Steadicams and image stabilizers

**o2pb** · January 10th, 2004, 08:05 PM

A lot of people praise steadicams and other image stabilizers. I don't see whats so special about it. Its a metal pole attached to the camera. How is it gonna help make the image steady? Am I missing something?

**shirt** · January 10th, 2004, 08:30 PM

This is a steadycam...

http://www.steadicam.com/profilm_ultra_cine.htm

or you can use its inexpensive, yet surprisingly effective cousin the monopod...

http://www.velbon.com.au/cup-40.html

The steadicam works because it seperates the operators motions and center of gravity to that of the camera. This seperation allows for the camera to flow smoothly yet still be under precise control of the operator.

The monopod is effective because it not only gives the operator something solid to grasp on to, but also gives a center of gravity to the camera that isn't dependent on the operators arm movement. A simple example would be if your holding the actual camera and want to switch hands during a shot. If you did this the shakiness would ruin the shot. However, if you're using the monopod, no problem!

Ultimately you should use a tripod/ dolly setup unless your going for that shitty, documentary, reality television feel... which wouldn't be shitty if you were shooting a documentary/ reality television show.

Cheers.

**o2pb** · January 10th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Thanks for the feedback. You mean a camera on a stick will actually make the picture less jerky?

**shirt** · January 10th, 2004, 09:49 PM

I swear by it.

Just go to Henry's or any photography store and pick up a monopod for $15 CDN.

I actually went across Canada and shot my own documentary. The camera guy used a monopod with a Sony PD150. We modified it by screwing the tripod in to the camera with some plumbers tape for added durability and attached a vecro strap. It worked terrifically. This will only work with a smaller consumer or prosumer camera. In other words, don't try sticking a 16mm Arri or Aaton on a monopod.

**Kev Owens** · January 10th, 2004, 11:02 PM

Am I missing something?

Yeah; the fact that a steadycam isn't a camera on a stick- think of it as a camera on a shock absorber...

[img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img]

**o2pb** · January 10th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Kev Owens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Am I missing something?

Yeah; the fact that a steadycam isn't a camera on a stick- think of it as a camera on a shock absorber...

[img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Ok, what about glidecam? Its a camera on a stick, with a platform.

GLC7008

**The Cavity** · January 11th, 2004, 05:51 AM

Why not use a tripod? I just don't see what the big deal is about handheld camerawork.

However, in small doses, it can be visually stunning (like in ROTK when Rudy is climbing up the mountain at the end, y'know, the one where Mr. Steadicam is turning epilleptic?).

**belovedmonster** · January 11th, 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Kev Owens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Am I missing something?

Yeah; the fact that a steadycam isn't a camera on a stick- think of it as a camera on a shock absorber...

[img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Its an anti gravity gyro-gimble machine!

Originally posted by The Cavity:
Why not use a tripod? I just don't see what the big deal is about handheld camerawork.

However, in small doses, it can be visually stunning (like in ROTK when Rudy is climbing up the mountain at the end, y'know, the one where Mr. Steadicam is turning epilleptic?).

I think you are missing a major thing here... Pros move the camera all the sodding time, its called a dolly. We cant afford dollys and thus go handheld. But its not handheld as in Peter Jackson getting us in the thick of the battle handheld, its handheld becos if it wasnt the movie would be shot with boring static shots.

**The Cavity** · January 11th, 2004, 06:05 AM

I'm exhausted and cranky. And I need to go to bed.

Thread: Steadicams and image stabilizers

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions