the video shoots, especially in the garage. I really would suggest Cody Deegan's stabilizer plans as he has laid out a wonderful how-to-build your own stabilizer manual. Just search these forums for more info.

Charles Papert · June 1st, 2004, 07:52 AM

I would also recommend finding a way to use a material other than galvanized steel for the central pipe. It's just adding unnecessary weight. PVC pipe would likely be the way to go.

Dennis Vogel · June 1st, 2004, 01:49 PM

I thought the weight was intended to prevent the camera from swaying side to side? Wouldn't PVC defeat that purpose?

Dennis Vogel

Charles Papert · June 1st, 2004, 03:04 PM

The physics involved are based on leverage and inertia. By expanding the component of the camera, we are able to control it from its center of gravity (on the camera by itself, that's inaccessible; by placing it on a pole, we can find the balance point in the middle). The expanded design now adds inertia to the system, which increases stability. The principle of leverage dictates that the further a mass (or application of force) is positioned from its center, the more effect that mass or force will have. Thus, the distribution of weight should be at the far ends of the pole. In other words, a 2 lb pole with a 4 lb weight at either end will act more inert than a 10 lb pole by itself in this application. Better yet, use the principles of leverage in your favor and use a 2 lb weight at the bottom and shift the center of gravity (where you hold the pole) up towards the camera, and you can achieve the same effect.

The most important thing with a handheld stabilizer is to minimize the total weight of the system so that you can operate it with the most comfort and for the maximum amount of time, while retaining enough inertia to stabilize the rig. Thus it is important to distribute the counterweight wisely.

This not to say that Johnny's design won't work; his demos prove otherwise. I'm suggesting that a different approach could be more effective AND lighter weight.

Tom Koerner · June 8th, 2004, 11:20 PM

I built a $45 dollar version of this monster (partially modified, partially I was ransacked by a smalltime Ace Hardware). I finished it as I was doing a Behind the Scenes for a student film (Greasy Lake rules), for that it was perfect. In situations where you can't plan what's going to happen, it is a great balance of mobile/versatile. It extends you reach, add a number of new angles, and allows you to walk with stressed out producers in fine form. You can even flip it over and get low angles without fussing with the brackets, if you're willing to just flip it in post. The key is practice; it will greatly effects your results.

As to the weight; I weilded this for a 14 hour all night shoot. The next day I couldn't lift a pan of fries and the dining hall staff laughed at me. After that one night/day of pain, however, I never had a problem with the weight again. One thing to consider if you're thinking of going with PVC: with the sturdier metal frame you can run at full sprint and get astoundingly steady video. (I chase cars to practice this) It's not near crane smooth, but it does have a distinct feel that is pretty cool. I've taped over all my practice runs, but if anyone really wants me to prove any of this I'll be happy to tape some more and post them. I'm a loser like that.

Charles Papert · June 9th, 2004, 01:07 AM

PVC pipe is fairly sturdy stuff, being a cylinder. Aluminum tubing is even better. With the kind of weight we are talking about, flex and resultant jitter shouldn't be a problem. I think you'd only see those types of issues stemming from your camera mounting assembly (a single 1/4"/20 screw is not an exceptionally solid way to mount a camera over 4 lbs.)

Tom Koerner · June 9th, 2004, 08:04 AM

I forgot to mention what the modification was: my camera is over 4 pounds, so I have a large mount on the top. I only kept the one screw but I added a large base platform and covered it in specialized camera gripping mega material. (electrical tape) Aluminum tubing would be nice, though.

Filip Kovcin · January 6th, 2005, 10:05 AM

if you want to see something interesting and fun (i hope) - connected with 14$ steadycam - take a look:

http://www.astercity.net/%7Etarasuma...izer_page.html

but if you REALLY want to see REAL working LEGO stabilizer go here:

http://www.astercity.net/~tarasuma/l...izer_page.html

have fun!!!

filip

Michael Gibbons · January 6th, 2005, 10:19 AM

As funny as the $7.00 stabilizer is, the most impressive part of the site is your "y" stabilizer and your dolly, both of which look really slick and definitely not homemade.
nice work.
And wow this is an old thread!

Filip Kovcin · January 6th, 2005, 11:02 AM

thank you michael!

filip

May 20th, 2004, 02:04 PM	#1
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	14$ steadycam I built a $14 steadycam last night (it actually cost me about $30, I had to buy a vise) for my pana dv53 (sub 2 pounds) . I was amazed by the results, I walked around the house with the thing and the moving camera shots looked suprisingly fluid and just darn cool. Has any one else used one of these? What do you think? http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/ Michael __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

May 21st, 2004, 06:20 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Most people seem to go with the bigger solutions for more stability and movement isolation. Can you post a clip of your runs? __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 21st, 2004, 08:44 AM	#3
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	bigger solution That makes sense Rob for an XL1 guy like you, but I have a tiny little cam- less than 1kg- as for posting a clip of some of my runs, I'm in 56k hell at home right now, and I don't even have my G5 on line. Next month when my oldest finishes up potty training and my youngest lays off the formula, my wife and I have decided to treat ourselves to a broadband connection. Aftert that I'm going to set up a webpage and start posting some of my stuff. that said, I fooled with the thing last night, and my results were not as stunning as my first time out, but I think some practice might help with that, we'll see... In the meantime, follow the link above for some clips from the gentleman who designed the thing. He's got three clips on the page. Michael __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

May 31st, 2004, 09:41 AM	#4
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	Re: 14$ steadycam <<<-- Originally posted by Michael Gibbons : Has any one else used one of these? What do you think?-->>> I built one a few weeks ago. Only tried it once. It seemed to work OK. I have a bum leg so "gliding with knees bent" as suggested is not so easy for me. I do think a little more practice will make me better even so. I just need to get out and do it. I'd say it is well worth the price for what it does. Dennis Vogel

May 31st, 2004, 10:35 AM	#5
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	That link sure gets around... The horizontal member held by the other hand is the problem with that design. It seems like a good idea but it really isn't. I'd recommend eliminating that part. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 1st, 2004, 12:08 AM	#6
Randy Reyes Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 54	Hi Michael! I've been through that website before and created that version of the steadicam. Being a nobudget student director it certainly served it's purpose. But it is difficult to work with as you really do have to try and be steady with it to really reap any benefits. Here is the student video I used it on: http://www.chaoticempire.com/a.waken.html I pretty much used it on most of the video shoots, especially in the garage. I really would suggest Cody Deegan's stabilizer plans as he has laid out a wonderful how-to-build your own stabilizer manual. Just search these forums for more info.

June 1st, 2004, 07:52 AM	#7
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I would also recommend finding a way to use a material other than galvanized steel for the central pipe. It's just adding unnecessary weight. PVC pipe would likely be the way to go. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 1st, 2004, 01:49 PM	#8
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	I thought the weight was intended to prevent the camera from swaying side to side? Wouldn't PVC defeat that purpose? Dennis Vogel

June 1st, 2004, 03:04 PM	#9
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	The physics involved are based on leverage and inertia. By expanding the component of the camera, we are able to control it from its center of gravity (on the camera by itself, that's inaccessible; by placing it on a pole, we can find the balance point in the middle). The expanded design now adds inertia to the system, which increases stability. The principle of leverage dictates that the further a mass (or application of force) is positioned from its center, the more effect that mass or force will have. Thus, the distribution of weight should be at the far ends of the pole. In other words, a 2 lb pole with a 4 lb weight at either end will act more inert than a 10 lb pole by itself in this application. Better yet, use the principles of leverage in your favor and use a 2 lb weight at the bottom and shift the center of gravity (where you hold the pole) up towards the camera, and you can achieve the same effect. The most important thing with a handheld stabilizer is to minimize the total weight of the system so that you can operate it with the most comfort and for the maximum amount of time, while retaining enough inertia to stabilize the rig. Thus it is important to distribute the counterweight wisely. This not to say that Johnny's design won't work; his demos prove otherwise. I'm suggesting that a different approach could be more effective AND lighter weight. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 8th, 2004, 11:20 PM	#10
Tom Koerner Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 40	I built a $45 dollar version of this monster (partially modified, partially I was ransacked by a smalltime Ace Hardware). I finished it as I was doing a Behind the Scenes for a student film (Greasy Lake rules), for that it was perfect. In situations where you can't plan what's going to happen, it is a great balance of mobile/versatile. It extends you reach, add a number of new angles, and allows you to walk with stressed out producers in fine form. You can even flip it over and get low angles without fussing with the brackets, if you're willing to just flip it in post. The key is practice; it will greatly effects your results. As to the weight; I weilded this for a 14 hour all night shoot. The next day I couldn't lift a pan of fries and the dining hall staff laughed at me. After that one night/day of pain, however, I never had a problem with the weight again. One thing to consider if you're thinking of going with PVC: with the sturdier metal frame you can run at full sprint and get astoundingly steady video. (I chase cars to practice this) It's not near crane smooth, but it does have a distinct feel that is pretty cool. I've taped over all my practice runs, but if anyone really wants me to prove any of this I'll be happy to tape some more and post them. I'm a loser like that. __________________ Tom Koerner

June 9th, 2004, 01:07 AM	#11
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	PVC pipe is fairly sturdy stuff, being a cylinder. Aluminum tubing is even better. With the kind of weight we are talking about, flex and resultant jitter shouldn't be a problem. I think you'd only see those types of issues stemming from your camera mounting assembly (a single 1/4"/20 screw is not an exceptionally solid way to mount a camera over 4 lbs.) __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 9th, 2004, 08:04 AM	#12
Tom Koerner Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 40	I forgot to mention what the modification was: my camera is over 4 pounds, so I have a large mount on the top. I only kept the one screw but I added a large base platform and covered it in specialized camera gripping mega material. (electrical tape) Aluminum tubing would be nice, though. __________________ Tom Koerner

January 6th, 2005, 10:05 AM	#13
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	14$ steadycam or cheaper? if you want to see something interesting and fun (i hope) - connected with 14$ steadycam - take a look: http://www.astercity.net/%7Etarasuma...izer_page.html but if you REALLY want to see REAL working LEGO stabilizer go here: http://www.astercity.net/~tarasuma/l...izer_page.html have fun!!! filip

January 6th, 2005, 10:19 AM	#14
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	As funny as the $7.00 stabilizer is, the most impressive part of the site is your "y" stabilizer and your dolly, both of which look really slick and definitely not homemade. nice work. And wow this is an old thread! __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

January 6th, 2005, 11:02 AM	#15
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	thank you michael! filip