If someone bumps into the tripod, edit around it. Don't use that segment of footage. Or, make it part of the editing, use it as a humourous moment.

You don't have to use those bits of footage.

Once you've deshaken some footage, you instantly see the value of it. Hand held shaky stuff suddenly looks like it was shot with a steadicam...well not exactly instantly... if you're doing HD, quite a few hours later...anyway, it's a bit of a pain but it really does look good.

Simon, of course, is completely correct. And he realises nobody would counter his comment - as too Jay's - and mine. BUT, but, but the original question was "Why can't . .etc etc etc . . " - It is the "WHY can't" and not the value of this method OVER that method that is under dispute.

We still need to know the "WHY".

I guess Bob got the closest, but until we get input from them upstairs we don't know. My hamfisted questions was an attempt to open up the observation as to the "WHY".

Simon, Jay, yes trips, tripods all the way. Planning IS the thing. Nobody here will gainsay this either. But again, the question was - "Why cant Sony make a Video stabilizer plu?"

Apart from Bob's genuine, incisive and engineer's view on things, what OTHER reason could it be?

( Simon, Jay, I have 2 steadying braces, 3 tripods, a dolly and am always looking for more!)

From the Boris FX 9 page...

"Motion Tracking, Stabilization and Corner Pinning

X includes tools such as 4 point motion tracking with sub-pixel accuracy, 2 point image stabilization and 4 point corner pinning. The motion tracker can track an object over time and then apply the recovered motion to a second object, such as paint, to lock the movement of the paint to the motion of the object in the clip. Image stabilization is used to remove unwanted camera shake from a clip and the corner pinning function enables the user to accurately and easily pin one image clip to another image clip with perspective distortion."

They claim to work as a Vegas 7 plug-in. Has anybody tried them, or downloaded the trial version?

I don't know why Sony hasn't worked more on the de-suck filter. That'd save me a lot of time.

..."We still need to know the "WHY"...

This one's almost too easy to answer. Because there's no big demand for it.

Discussion over. Glad I could help.

Tighter integration with third party tools might be a solution for this? i.e. like how you can open audio up in an audio editor, it would be nice if you could open up video clips in programs that are good at steadying footage.

Perhaps leave the option of popping up a menu, letting you decide whether you want to pass the entire clip to the third party app, or make a copy of the relevant section. And that menu should show you the length of the clip.

"Use a tripod - Use a Tripod - USE A TRIPOD"

Of course, Use a tripod - when you can.

Ninety percent of what I shoot is on a tripod or dolly - but has it occurred to you that there are many situations where You Can't Use a Tripod??

Oceanvisions is underwater, Spot is jumping out of planes, lately I've been hanging out of helicopters and small aircraft - and I just finished a shoot moving from the back of a flatbed truck.

I swear by DeShaker, SteadyHand and anything else that will smooth out otherwise unapproachable shooting situations.

It's just another tool - don't be so rigid. (pun intended)
Lighten up. (whoops - another one)

There are no "rules" - only what looks good on the screen.
That is where you are judged.

v

I've heard rumor of a "Talent" knob, but don't know if it includes a "De-Suck" preset, or simply a "repaired performance" preset.

Seriously, although Victor mentions me jumping out of planes, and we shoot a lot of seriously ugly vid from ATVs, horses, heli's and whatnot, I rarely ever use stabilizing software, as the loss to the resolution *usually* is unacceptable. Getting a FigRig or renting a gyro is well worth the cost if the project is important. Sandbags/beanbags help ENORMOUSLY as well. Don't leave home without one. :-)
Shooting at the long end of the lens has a lot to do with shakiness, and sometimes it just cannot be helped, but with small sensor camcorders and short glass...Boris is great for those moments, but still costs you. Both in render time and clarity.

There are no "rules" - only what looks good on the screen.
That is where you are judged.
==================================================

True enough but a case of mass motion sickness is not a good look, literally!

Seriously though, falling out of planes or being underwater it's pretty easy to avoid shakes, the camera is surrounded by a dense medium, compressed air or water, not that hard to devise simple devices that'll geep the camera fairly stable. They will not stop camera motion like a tripod will but they'll avoid the real nasties, shakes.

As Victor has seen first hand copters and trucks cause relatively fast motion compared to the frame rate / shutter speed. That firstly creates motion blur, even on 35mm and with HDV causes major encoding issues. Nothing in post can fix this.

Slow movement can be fixed, each frame has survived intact, just a realtively simple matter of motion tracking to get things back on an even keel.

But all this aside, I feel the bigger question is "Why SHOULD Sony make a Video Stabilizer?"

Reading through all the posts here it seems there's plenty of damn good ones out there, some even for free. Sorry I don't get the demand for editing systems to become Swiss Army Knives. Most of these corner pinning / motion stabilisation algorithms are very CPU intensive. Surely if you've got footage that needs this kind of work done to it you're going to do it outside your main project anyway?

That's certainly what I've done in the past and it seems a logical workflow. See I've got this bit of crappy footage that maybe I can rescue it with deshaking. OK, I deshake it, rendering out to a new file. I put that new file into my main project. Firstly it doesn't need to be rendered again, secondly I can now view it in real time to see how it fits the edit. If the deshaking has turned it to mush I'll know before I even try to cut it into the rest of the footage.

What I used to process it really doesn't matter to me, one things for sure even if I got a deshaker with Vegas I'd be doing that work in a separate project anyway.

I recently learned an important lesson about editing. It's only about two things, timing and the matching of visual elements. All the technical marvels of color correction, image stabilisation etc, etc are not part of the editing process. It doesn't matter that I spent days getting a shot to look a certain way if it doesn't cut, it doesn't cut. But when all the FX etc that you've stacked up to dress up the shot are there on the T/L it's hard, real hard to let go of that shot. So the moral is, keep the main editing T/L to one track, no FXs, nothing else, just focus on what matters, the timing and relationships between the shots.
All the other things are important of course, very important at times but they're not part of the core editing process. Get them out of the way, heck even hive them off to someone else or another department but start the edit with a clean slate and mind, ignore how much work went into the shot.
OR. Do it all afterwards, bung the dodgy clip on the T/L regardless, knowing that if it cuts OK you can fix the technical stuff later. But don't let your edit decisions be driven by the technical stuff. People used to edit with scissors and sticky tape and I think in some ways life was easier back then because all that was in their minds was the edit.

Bob.

Well, maybe, I THINK we are getting somewhere.

DGates: "This one's almost too easy to answer. Because there's no big demand for it."

DSE: " . . as the loss to the resolution *usually* is unacceptable."

No demand, yes? Was there a demand for Media Manger? We got that. And sometimes, it seems, I'm the ONLY one who uses it! But back to the actual question about steady plugs-ins. How DOES Sony gauge a demand? Bottom line NONE of us know. None of us know how "them-upstairs" decide on what IS a demand, or not. if it was what other NLEs have, then they would consider Prems SteadyMove plugin. So it might not be that then? So, DGAtes, on what basis do you say there is no demand? You got that from "them-upstairs"? If that is the case then I'll have to accept it. I don't have that quality of information.

Is it that Vegas is not wanting to HAVE a "type" of plugin that is used by un-planned and un-steadied usage of video capturing? Is that it? No plugin because of some less than "pro" usage of the camera? Could that be the reason? Again, the question was about the "WHY". And again, not that under certain circumstances the results, and I DO agree, the results are not worthy of inclusion in PRO finished piece. But this isn't the issue under discussion.

Here are 2 questions that keep echoing around my stubborn ( lol! )noddle: Why are there "steady" plugins for the other NLEs? And, consequently, how have these other NLE "Houses" squared-away the "No-Demand" and the "unacceptable" circle for NOT having a steady plugin?

And a plea: Because I keep coming back and asking the WHY, this isn't that I don't see and appreciate excellently videoed, firm footage. I'm still asking the question because - IMHO - it still hasn't been answered.

Yes, Bob, it is all about a matter of degree. And you make , as always, very interesting experiential observations too.

And again it doesn't answer the WHY. Why can't Sony make a Video stabilizer plugin? - My thoughts? I think they probably could. After all, and from what I understand, they make stabilzation and pixel manipulations for IN-camera stuff? Yes? So I would bet they could. Why hasn't it manifested itself? Being honest? I have absolutely NO idea.

However, what this thread HAS done is to bring to it the experience of many of the well-experienced film and video crafts people in the biz. And what I'm understanding it is about making decisions. Precisely about making decisions about that which IS and that which ISN'T acceptable. And I think that is what I've gleaned from the responses.

Accept one . . . .

And an apology to Glenn. An apology for not "hearing/reading" your simple request previously.

"Tighter integration with third party tools might be a solution for this?"

You singlehandedly suggest that it should be for the editor to make a decision. To use/misuse/counter and counter-counter an edit decision, and NOT for the NLE to make/create impediments TOO that decision making.

Thanks Glenn!

G

Yow Grazie

The why I think you might be looking ofr is the limitation of the Vegas plug architecture

Plugins only get a single frame which isn't enough

RED has a vegas plugin and any of the filters that need more than one frame to be able to work will not work in Vegas

I do wish Sony would change this so that a number of plugins would work and allow additional functionality within their application which I believe would broaden it's appeal and therefore sell more

As you say it a decision for "them-upstairs"

:-)

Paul

Ps. All the best for Christmas and the New Year

Yo! PAW! - Season Grittings!

I do wish Sony would change this so that a number of plugins would work and allow additional functionality within their application which I believe would broaden it's appeal and therefore sell more

Ah hah!!! Now THAT could both an inkling of an ANSWER ( see below )and provide a BENEFIT to them-upstairs too! After all, that which benefits then upstairs HAS to benefit us? Yes?

Oh, and BTW, just how many Plugins are now available to ACID PRO? Available to a platform that is recognised as one of the most stable in the industry? In respect of plugin accessibility, is there a difference within the PRODUCT decision making process for ACID PRO compared to that of Vegas? What would Acid Pro be like without the ability to call upon the plugs that developed for audio?

Hey, P, great to hear from you too.

..."So, DGates, on what basis do you say there is no demand?"...

I'm not talking about Sony. What has been the demand from us? Besides a handful of people, it's not even on the radar of things users would like to see implemented. And the ones most interested are amateurs using a $19 tripod from Wal-Mart.

Those of us who've actually used software stabilizers (Steadyhand, SteadyMove for me) know their limitations. At it's price-point, I don't demand or expect Vegas to worry about novelty plug-ins.

Absolutely. I used to be a CGI nut years ago. I loved all the tools and programs that would do fancy things. These days I have to be dragged kicking and screaming to use After Effects. I just don't like doing projects with lots of fancy CGI or processing.

If a program can't engage the viewer by means of simple cuts only editing, then sprucing it up with fancy stuff isn't going to help things much.

Regarding the image stablisation, as you mentioned, motion blur cannot be fixed by a motion stabliser plugin, and this is yet another reason I don't like them. There is no way that with all the vibration etc that occurs during a parachute jump that it can be fixed properly in post. Why not just leave that stuff in as part of the energetic action?

Or shoot with an HVX200 at the fastest framerate and have graceful slow motion jumps?

Yes, there are now a plethora of plug-ins available to Acid Pro, but that's largely because Acid can now use vst - I don't know that there is an equally simple solution for video plugins.

Personally, I have shot many educational or training programs using only hand held cameras, but I have never used stabilising software, even though I have some.

This isn't because I'm an especially clever cameraperson - far from it, but I have always been able to edit around what I have shot, either by excluding dodgy shots or using slomo or some other tactic ....

I would much rather the Madison team concentrate on developing things like affordable HD or BluRay DVD production thru DVDA.

After using Deshaker, Dynapel I have found it is worse viewing a film continually going in and out of focus (a la mpeg2 cheating by broadcasters) than watching it jump around. It is impossible for these softwares to correct for all of the out of focus frames between the in focus frames unless you film at F16-with about 1000 shutter speed. I am not aware of any software that can take an out of focus frame and put it in perfect focus. But then again who knows what Madison is up to.
And please remember I am speaking of real life amateur jumping around camera movement, not jitter.

JJK

Sooo... to summarize:

#1 - Pro-footage: We should produce as steady as possible video and NOT look for a stabilizing software, within Vegas, to do it.

#2 - Prioritizing: We are more concerned that Sony develop "other", far more needed improvements.

#3 - User Apathy: So, #1 and #2 above are indications as to why there is a lack of demand for such a plugin, for Vegas.

Thanks!

I've heard rumor of a "Talent" knob, but don't know if it includes a "De-Suck" preset, or simply a "repaired performance" preset.

LOL -- that pretty much says it all.

One can only guess as to the "Why?"

As it's been said so many times before in this forum, Vegas is a great little app. I don't think it was ever meant to be a one-tool-that-does-everything.

The developers have their priorities and we users have ours. Alas, they don't always match.

I have read all of these responses. The one thing that I think is being overlooked is a byproduct of stabilization, and that is MOTION TRACKING.

I think this would be very useful.

Dave T2