Jump to content



Photo

Steady Shot on or off??


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 MarceloKron

MarceloKron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Sao Paulo Brasil

Posted 01 February 2005 - 12:05 PM

Hi...

When we use DV camereas we should turne on or off the steady shot???

How do you guys use to do???

thanks!
  • 0

#2 Marc_Abernathy

Marc_Abernathy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 01 February 2005 - 12:29 PM

i would turn off that "feature". the dvx 100a has a Optical Imaging Stabilization 'feature' (OIS) on it. i turned it off when i had it on the Rig because it was not needed obviously and i didnt want any artifiacts to surface on the image to tape...
  • 0

#3 Mikko Wilson

Mikko Wilson

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 268 posts
  • Juneau, Alaska, USA

Posted 01 February 2005 - 02:18 PM

i would turn off that "feature". the dvx 100a has a Optical Imaging Stabilization 'feature' (OIS) on it. i turned it off when i had it on the Rig because it was not needed obviously and i didnt want any artifiacts to surface on the image to tape...


Haha, I'll counter that with my view...

If your camera has Electronic Imiage Stabilization (EIS) kill it (permenantly) - it's just as bad as Digi-Zoom.

However (generally) OIS doesn't degrade the image - though there *could* be issues if the camera has crappy glass.
I personally have never had any problem with OIS (on Steadicam or not) and I almost always leave it on.
There is no 'cheating' in this buisness, and if it helps keep the shot steady without any negative size effects, go for it!

- There is of course a catch.. normally the OIS will cause the frame to 'lag' ever so slightly when you start or stop a pan/tilt (as the camera can't tell between an intentional and accidental move) ..so if your shot has a lot of starts and stops, or whip-pans then you are probably off better not using it.

My answer in short: Test you camera to confirm that OIS doesn't hurt the picture then experiment with and without to see what is best for the shot.

-Mikko
  • 0

#4 Jason Williams

Jason Williams

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 189 posts
  • Lancashire, UK

Posted 01 February 2005 - 02:39 PM

I always think that Image Stabilisation on the camera while using on a Steadicam is cheating! Fair enough it makes the shot even smoother, but I personally think it's better showing off how you operate over the smooth shot amplified by the camera.

Just my point of view.

Jason
  • 0

#5 Matt Burton

Matt Burton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • UK

Posted 01 February 2005 - 07:25 PM

I always think that Image Stabilisation on the camera while using on a Steadicam is cheating!  Fair enough it makes the shot even smoother, but I personally think it's better showing off how you operate over the smooth shot amplified by the camera.

Just my point of view.

Jason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


lol jay B) I have to agree with mikko. A client wants to see the shot as smooth as track'n'dollies in most cases. If you have a good mini dv like pd170 and want the shot silky smooth then go for it. Don't be afraid of the stigma, cuz if your finished product looks better with it on then it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Then only time i would strongly advise turning it off is of course when u want to pan smooth. Other than that, their are some great effects you can get by turning on image stabilization then shaking the cam(handheld), violently from side to side and up and down. Thus creating a great edgy feel. Think swat team running towards you with the cam juddering to create tense action in the frame, or filming bands and so on. Just be awair that you will never get i.s. on a pro cam and the effects are all harder but better done without i.s.

just my FLAMING opp.....
  • 0

#6 Nicholas M. Chopp

Nicholas M. Chopp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Mankato, MN

Posted 01 February 2005 - 09:31 PM

I always think that Image Stabilisation on the camera while using on a Steadicam is cheating!  Fair enough it makes the shot even smoother, but I personally think it's better showing off how you operate over the smooth shot amplified by the camera.

Just my point of view.

Jason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That just seems silly. We're being paid for the best product we can provide - that's like telling a video editor they can't use an NLE to cut a promo video. We use all the tools we have at our disposal. Otherwise, why are we using a steadicam at all? We SHOULD be shooting handheld - we're cheating with the steadicam. :)

About the OIS on the DVX100A - it seems to be quite good. Like the other people said, if your camera has an Electronic IS, KILL IT. Even when shooting handheld. Just yucky... However, the glass on the 100A (for example) is really quite decent for a prosumer camera. Definitely better than with the PD150\170\DSR-250.
  • 0

#7 Jason Williams

Jason Williams

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 189 posts
  • Lancashire, UK

Posted 02 February 2005 - 02:59 AM

Points taken guys, I've always thought of Steadicam as an art form and a way to show off your abilities as much as the shot you're shooting, but technology moves on, and it would be interesting to see the difference between the two.

Thanks

Jason :D
  • 0

#8 Mikko Wilson

Mikko Wilson

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 268 posts
  • Juneau, Alaska, USA

Posted 02 February 2005 - 07:56 AM

I have to see that I agree with Jason's point of view too. I can see where he is coming from.

At the SOA workshop where we praticed with little MiniDV cameras of course, we just about always has IS on.. just becuase we didn't bother worrying about the camera settings.
I turned it off at one stage while we where practicing. However lo and behold come time for the Grand Prix, I'm preaty sure we all ran it with IS on. I know I sure did.. as did Mr. Brown.

Sure if you are an absoloutist then turn it off if you want. but if you cosider the end more important than the means the do what looks best.



- Mikko
  • 0

#9 Tery Thompson

Tery Thompson

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Auburn, CA

Posted 09 February 2005 - 01:57 AM

Another sort of "cheat" is using a wide angle lens (noticable on vertical lines at the edges appearing curved). A good wide angle lens can make shots from a crummy stabilizer (or operator) look much better. If you really want to show off your abilities, shoot some of your scenes in partial telephoto. There's the proof! Of course it's much harder to do and I wouldn't do this normally as there usually isn't enough room in the shots I do (close quarters).

Anyway, I enjoyed all the posts. Good information.

Tery
  • 0

#10 Nicholas M. Chopp

Nicholas M. Chopp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Mankato, MN

Posted 09 February 2005 - 02:12 AM

Another sort of "cheat" is using a wide angle lens (noticable on vertical lines at the edges appearing curved).  A good wide angle lens can make shots from a crummy stabilizer (or operator) look much better.  If you really want to show off your abilities, shoot some of your scenes in partial telephoto.  There's the proof!  Of course it's much harder to do and I wouldn't do this normally as there usually isn't enough room in the shots I do (close quarters).

Anyway, I enjoyed all the posts.  Good information.

Tery

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The Director of the film I'm shooting now is rather new to the biz. He just HAD to have this running shot, down a hallway. Shoot it once or twice, and well, seems I just can't run fast enough. <rolls eyes> "Well, can you zoom in, maybe 3\4 of the way?" Great. Managed to pull it off, but just barely... After cheating the lens back to half-telephoto. <grin>
  • 0

#11 Tery Thompson

Tery Thompson

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Auburn, CA

Posted 09 February 2005 - 12:13 PM

"The Director of the film I'm shooting now is rather new to the biz. He just HAD to have this running shot, down a hallway. Shoot it once or twice, and well, seems I just can't run fast enough. <rolls eyes> "Well, can you zoom in, maybe 3\4 of the way?" Great. Managed to pull it off, but just barely... After cheating the lens back to half-telephoto. <grin>"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



=====================

nchopp,

I was wondering if the director was looking for a rapid appearing shot or just trying to cover a set distance? I expect that by what you said he was trying to cover the distance as the telephoto shot isn't condusive to showing as much movement. Glad you could pull it off. It couldn't have been easy...(understatement)

Second thought...Maybe I've got this wrong. Did you run down the hall and 3/4 of the way down move to a telephoto shot?

Tery
  • 0

#12 Nicholas M. Chopp

Nicholas M. Chopp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Mankato, MN

Posted 09 February 2005 - 12:36 PM

nchopp,

I was wondering if the director was looking for a rapid appearing shot or just trying to cover a set distance?  I expect that by what you said he was trying to cover the distance as the telephoto shot isn't condusive to showing as much movement.  Glad you could pull it off.  It couldn't have been easy...(understatement)

Second thought...Maybe I've got this wrong.  Did you run down the hall and 3/4 of the way down move to a telephoto shot?

Tery

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Trying to cover a distance. No, you had it right - lens zoomed to 3\4, and running down the hall. I've had worse, but definitely bad since we're only shooting once a week. (Not often enough to get my stamina up, and we're shooting 12-14 hour days)
  • 0

#13 Alec Jarnagin SOC

Alec Jarnagin SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1800 posts
  • New York City, USA

Posted 09 February 2005 - 01:44 PM

Food for thought guys, a wide lens can mean lots of verticals in frame (i.e. columns) and this is always a dead give away to less than stellar horizons. In such a situation, longer lenses can hide things. Besides, longer lenses can be very fun as they exaggerate the boom of the Steadicam arm, etc. and often they are just beautiful. Like anything, use the right tool/lens for the job, but keep an open mind.
  • 0

#14 Marc_Abernathy

Marc_Abernathy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:43 PM

i was using a crappy wide angle lens on the 100a and i left OIS off. i am a good enough operator to not use it.

personally i dont like using artifical colors and sweetners when im flying.. i prefer to use my own talent..

435's and the aatons dont use image image stabilization.. why shoul di use it on the 100a..

i may agree that it would help an operator but i was raised (trained) the old school way and i dont need anything but my talent...

of course, your mileage may vary.. thats just my feelings on using a crutch..

but yeah .. i agree with the partial telephoto usage.... thats the real test! ;-)
  • 0




Ritter Battery

Boland Communications

Teradek

rebotnix Technologies

IDX

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

PLC - Bartech

Paralinx LLC

SkyDreams

BOXX

PLC Electronics Solutions

Wireless Video Systems

GPI Pro Systems

Omnishot Systems

Engineered Cinema Solutions

Varizoom Follow Focus

Betz Tools for Stabilizers