OT: If you make a video, hold the camera steady!

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Doe
  • Start date Start date
J

John Doe

Watching some tsunami video from Japan. Reminded of YouTube
videos. Amazing, about 80% of YouTube video takers appear to have
the shakes. Recent video takers from Japan have an excuse, but
most YouTube videos shake even when the camera could be
stationary.
 
John Doe said:
Watching some tsunami video from Japan. Reminded of YouTube
videos. Amazing, about 80% of YouTube video takers appear to have
the shakes. Recent video takers from Japan have an excuse, but
most YouTube videos shake even when the camera could be
stationary.
Click to expand...

I agree.
However, most of those videos were taken with cellphones or those
handheld wallet sized jobs; zoomed all the way in it isn't easy to hold
those things steady.
 
Justin said:
I agree.
However, most of those videos were taken with cellphones or those
handheld wallet sized jobs; zoomed all the way in it isn't easy to hold
those things steady.
Click to expand...

So set it on a box.

Uhg.
 
Watching some tsunami video from Japan. Reminded of YouTube
videos. Amazing, about 80% of YouTube video takers appear to have
the shakes. Recent video takers from Japan have an excuse, but
most YouTube videos shake even when the camera could be
stationary.
Click to expand...

Like you, I really hate camera shake in videos. Obviously, a tripod is the
ideal solution, but they aren't always convenient to use. Sometimes you
can improvise by setting the video camera on a solid object (not in an
earthquake), but that's often not possible either.

These days I use a collapsable monopod more than anything. It is very
portable, quick to set up, and makes a big difference in stability. Then I
use the "Deshaker" VirtualDub plug-in the further stabilize the video in
post processing.

You can see some examples of my results in my home videos:

www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm

Take care,

Anthony Watson
 
Mxsmanic said:
Camera shake comes in part from not watching the frame alignment.

People who are inexperienced with video recording don't realize that they need
to align the scene with the frame. They look at the scene through the
viewfinder, and it seems right-side-up. That's because their heads are aligned
to the horizon, and so is the scene itself--even if the camera isn't. So a
tilt in the camera does not produce a tilt in the scene as perceived by the
person recording it, but it does produce a tilt in the recorded image, which
becomes obvious when the image is played back without the real-world
reference.
Click to expand...


The problem also occurs when people use their camera monitors rather
than use the view finder. I know this is not possible on cheaper
camera's as they don't have a view finder to put up to your eye.

As for YouTube videos that shake, if the video is very entertaining
then I don't find a bit of camera shake. If it's very entertaining
then I might not notice some camera shake. Usually the person has
filmed an important event that's not likely to be repeated and they
may have tried their best to film it in a hurry...sometimes running to
catch an event. Those with shakey videos could decide not put their
video on YouTube because it was too shakey but I'm pleased they did
decide to put their video on YouTube and share it with others.

Regards Brian
 
John Doe said:
Watching some tsunami video from Japan. Reminded of YouTube
videos. Amazing, about 80% of YouTube video takers appear to have
the shakes. Recent video takers from Japan have an excuse, but
most YouTube videos shake even when the camera could be
stationary.
Click to expand...

But then a lot of YouTube videos are taken by Amateurs who have had
very little training if any on using the video camera.

Regards Brian
 
So set it on a box.

Uhg.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done.

By the time you set it on the box AND prop the durn thing so it
doesn't shift (we are talking about iphone type cameras) your subject
has done moved on down the river.

These things don't exactly stand on their own and there is no place to
put a monopad type contraption or stabilizer to set them onto due to
their slim line size.

If it wasn't for my high speed capability in my Casio, I would ditch
that for my iPhone video camera in a heart beat. No, it's not
professional grade, but I am an amatuer, hence I post on You Tube, not
the 10 o'clock local news.
 
John Doe said:
So set it on a box.

Uhg.
Click to expand...

My favorite are these UFO videos. They have an old Digital 8 (best case
scenario) zoomed to 52x and the person holding the camera is on some
sort of sugar high. The camera can't focus, the viewer gets sick, and
at 720x480 that little extraterrestrial *dot* is a blurry pixelated
piece of shit.
Why no AVCHD footage of UFOs? Even HDV would be nice. Its been around
the consumer market for eight years.
 
Mxsmanic said:
Camera shake comes in part from not watching the frame alignment.

People who are inexperienced with video recording don't realize that they need
to align the scene with the frame. They look at the scene through the
viewfinder, and it seems right-side-up. That's because their heads are aligned
to the horizon, and so is the scene itself--even if the camera isn't. So a
tilt in the camera does not produce a tilt in the scene as perceived by the
person recording it, but it does produce a tilt in the recorded image, which
becomes obvious when the image is played back without the real-world
reference.
Click to expand...

Ah ha...
Is that why my Canon HV30 has a grid option? It puts tic-tac-toe lines
in the viewfinder. If I line the object I'm shooting up with both the
vertical and horizontal bars my shot should be steady. Right?
 
Ah ha...
Is that why my Canon HV30 has a grid option? It puts tic-tac-toe lines
in the viewfinder. If I line the object I'm shooting up with both the
vertical and horizontal bars my shot should be steady. Right?
Click to expand...

No, they will just be lined up.

Steady comes from being...wait for it...steady.

But then:
1. Lined up is good in itself (usually).

2. The grid lines (which is their name) will show you if you're moving
the camera, since the image (of stationary objects) will be stationary
with respect to the grid lines if and only if you're holding the camera
steady.
 
No, they will just be lined up.

Steady comes from being...wait for it...steady.

But then:
1. Lined up is good in itself (usually).

2. The grid lines (which is their name) will show you if you're moving
the camera, since the image (of stationary objects) will be stationary
with respect to the grid lines if and only if you're holding the camera
steady.
Click to expand...

But if the object I'm shooting is steady when compared to the grid lines
doesn't that match the definition of "steady?"
What I meant to say was can one use the grid lines as a tool to keep the
picture steady and not like some hyperactive epileptic kid playing PS3?

Or will the OIS compensate for my hand movements this making the
viewfinder image appear steady in relation to the grid lines when the
recorded image isn't?
 
But if the object I'm shooting is steady when compared to the grid lines
doesn't that match the definition of "steady?"
What I meant to say was can one use the grid lines as a tool to keep the
picture steady and not like some hyperactive epileptic kid playing PS3?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said...
Or will the OIS compensate for my hand movements this making the
viewfinder image appear steady in relation to the grid lines when the
recorded image isn't?
Click to expand...

What do you think OIS is?

It is not viewfinder stabilization, it is image stabilization.
 
Mxsmanic said:
That's the only way to make Venus look like a UFO.
Click to expand...

I wonder with today's High Definition camera's if there's a better
chance of proving that a UFO is real or fake.

My theory as wild as it might be is that if UFO's are real then they
come from the deep ocean. Far as I know know one has tracked an UFO
from space.

Regards Brian
 
That's the only way to make Venus look like a UFO.
Click to expand...

Cute, but couldn't you get creative and think of other techniques?

I just though of these:

1. Get your gas-powered barbecue grill going good and hot, and before
you put on the steaks (or after?), line up your camcorder so that your
shot of Venus is though the heat waves above the grill.

2. Start a big blaze in your fireplace and shoot Venus through the hot
air above the chimney. This is probably easier than the first, but it's
really the same idea, isn't it...

Other suggestions welcome.
 
I think there's some sort of law of physics that forbids high-quality video
from being in the same place at the same time as a major event. That's why
UFOs, tsunamis, tornados, assassinations, etc., always seem to be recorded on
grainy, fuzzy video, no matter how much technology advances.

UFOs seem to be particularly good examples of this "law" at work.
Click to expand...

IMO, UFO videos are fuzzy so that you won't be able to detect that they
were faked.

My favorite was a still photo in a book I read in the early 60's. It was
a nice clear (not fuzzy!) picture of some typical western US dry hills.
Drawn on the picture in India ink was an arrow curving towards the side
of a hill, hand-labeled "The UFO was behind here". This was offered as
proof.
 
Mxsmanic said:
I think there's some sort of law of physics that forbids high-quality video
from being in the same place at the same time as a major event. That's why
UFOs, tsunamis, tornados, assassinations, etc., always seem to be recorded on
grainy, fuzzy video, no matter how much technology advances.

UFOs seem to be particularly good examples of this "law" at work.
Click to expand...

These days the average person owns a video camera, most buy one to
film their family growing up and for those special occassions such as
weddings. During an earthquake or other major event there is a chance
that someone is recording using a video camera.
When the planes flew into the twin towers in America a father was
filming his child's birthday party in the back yard and managed to
record the twin towers event on video.
During the 4th Sept earthquake in Christchurch someone was video
recording a room in his house (maybe trying out a new video camera
late at night) and managed to record the shaking inside caused by the
earthquake.
With iPods, cell phones, etc there's always a chance of making a video
recording when you need to. Also some small portable devices can
record video at a higher definition such as 720p

Regards Brian
 
Mxsmanic said:
I think there's some sort of law of physics that forbids high-quality video
from being in the same place at the same time as a major event. That's why
UFOs, tsunamis, tornados, assassinations, etc., always seem to be recorded on
grainy, fuzzy video, no matter how much technology advances.

UFOs seem to be particularly good examples of this "law" at work.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

However, it could also be that people record these UFOs, and then play
it back on their full HD TV - and realize they recorded a Boeing 767
instead of a UFO.

Even those ghosthunting shows seem to have a knack for using crappy
cameras. Ever notice how the production crew and their $5,000
professional grade cameras never seem to catch ghosts?
 
John said:
We should all make fun of you ... but ... its just not worth the effort.

Hope you understand :)

I should cancel this ... or you ...

*plonk*

nah ... stupid is as stupid does and anyway you may just come up with a
few more jewels.
Click to expand...
I'm just stating the facts. I don't see how this relates to me in
anyway. We were all amateurs when we started.

Regards Brian
 
I wonder with today's High Definition camera's if there's a better
chance of proving that a UFO is real or fake.
Click to expand...



A flaming marshmallow on the end of a stick and thrown in the air can
be a "UFO". Consumer cameras both motion and still have been mass
produced for many decades now. Millions of photographers over the
decades haven't captured one single stable, focused photo of anything
that might plausibly be suspected of being an extraterrestrial craft.
Not one. Plenty of blurs, smeary lights, outright hoaxes but none of
the real McCoy. Even if you're convinced the governments of the world
are in a big conspiracy to hide whatever they might find from the
population of the world, there are plenty of hobbyists with fairly
sophisticated gear, none of whom can show any evidence of
extraterrestrial communications or craft.

The odds are just too ludicrous. The reason no such photos exist is
for the same reason no photos exist of the Loch Ness Monster or the
Easter Bunny.
 
The odds are just too ludicrous. The reason no such photos exist is
for the same reason no photos exist of the Loch Ness Monster or the
Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not trying to say the Easter Bunny isn't real.
 
Back
Top