Video Stabilizer in Vegas

UFP wrote on 2/12/2005, 2:30 AM

On my Digital camera is this 'Steady Shot' function. It is nice but not enough for a recording I made. Is there a way in Vegas or a plugin that stabilize my video, so you see less that Im walking with the camera in my hand.
I figured there must exist something like that, something that cuts the borders of the video in realtime which results in a 'stable' video.
Anyone knows it?

Thanks, Tom


Grazie wrote on 2/12/2005, 2:38 AM
No actual stab within V5. You can get away with loads of Pan crop altrerations - huh!

I have to go ooutside V5 for this - I use Dynapel's SteadyHand with quite a bit of success. Premiere users get the superior SteadyMove plugin. I and others have lobbied Dynapel for one to be made. No luck so far.

B_JM wrote on 2/12/2005, 5:07 AM
or the free one with viirtualdub - which is good as steadyhand
DGrob wrote on 2/12/2005, 6:10 AM
Give this a look.


Ha. Finally got it.

vitamin_D wrote on 2/12/2005, 6:23 AM
As B_JM suggests, use DeShaker. Where we differ is that I'd say it's much better than SteadyHand (which I own) :D

- jim
johnmeyer wrote on 2/12/2005, 8:44 AM
Some day, I hope Sony puts stabilization into Vegas. Their competition has it. In the meantime, the Deshaker route is free, although a little "geeky." It actually does a darn good job. DGrob already provided the link to the guide, but here it is in "clickable" form:

Deshaker Guide
JJKizak wrote on 2/12/2005, 9:10 AM
Although I like the Deshaker better than Steady Hand they both suck. The optical stabilization in the Canon and Sony blow both of them away.

johnmeyer wrote on 2/12/2005, 10:15 AM
The optical stabilization in the Canon and Sony blow both of them away.

Post-production stabilization really isn't aimed at the same thing at all.

Post production stabilization is useful for:

1. Video shot with a camera that doesn't have stabilization. This includes all older video, before camera stabilization became common.

2. Movement that is beyond both the range and the short period that in-camera stabilization corrects. Most in-camera stabilization is designed to correct small hand tremors. It cannot cope (very well) with what happens when video is shot from a moving vehicle, for instance.

3. Correct "wandering." Even with good shooting technique and optical stabilization, the resulting video will probably still wander slightly. It will definitely not look like it was taken on a tripod. In many cases, with a little work, you can take such footage and, using post production stabilization, make it look very close to footage shot locked down on a tripod.
Grazie wrote on 2/12/2005, 11:51 AM
JM! your number 3 is where I'm at and at present with my camera craft.

I have OIS on my Canon XM2. It stinks! It is not as good as the Sony, but is better than leaving it off - just! The OIS is not as "reactive" to the type of firm balanced way I use it. You can tell when it wakes up to stabilze. If you haven't sen this happen, then you wont appreciate what I mean. I'm careful enough to film faulry decent footage - but then OIS wont kick in 'cos it is set to coarsely. So I'm just beyiond off-triopod - but the OIS doesn't kick-in when you think it should. I've tested this out on 2 other XM2s in the shop and it is the same. So, I have fallen inbetween these 2 stools - I'm got decent enough to create passable footage , but this works against getting the XM2 OIS to operate. SH just works for my just off need-to-have shots . . gets me thru the night.

It is all about degrees and degrees of finesse .. as to saying something sucks . .well .. I guess I'm picky and still want just that extra piece of steady that my XM2 just wont give me - I think JM is the only here who understands what I mean - as I say his popint 3 hits the nail on the head.

The DeShaker plug stills sounds enticing. But I'm real scared of geeky stuff. I tend to loose patience and interest in s/w if I can't get at it! - SH has real big buttins; simple SIMPLE interface; pre amnd post reviewing with both vids available for comparison; a mass of alternative and simple to apply variables; a % finish bar . .oh and real BIG buttons! I did say that but this is important to not wanting to mess with geeky stuff .. . oh and the price? something like £25 - I think? Fopr me iot was very near free. Plus its paid its way - esp omn those must've shots.

JM - you know me too well!

JJKizak wrote on 2/12/2005, 1:35 PM
You are correct. I should have said that I prefer the optical correction compared to the Deshaker and Steadyhand results. My Optical correction in the Cannon XL1s works abolutely perfect. It will never create a jerky motion and is instantaneous in correction. It will wander very slightly when you hold it steady but it is so close to a tripod I would bet I could hold it steadier than a tripod in a beer drinking contest. Cheap tripods tend to jerk start and jerk stop. Its' the out of focus between frames in Steady Hand and Deshaker that really bother me.
I still use them but they bother me, that's why I would like to see Sony come up with one that works. When they solve the in-between frame thing it's a slam dunk. By the way thanks for coming up with the tutorial on Deshaker.


johnmeyer wrote on 2/12/2005, 2:25 PM
Its' the out of focus between frames in Steady Hand and Deshaker that really bother me.

The deshaking done in the camera has the advantage of actually being able to move the image before it reaches the sensor. Once it reaches the sensor, any blur from camera movement is recorded forever. The problem with the in/out of focus from post-production stabilizer is something that cannot be changed: When the camera moves, the relatively slow "shutter speed" used for normal video will capture a blur instead of a sharp frame. The solution, if you suspect you will need to steady the video in post production, is to use a higher shutter speed when shooting. This will eliminate the blurred frame problem. Of course, you need plenty of light to be able to do this, and the resulting video sometimes has a slightly "jerky" quality to it due to the total lack of blur on moving frames. I suspect that someone that knows how to use Vegas could suggest a setting that would remove that artifact (probably a very small motion blur).

By the way thanks for coming up with the tutorial on Deshaker

I appreciate that. You're welcome!
Jøran Toresen wrote on 2/12/2005, 8:31 PM
I’ve tested a number of video stabilizing software. I found some problems with SteadyHand from Dynapel, and therefore I would like to post the mailI sent to the manufacturer and the answer I received.

I’ve tested SteadyHand DV and think it is a nice product. But, I want to remove shakes in DV videos both recorded in the 4:3 format (where the pixel aspect ratio is 1,067 in the PAL standard) and videos in the 16:9 format (where the pixel aspect ratio is 1,422 in the PAL standard). No matter what I try, the program will not output my 16:9 videos in the correct 16:9 format, the pixel aspect ratio is always reduced to 1,067.

I usually choose the AVI option for exporting my videos because I use the Main Concept DV Codec in several applications. In programs like Adobe Premiere Elements, VirtualDub(Mod) and TMPGEnc Xpress, I can configure the Main Concept DV Codec (so I can output in 16:9 format). But this is impossible in SteadyHand DV.

My questions therefore are:
1. Will SteadyHand support the widescreen format in the near future?
2. Will SteadyHand let me configure DV Codecs like Main Concept DV Codec or the free Panasonic DV Codec, in the near future?

Joran Toresen, Norway

Hello Joran,

SteadyHand uses the Microsoft DV codec.
Unfortunately it cannot process the 16:9 format.

But I have a workaround:
If you want to process 16:9 videos, you may try the freeware lossless codec HuffYuv.
You may download it from
There follow the link "Prebuilt DLL".

Download and uncompress the zip-file into an arbitrary directory. Right-click on the file huffyuv.inf.

In the menu popping up, select "Install".
It is supported by both SteadyHand and most video editing programs. You will need to use SteadyHand in the AVI mode to use this codec. There are no particular settings needed for the codecs itself.

Please export the video in this format before processing it with SH. And use the huffyuv codec as output codec in SH.

Best regards
Christof Knobloch

I bought SteadyMovefrom 2d3 and use it as a plug-in to Adobe Premiere Elements, or I use DeShaker in VirtualDub. Both programs are excellent.

Joran - Norway
Grazie wrote on 2/12/2005, 10:48 PM
Joran .. this I like . .this I like! I've seen what SteadyMove can do and its far superior to SH:

I bought SteadyMovefrom 2d3 and use it as a plug-in to Adobe Premiere Elements, or I use DeShaker in VirtualDub. Both programs are excellent. "

My prob is I don't have Premie - What are the Elements thing? Is that a standalone version of and/or PART of the SE stuff I keep being sent by DIGITAL !?!?

Jøran Toresen wrote on 2/12/2005, 11:15 PM
Hello Grazie

Adobe Premiere Elements is a light version of Adobe Premiere Pro.

Grazie wrote on 2/12/2005, 11:18 PM
Jøran Toresen wrote on 2/12/2005, 11:22 PM
The price is £ 100 at Adobe Store.
Grazie wrote on 2/13/2005, 12:01 AM
Thanks Joran! - I'll consider this . . . however got my eye on a light system at present . . made some other £££ outlays recently and need to send the Plastic to the Intensive Care Unit for a while - hah! . . The credit is also feeling shaky. Funny, maybe there is a piece of s/w out there that will take the shakes out of Credit?

Thanks again Pal,