Comments for "Camera Stabilization for $1" Video at VideoSift.com

By Sarzy

Sarzy (http://sarzy.videosift.com) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:23:07 -0800

Wow, that's actually a really good idea. I think I'll be making one of those. Big upvote.

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://www.videosift.com/member/MarineGunrock) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:57:14 -0800

I don't care if the cool chimp already said it, those were going to be my exact words.

Wow, that's actually a really good idea.

By bamdrew

bamdrew (http://www.videosift.com/member/bamdrew) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:00:34 -0800

Good times. But, I say, what if you want to move around? or not take picture at eye level? or not look ridiculous? what then, I ask to no-one in particular?!

you guys are familiar with the other poor-man's steadycam, right? with the weights and whatnot? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/

By E_Nygma

E_Nygma (http://www.videosift.com/member/E_Nygma) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:09:20 -0800

^ the other steadycam is done by Johnny Lee, of Wii-controller-modification fame.

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://www.videosift.com/member/MarineGunrock) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:02:29 -0800

>> ^bamdrew:
Good times. But, I say, what if you want to move around? or not take picture at eye level? or not look ridiculous? what then, I ask to no-one in particular?!

you guys are familiar with the other poor-man's steadycam, right? with the weights and whatnot? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/

But that completely defeats the purpose of this one. It's big and probably weighs a ton. You can't just slip it in your pocket. And as far as looking ridiculous? I think a tiny string looks FAR less ridiculous than that huge contraption.

By Arsenault185

Arsenault185 (http://www.videosift.com/member/Arsenault185) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:11:41 -0800

It is a nifty trick, but you know what else works and allows TOTAL movement? Tucking your arms in, and improving your shooting posture. Plus there is nothing better than just practice.

By cheesemoo

cheesemoo (http://www.videosift.com/member/cheesemoo) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:54:53 -0800

Damn fine idea.

By bamdrew

bamdrew (http://www.videosift.com/member/bamdrew) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:14:00 -0800

(woops! didn't mean to make it sound like i thought one idea was better than the other, just that one solves another set of problems, while making you look even more ridiculous.)

By spoco2

spoco2 (http://www.videosift.com/member/spoco2) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:45 -0800

That's actually awesome... I like, I like a lot.

By jimnms

jimnms (http://www.videosift.com/member/jimnms) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:54:46 -0800

An even cheaper method is to just set the camera to shoot in the fasted burst mode, lean against something if possible and shoot a long burst of shots. Chances are you'll get at least one usable one. I've gotten really good shots with a non IS telephoto lens by shooting a long burst of shots.

By deedub81

deedub81 (http://www.videosift.com/member/deedub81) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:37:09 -0800

You don't need to steady the camera for action shots. You would use a high shutter speed.

By 9058

9058 (http://www.videosift.com/member/9058) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:07:40 -0800

People there is no universal right answer, lens, bursts, shutter speeds. These might fix the problem as well but might not give the look you're going for. All depends on what you want, what you want in focus, and so on. I think this is an interesting idea though im skeptical and i want to try it to see how effective it actually is.