Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
make a camera stabilizer for about $15.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam

Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
Check out the footage, it looks great!

As always - practice, practice, practice.

Tom P.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" wrote ...
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how
> to make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
> Check out the footage, it looks great!

I built one and it worked reasonably well.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>
> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>
> Tom P.
>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.

He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.

That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going to
sue?

Tom P.

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>
>> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>
>> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
>> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>>
>> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>>
>> Tom P.
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
gospam@yourself.com says...
> Subject: Re: $14 Camera Stabilizer
> From: "nap" <gospam@yourself.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video, rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production
>
> I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
>

Well it's steadier than it would be otherwise if oyu were holding it
after a night of drinking.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
padillah@hotmail.com says...
> Subject: Re: $14 Camera Stabilizer
> From: "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video, rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production
>
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>
> That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going to
> sue?
>
> Tom P.
>

His dog, grandmother, any teacher that contributed to his development
and the company that made the pipes and fittings
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>

ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'






> That and he's a student giving instruction for free, what are they going
> to sue?
>
> Tom P.
>
> "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
> news:Jld7e.1279$J12.374@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?
>> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:aI97e.1849$716.1377@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>>
>>> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>>
>>> Hope it helps those trying to catch a budget break.
>>> Check out the footage, it looks great!
>>>
>>> As always - practice, practice, practice.
>>>
>>> Tom P.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1113423571.fae1bd1dbdc51ca4e95aa6e7df7b833e@teranews...
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>
>> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>
>>> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>
>>
>> ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>
> When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this,
> he
> will be told to stop using the term.

probably just a matter of time.


>
> --
> Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
>
> "If you take out the killings, Washington actually
> has a very low crime rate."
> - Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, D.C.

That's true.. he actually said that! Amazing eh? And he was just elected
again to city council.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

> "nap" wrote ...
> >I wonder, how does he get away with calling it a steadycam?


"Henry Padilla"wrote ...
> Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>
> He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.

Neither are proper. BayerAG lost "aspirin" in the US (but not
in Canadia) through lax protection of their trademark name.
I understand "Jeep" also came close.

To properly use these terms, they must be used as adjectives.
Kleenex tissue. Jeep vehicle. Steadicam camera-support.
Pentium microprocessor. Xerox photocopier. Band-Aid
brand bandages.

Once you start using them as nouns (or verbs like "I'll take
that paper and Xerox it." ), you can lose your right to own
the name.

OTOH, you can also go too far. Like "Windows" or "Monster"
(and I'm sure there are more examples.)

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
> make a camera stabilizer for about $15.

> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam

Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.

Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" wrote ...
> I've never used a Steadicam but had a question: aren't
> genuine steadicams based on a heavy, spinning gyro to
> stabilize whatever they're attached to?

No, they depend on a finely-tuned system of springs,
levers, and easily-moving joints to counterbalance the
mass of the camera.

> I've used a pair of old Soviet binos that actually have
> a big gyro in them. Sort of the mechanical alternative
> to all the electro-stabilization we westerners are used
> to (Canon binos for example)

Old technology vs. new technology. The modern image
stabilization is quite a sophisticated system. Using
ultrasonic solid-state gyros to detect movement (in all
three axes) and and a liquid-filled adjustable prism
adjusted by very fast servos. And all packed into quite
small camcorders and even binoculars.

Developed by Canon originally for larger, commercial
lenses (like shooting from moving platforms like trucks
and aircraft). And then miniaturized and mass-produced
for consumer camcorders, etc. The other method is to
use the same movement information (from the ultrasonic
gyro crystals) and to move the sampling area of the CCD
pickup chip around to compensate. Each method has its
advantages and disadvantages. But I prefer the Canon
optical varitey myself.

> Wonder if anyone has tried to make their own gyro
> stabilized "home steadicam".

Even more challenging projects like robots that walk
like we do: using "controlled falling". You can buy
little circuit boards with both ultrasonic gyros and
accellerometers from places like www.sparkfun.com
etc.

> Still, those samples are pretty sweet - almost wonder
> if it's worth the effort to take it any further with a gyro...
> (maybe if you're taking shots from a helicopter)

Many (most?) of the helicopter devices ARE active gyro
stabilized. Interesting info at websites like...
www.spacecam.com and www.camerasystems.com and
www.tylermount.com, etc. etc.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:14:05 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>Old technology vs. new technology. The modern image
>stabilization is quite a sophisticated system. Using
>ultrasonic solid-state gyros to detect movement (in all
>three axes) and and a liquid-filled adjustable prism
>adjusted by very fast servos. And all packed into quite
>small camcorders and even binoculars.
>
>Developed by Canon originally for larger, commercial
>lenses (like shooting from moving platforms like trucks
>and aircraft). And then miniaturized and mass-produced
>for consumer camcorders, etc. The other method is to
>use the same movement information (from the ultrasonic
>gyro crystals) and to move the sampling area of the CCD
>pickup chip around to compensate. Each method has its
>advantages and disadvantages. But I prefer the Canon
>optical varitey myself.

Hmm, this may be a bit of a terminology pitfall. I would say that both
systems you've just described are 'Optical'. The major alternative - a
'Digital' system uses no moving parts, and simply chooses the correct
subset of pixels on the slightly larger sensor to minimize the shake.
The digital system is inferior to either of the methods you describe,
but is cheaper to make.

I guess you could call them Optical, Mechanical and Digital. Dunno....

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:vAe7e.2058$716.1143@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Probably the same way we get to call tissues Kleenex.
>>>
>>>He's using it as a reference term, not as a marketing term.
>>>
>>
>>ah.. but he is selling a 'steadycam kit'
>
>
> When CP, or whomever holds the trademark for "Steadycam" now finds this, he
> will be told to stop using the term.
>
Or, they will say "Hmmmpf, not bad kid" and leave it at that because
they realize that this kid is neither taking away their business or,
making any money doing it.

The term 'steadycam' has become generic enough that it dosen't associate
with one and only one specific, branded, piece of aparatus.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Kevin wrote:
> In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>
>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>
>
> Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
> compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
> girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
> of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>
> Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>
It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:01:17 -0500, RS <mail@mail.com> wrote:

>Kevin wrote:
>> In rec.video Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't know if you guys know this already but here's an article on how to
>>>make a camera stabilizer for about $15.
>>
>>
>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam
>>
>>
>> Yup. Built one, works fairly well (not that I have anything professional to
>> compare it to). Better than raw handheld. Just be aware of the additional
>> girth -- the footage looks great until the camera jerks because the bottom
>> of the pole whacked into the stairs or wall or chair.
>>
>> Probably a quick way to build some muscles in the upper arms, too.
>>
>It does a nice job smoothing things out. One of the areas I've found
>that at least I have to be carefull of, is rocking back and forth like
>one of those little birdies dipping down into a shot glass. If you let
>go the crossbar it tilts easily up and down.

...so, that's two hands tied up. How can you control the zoom?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga