OT-ish . . Dynapel "SteadyHand" - WOW!!

Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 3:51 AM
Just used this remarkable software. It's turned "marginal" shaky footage of mine into rock solid tripod-like video. Now I can use it within V4 . . . I had some footage of my trip to Liverpool . . great sunsets over the the Irish Sea where the wind had gotten hold of the my swaying XM2 . . now I can use it! Also some more than decent wide pans and zooms onto the Liver Buildings . . can now use them too . . .

I highly recommend it. I use it in conjunction with V4 at the "Review" stage or the draft timeline layout. Once I've got things into shape I can then select the event I want to StaedyHand and either toggle to or click on SteadyHand's open window pane - excellent! Once completed I can then use the "Replace" option within a V4 Bin to switch to the newly stabilized footage. Review in V4. Don't like it? - Then all I do is use Undo in V4 - back to where I was! Simple as that!

I'm a very happy bunny now.

Grazie

Comments

FuTz wrote on 9/9/2003, 8:20 AM
I tried to get the trial version yesterday but couldn't log in. I'll try again today for sure.
I remember having been impressed too with SteadyHand except I couldn't figure out how to apply it to my 16:9 footage without being "stretched" vertically. They answered me via mail that it was my settings with codecs cause their soft just takes what you give and render back without any transformation/distortion.
Do you have any idea about it?
I'm gonna try to change settings in my Preferences if I can grab the demo version again... I definitely NEED a stabilizer right now for this project...
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 8:59 AM
fUtZ - Yeah . .It is great!

Now 16:9 . . .mmm . .. well I suppose one could bring it into V4, render as 4:3 . . or whatever . . go into SteadyHand, stabilize, bring it back into V4 then 16:9 crop it - any good? Bit messy. Haven't tried this out, but I'm known hereabouts for "Brown Paper" and sticky backed plastic . . ho ho ho..... Anyways you might wanna give it a go. If you're dealing with Bits 'n Pieces that just need that extra stability . . . you'll loose out on some of the definition . . depends how "essential" it is gonna be . . . Necessity and Mothers and Invention and all!

Waddya fink?

Grazie
JJKizak wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:15 AM
You must use only the horizontal correction and the vertical then will not move up and down on you. (No zoom or rotate correction either) Of course then you don't get the full correction.
on my 2.66 x 1 anamorphic footage even if I use max correction it will get a little fuzzyer if you pick out a small in focus object on the before and after for comparison. (The object will go in and out of fucus) But it does work pretty good. If you use 4 x 3 the border variations are hidden. Mechanical shutter
jitter (film to tape) will still persist as it seems to be too fast for Steady Hand to correct. This jitter is caused by poorly designed claw pulldown in the movie camera. Since I use optical stabilization in the Canon XL1-s I no longer need
Steady Hand. The optical stabilization makes a poor cameraman (me) into
Cecil B. Demille.

JJK
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:18 AM
Grazie, please explain:

"... 'Brown Paper' and sticky backed plastic..."

Thanks!
J--
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:25 AM
JJKizak - I've got optical stab. in my Canon XM2. I leave it on AND I'm still, in my opinion rubbish with it..... well not total rubbish . . but it does give "jerky" starts when panning by hand. I also get the "jerks" when I attempt to "hold" a position. Y'know, I never got this with an analogue Panasonic . . . hmmmm....

Any thoughts? I'm really wanting to get my stabs correct. I've used all the elbows and trees available - I've even contemplated using one of those pieces of equipment that looks like it belongs to a "water" diviner - - yeah?

Practice makes perfection . . with me I'd just like to start.

Tell, you what! The only Drawback with SteadyHand really does flag up how "twitchy" I really am.

. . mmm ..

Grazie
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:40 AM
'Brown Paper' - used to wrap up parcels and generally a material for "making-do"

" . . sticky-backed plastic..." - Ah yes! You can here the cheer from all us limeys out there!

Just to let you know that once upon a time there was a childrens programme - we'll get onto the name in a minute, I understand that this in itself has a double meaning in the US - well . . . . This programme, one of the most popular BBC TV shows, has for about 40 years (?) devoted some of its transmission time to the creation of "REally Neat" ideas for children to create . . Wanna a ROcket SHip? Don't go down to Toys R Us, just empty your mother's washing up liquid container . .. mmmm all that nice messy green stuff too . . . and cut some Fins and stick the fins onto the container - BUT! And here's the thing - as you colonials say say - Here's the thing! Being the BBC they can't say CELLOTAPE, 'cos that would have been advertising on a not-for-profit organisation - viz the BBC - sooooo the euphormistic saying began "sticky-backed" plastic - oh aren't we quaint!! - Soooooo . . anything that we cobble together, invent, model and get together on the spur of the moment are said to be held together with "Sticky-Backed" plastic. Saying this gives us "RoastBeefs" all that we need to know about a concept, an idea, quantum mechanics, wars in the world, inventing stuff . . get the picture? Ah yes, well we put it together wioth Sticky-Backed plastic and NOT a sold item that is advertised for the purposes of joingin to items together in a hasty way - okay!

. . oh yes, the name of the programme, named after a pirate ship, ready for it . . are you sitting comfortably . . . . "BLUE PETER" !

Grazie

ps - Oh yes, if you knew anybody that had recieved a Blue Peter BAdge [ US=Pin - yeah? ] THEY were the kids to hang out with - NOT!
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:46 AM
LOL--great explanation!

Learned a new "expression" from GB when referring to an item being very expensive... "splash the cash." Very descriptive!
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:54 AM
. . "Splashing the Cash", or "Splashing Out", truly means what you say plus/with the connotation that it is done with gay abandon or little thought for the consequences . . i.e., "Splashing Out" on a new suit or software. Splashing having that wonderful image that not only is it like water "running" away, but you don't have any idea as to where it is going OR where it has gone AND it dries up quicker too! - Really nice saying or "It's the Dogs Bollocks!" - now work that one out - HAH HA . . good luck . . .

Grazie [ To Graze - to eat/consume food in a mindless incessant way ]
JJKizak wrote on 9/9/2003, 12:45 PM
I guess twitchy covers a lot of ground. It almost sounds as if your stabilization is not turned on. My stabilization slows down the start of the pan and dampens all of the stacato stuff. Its like night and day compared to no stabilization. It does not allow any jerky motion. Infact it makes electronic stabilization look bad. (at least the cheap ones) If your definition of twitchy
is based on "NASA specs" then I don't know what to tell you. If I use a tree
or sit in a chair the result is almost rock-like---much better than what you see on television news stuff in the field. Make sure that when you turn that stabilization switch on something changes, maybe it is not working.

JJK
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 2:20 PM
Argggh! No, really? - Not working! Hmmm.... this is starting to make me think . . the Canon IS an optical stab unit. How can I really test it? Other than what you suggest do you have any further ideas?

Grazie
riredale wrote on 9/9/2003, 2:53 PM
One way I noticed my Sony optical stabilization was working was by accident. I was taping a river rafting trip (don't worry; I had the camcorder in a gallon-sized Baggie with just the lens sticking out). In the course of events there were a few water drops splashed on the wide-angle lens, and when viewing the video later, you could see how the stabilization system fought hard to keep the main scene stable. The result was that the little water drops were dancing about quite actively. It's because the drops were fixed on the lens, and thus as the scene was adjusted by the stabilization system, the "fixed" drops were forced to move instead.

Grazie: A suggestion for your Steadyhand use--don't accept the default "zoom-up" behavior in Steadyhand, do the frame zooming instead in Vegas, since it's so easy to do and so much more precise. You can zoom in a lot when there is lots of motion, and back off when there is little motion. In this way, you can maximize your video resolution, which can otherwise be significantly compromised by the use of a progam like Steadyhand.
JJKizak wrote on 9/9/2003, 3:00 PM
Only way I could tell if you turn it on and everything motion wise is the same then I would suspect something. It should make all of the panning motion act like steering a battleship. In otherwords when you purposely jerk it shouldn't jerk it should smoothly accelerate. You might have to use it in full auto but I really don't think so. It wouldn't hurt to have it checked out or maybe look at someone else's camera to compare.

JJK
wcoxe1 wrote on 9/9/2003, 3:00 PM
For those interested, search this forum for DYNAPEL and STEADYHAND. You will be surprised at how often it has come up, and how extensively it has been discussed. Its plusses, and definite minuses, and how to avoid the minuses, have also been discussed.

(Try SteadyHanding this scene: Mother and child in rocking chair, rocking. Video it from a few feet away, standing directly in front of the chair. Leave comfortable ring of background around mother and child. Now, Run it through steadyhand. Depending on exactly how you did it, it will likely try to stabilize the mother and child, and the background will look like it is moving in and out. Interesting effect.)
Grazie wrote on 9/9/2003, 3:12 PM
wcoxe1 - Thanks for that! I did read it and imagined the result - good advice from all of yer - BIG HUG!

Oh the minusses I've stumbled across already. I'm being "selective" with my shots too.

Grazie
vectorskink wrote on 9/9/2003, 9:35 PM
Hi Grazie!

I too have an XM2 (here in Aus) and the camera I had before was an XM1. I have noticed that the optical stabilizer on the XM2 is not as good as on the XM1. Sometimes I wonder if it's actually working! There is a slight difference when I turn it on, but not as good as the XM1. :(

Tim
Grazie wrote on 9/10/2003, 12:32 AM
Hi Tim! Howz Oz today?

I've been practising and practising and practising different ways of holding and making the XM2 more "responsive" to stabilizing my own wayward movements - and those movements aren't that wayward - let me tell you!

There appears to be a very slight mechanical "window" of opportunity that the cammie works within. It's almost as if you have to keep the cammie rock solid still otherwise the OS will kick in , and with some jerkiness to boot! WHat's the point of having this fine OS technology, if at the end of the day it is saying, "Well, what do expect dummie!? Put it on a tripod!!" .

As I say, I didn't have this with an old "Annie Pannie" - this had a simple steady shot - or whatever you wanna call it - so I know what I'm saying I CAN get steady well shot, non-jerky footage. Actually I had a chance to do some shooting with it a couple of weeks ago, and my footage was nicely . . . steady!

I need to get on with this and find a "In-The-Field" solution. I aint gonna use one of those mechanical stabilizers - what I shoot is slow enough to at least be filmed with some simple camera work.

Anyway - this isn't the forum to extend this any further . . . yeah?

See you over at DVinfo.net "Son of Watch Dog" XM2 site . . . .

Grazie
TorS wrote on 9/10/2003, 3:37 AM
Grazie,
The word is "oustanding", isn't it?
Tor
JonnyMac wrote on 9/10/2003, 7:34 AM
You might consider the SteadyTracker. I use it all the time when I want smooth, flowing shots with my VX-1000 and the results are fantastic.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/10/2003, 10:58 AM
I've used Steadyhand quite a bit. A few hints.

1. Always turn off the Zoom control. Only stabilize horizontal, vertical, and rotation.

2. Try it on film, especially if you have access to the original frames (i.e., it has not yet been telecined, or you have applied a de-telecine filter). If you use really small settings (i.e., very conservative) you can completely eliminate the film gate jitter. It is amazing to look at titles on film before and after Steadyhand. The normal title bounces around slightly due to gate jitter (each frame of film comes to rest at a slightly different location in the projector's film gate). After Steadyhand, it is rock solid. Purists won't like it, because it makes film look less like "film," but to my eyes it is much more watchable.

3. If you have handheld footage that is pretty stable (i.e, something you didn't screw up <g>), try stabilizing that. All of a sudden you have something that looks like it was done with a $250,000 steadicam rig. Impressive.
Grazie wrote on 9/10/2003, 12:11 PM
johnmeyer - Ho yes it is rock solid!

Now then:

"Always turn off the Zoom control. Only stabilize horizontal, vertical, and rotation." - Well JOhn, I've got SteadyHand File and Version 2,2,0,2. I've got

"Steady Settings"
Zoom to Fill - - - - Crop Borders - - - No Edge Correction

"Motion Correction"
Normal - - - Strong - - - Custom Settings

Can you please explain your comments above as I don't appear to have the Settings you speak of.

Your PART 2 & 3 I understand.

Thanks,

Grazie


Tom Pauncz wrote on 9/10/2003, 2:14 PM
Grazie,
Click 'Custom Settings' under motion control and you'll see those options.
Cheers,
Tom
Grazie wrote on 9/10/2003, 3:30 PM
Tom, Okay got the "Range of Correction". Where it says "Zoom" do I then set it to "000"? Is this the same as "Switching Off" as previously stated by John? And do I leave the other settings at 800ms?

Thanks,

Grazie

wcoxe1 wrote on 9/10/2003, 3:38 PM
Although I frequently turn off Zoom, I wouldn't write it off completely. I have found a few cases where it works just fine, and it can smooth out a jumpy zoom trigger finger on the original shot.

If there is something that is moving to and fro in the picture, definitely turn it off (rocking chair). If the shoot is out a car window and telephone poles and such go past, you may have to turn off much more than Zoom, or at least turn things down. The numbers in Custom represent the distance (time) ahead in the video that SteadyHand looks to make its corrections. Small numbers, small look-ahead, big numbers, long look-ahead.

I definitely believe that SteadyHand works wonders, where it works, but it definitely can't handle EVERYthing.

If you happen to want to Steady a bunch of things, use the batch process. It is a bit odd in how it is implemented, but it works. Then, view each original and steadied pair from within SteadyHand. Pick the one what is least objectionable. Be aware that some oddities do NOT show up on the very small preview window. Some oddities may only show up on a bigger screen. But, you can usually pick intelligently from the two previews. Works for me.
johnmeyer wrote on 9/11/2003, 1:37 AM
Grazie,

Sorry for not getting back earlier but I was up at the Seybold Conference in San Francisco today (until they closed it down for a bomb scare ...)

Yes, you "turn off" the zoom by selecting Custom and then setting Zoom to zero.

The numbers in this dialog box determine how far forward and back in time the algorithm looks to determine whether movement has occurred. If you select "Strong" and then go to the "Custom" button, you will see that the algorithm is now set to look over a much wider range of time (more frames). This takes longer, but presumably results in smoother motion. I haven't done any tests to see how much difference it makes.

While you are looking at this dialog box, click on the "Target Windows Settings." Here you can change the size of the window that will be "moved over" the video to correct the motion. The smaller the windows, the greater the range of motion that can be corrected. However, the smaller the window, the fewer pixels that will be used and therefore the fuzzier your video will become. When I use Steadyhand to correct film gate jitter (as I described in my previous post), I make this window almost the same size as the original video because I only want to correct small errors caused by the film misalignment.

One last point about using Steadyhand with DV video. This is stated in their documentation somewhere, but it is easy to miss. Because DV video must be 720x480 (NTSC) in order to be able to print back to tape (and to be accepted by the DV codec in Windows), you cannot use the options to merely crop the video because this would result in a resolution other than 720x480. Therefore, you must let Steadyhand zoom the video back up to 720x480.

FWIW, today I just found out about a new product from 2d3 called Steadymove. I don't think there is any way to use it with Vegas, which is too bad, because it looks like it might be a far better product. Check out the results at:

SteadyMove