home built steadicam
 

i'm thinking of putting together a steadicam device instead of buying one to support my pd150.
i browsed through homebuiltstabilizers.com and got some ideas of what kind of steadicams people have built, but would would be happy to hear if anyone here has experience with this sort of home built gear.

Yep, I did the monopod cut off with weights screwed onto the bottom. Works great, cost less than $40!

anywhere on the net i can get good instructions on how exactly to construct a $40 cut-off monopod with weights steadicam for up to 5 lb. camera?

on the site mentioned above, i saw some homemade gear that looked a bit more pro-like, with two rods put together at an angle, supporting the weight at the bottom (see pics on the site). any good instructions you know about to put together one of those?

thanks.

I got my info on building it from here!

Here's how:
-Go buy the cheapest monopod you can find.
-take a hacksaw and cut it down so it only has 1 extendable segment.
-buy a 2 or 3 pound disk weight with a hole in the middle.
-put that wieght on the bottom of the monopod. Drill a hole through the monopod and put two bolts in to secure it. Or wrap it heavily in duct tape.
-Screw monopod into camera. Practice with it.

Done.

If it takes you more than 10 minutes, you are doing it wrong. :)

The only question i have is about connecting the camera to the top of the steadycam. What did you use to attach it. I dont want just a screw. I want something that will support the camera like a nice camera plate.

Rob

Haven't tried this yet, but here's a $14 Steadicam project:
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~fms-uva/steadycam/
looks cool.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Poulton : The only question i have is about connecting the camera to the top of the steadycam. What did you use to attach it. I dont want just a screw. I want something that will support the camera like a nice camera plate.

Rob -->>>

Simple
Buy a more expensive monopod with one, or get a camera plate adapter.

<<<-- Originally posted by doctorxex : Haven't tried this yet, but here's a $14 Steadicam project:
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~fms-uva/steadycam/
looks cool. -->>>

test video incl.

Hey Dylan thx, now i just need to hunt down a good mono pod that i was to cut up.

Rob

<<<-- Originally posted by doctorxex : Haven't tried this yet, but here's a $14 Steadicam project:
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~fms-uva/steadycam/
looks cool. -->>>

Nice find. The test footage looked excellent considering that it is a $14 Steadicam.

Dylan,

Did you use your homemade Steadicam for your Paintball shoot?

Heh, nooo!!!
The whole setup is WAY to heavy to use for more than a few minutes at a time! I shot the paintball tourney with my shouldermount.
XL1 + battery + monopod + 5lb weight + LCD monitor + 2 6v batteries for it. The whole thing has to weigh 20lbs! :)

Which shoulder mount did you use? I have the VariZoon shoulder mount and have been very happy with it. Still need to build the steadicam, as that would really add to some of the stuff I am working on.

I've got a Mightywondercam. It's OK, but only because I got it off Ebay cheap. At full price they are overpriced for what you get.

Gents, a few suggestions...

I peeked at that student site, and although the underslung footage that he got was pretty nice, there are some oddities with the design.

The two critical masses in this type of system are the camera itself and the counterweight. If you choose to use an outboard LCD which will be rigged below the point at which you grip the vertical pole, then that becomes a separate mass. Any other component in the system should be as light as possible, since it is not contributing in a valuable way to the stabilizing effect. In other words, using galvanized steel for the structure is not recommended. Try a wide-diameter PVC pipe instead.

The side handle is also not a great way to go, in that it is diluting the stabilizing effect by introducing secondary forces. Although it may seem that a second hand on the system will dampen the system's tendency to sway, it is actually working against the physics of the system.

I would recommend a design that incorporates a vertical pole that T's off to a horizontal pole at the bottom that extends fore and aft. Imagine seeing it in profile as an "I", with the camera creating the top part of the I and the horizontal beam making the bottom. A weight at either end of the horizontal member finishes it off. How much weight to use? As little as possible, determined by gripping the vertical pole up by the camera and turning the system sideways. Add weight to the bottom until a balance is reached (the camera end no longer wants to drop). The higher you grip the post, the less bottom weight is needed.

Dylan, in looking at your list of components, I wonder that you are flying batteries for your LCD, a battery for the XL1 AND a 5lb weight...! Ideally the batteries themselves act as the counterweight. It may take a bit of work, but if you have the 12v adaptor for the XL1, you can power both it and your LCD from the same battery, and may be able to do away with that 5 lb dead weight completely. Just run a power cable up from the battery at the bottom to the XL1. If you were able to configure it as described above, in an "I" formation with the LCD at the front of the lower horizontal member and the battery in the back, you would have a great system (these components replacing the weights described earlier)! The trick would be in allowing that horizontal pole to be able to slide back and forth until a fore/aft balance is found. What makes the "I" shape work so well is that you have expanded the inertia of the system tremendously from having everything stacked up under the vertical pole, which will result in much more smooth photography. The further the components expand out from the center, the exponentially greater the inertia and the better the effect, with a minimum of additional weight.

good luck folks!

good points Charles. Thx for the info.


Rob

Charles, I've thought of that, and it's probably the most efficient way to do it, mounting the batteries of the LCD at the bottom to act as the counterweight. Except sometimes I don't have time to set up the LCD and batteries and just want to run and gun with it.
Getting the 12v adapter to run the XL1 off the 12v batteries is a pretty good idea. I've never looked at one before. Thanks!

At least a 20lb rig is a good workout! ;)

I'm looking to build one myself. I've looked at all the sites mentioned (and unfortunately I have no others to recommend).

Is there a big difference between the straight type ('I') and the curved type (like a '<' but less acute)? Specifically, the steadicam design vs. the glidecam design.

The glidecam design looks a lot easier to build, but is it as good?

Another concern: Can the steadicam design hold the camera on the bottom for low shots?

jim

Just start lifting weights...hehe 20lbs at about 90 degree angle for your arm might hurt if you do it long enough...So i guess you need to make a support system for them too. I was looking through their vest on the homebuiltsteadycam and wow I think i need a machine shop for most of those parts. Anyways They sure make some nice steadycams.

Rob

Jim:

The difference between the Steadicam (manufactured by Tiffen) and the Glidecam designs is that the Steadicams use a patented inter-gimballed handle; this means that the handle, the gimbal and the camera platform are all lined up vertically and thus the force on your arm and hand is straight down. Wiith the Glidecam, the gimbal is offset to the side which creates a bit more torque and may be more tiring to operate. The Steadicam has to curve out and around the gimbal to allow for room to operate. In terms of results, they will function similarly. As I mentioned earlier, having the weighted components leveraged out from the center helps increase inertia and makes the rig more stable, and the curved Steadicam design may take the nod in this regard.

There are two models of handheld Steadicam out there, the JR and the DV. The JR is an older design and perhaps more clunky looking (it has the "<" shape rather than the "(" shape) but from what I have heard, the DV was not as well built.

Just an idea:
I have used my tripod as a Steadican-type device before. Just retract the legs and push them all the way in. Then extend the neck thing all the way and hold it by this. It works well and is cost free if you already own a tripod (which I hope you do ;-). Run some tests to find out for yourself. I learned this from someone on this forum but can't remember who. Thanks to them, whoever it was! Good Luck!

I was about to say "I used to do that" about the tripod-with-legs-out trick, but then I checked back in the archives and realized I've already said that, and maybe that was the post you read, Scott! It's weird how little I remember from posts I wrote only a few months ago. Then again, nothing related to memory loss surprises me anymore. What was I talking about again?

When people ask me about recommendations for stabilizers, I say that a lot depends on your expectations. Do you expect to do highly choreographed, movie-style, dialogue shots? Then I don't know of any stabilizing device for a dv camera I would recommend, save the two Steadicam models available.

On the other hand, if what you are looking for is something to give a sense of motion to a chase scene, or, movement in a music video, or some other ad lib type situation, where you don't have to repeat the move exactly, and a bit of camera wobble is acceptable, and you can get by with a wide angle lens, then, you have a number of options. Just don't buy any device because it advertises a grinning blonde with big hooters having the time of life strapped into the gear.

I love the student video mentioned above, but notice that he is moving quite fast. Ask him to slow down and walk alongside two people who are engaged in dialogue, and things quickly deteriorate. This type of device works best in a fast motion environment. When Michael Mann was making "Last of the Mohicans," the story goes, he was uninspired by the smooth, gliding movement captured by the Steadicam in the action sequences. Way too slick for the chaotic action. So, they switched to a more dynamic device (I believe it was the Pogocam) which gave a "rougher" edge to the camera motion, and is not unlike the student video's little demo movie.

But I agree with Charles that he should make the device out of pvc pipe instead of lead pipe. I made a very simple pvc low mode contraption that I use to chase my cats around the yard. Very effective, in short bursts. The other item I referred to is a wide angle lens. This is almost a must for these devices. Later, when you get really good, move up to tighter lenses for really dramatic work.

Another point on operating these devices with a wide lens in low mode. You really will get some great footage if you don't bother to look in an lcd while you are moving. Just point and go. You'll be pleasantly surpised how good the footage will be once you get used to it. Sound crazy? In the Army, they teach you how to shoot without aiming your weapon down the sight. Same principle. Also works for a lot of hand-held situations.

Have fun and experiment. Just have realistic expectations. And if you must buy, know your return policy rights, and pay with a credit card.

Wayne Orr, SOC

Is there a thread tha explains the physics behind balancing and counter-balancing cameras?

Check out http://www.hocast.com.

I am working on a stabilizer based loosely on the Hocast design. So far so good.

---------
Check out http://www.hocast.com.

---------


Has anyone bought plans from these folks? Anyone have any experiences to share about their stuff?

It looks good but I'd love to hear some feedback before I tax my poor mechanical abilities toward building something like this. (G)

I bought the original hocast plans (back then they had one model.) They e-mailed me a pdf file which was easy to follow and relatively well organized.

I have/had a couple of complaints. The model plan set I bought is based on a specific model of monopod which I had difficulty finding and when I located it on line was more expensive that estimated in the plans. (I ended up not using a monopod but ratehr just an aluminum tube). I also couldn't find the one key component, a specific sized roller bearing. I e-mailed ho-cast and ended up buying it from them. It also cost more than estimated in the plans.

I am not unhappy with hocast. I paid a modest amount for the plans. They aren't perfect but they aren't bad. I have freely modified their design for my own convenience and have ended up with a functional if not quite finished stabilizer.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Simmons : Is there a thread tha explains the physics behind balancing and counter-balancing cameras? -->>>

If not, Chris, maybe I can kick in some thoughts--which aspect of the physics are you interested in?

Charles I am not quite sure. I want to learn what makes the camera balanced. I want to be able to look at my camera design and somewhat be able to say, "Ok...weight should go here to balance this. Yeah...counter weight should go there to balance that. Uh huh...my rod should bend a little this way to counter balance over that-a-way."

I guess what I am looking for is where would I start to balance, if I wanted to build my own plans for my own needs. Or at least how do I add on to another design without arbitrarily adding or taking away stuff?

Chris, here is a page that you might find some useful info. The whole section on Steadicam is worth reading.

In terms of a simple design such as on the hocast.com site, which is essentially a copy of the original Glidecam, the easiest way to think of it is that the center of gravity is at or just below the gimbal, and any masses beyond the gimbal must be mirrored in the opposite direction. For instance, adding weight to the left side of the camera will require adding weight to the right side of the counterweights below the gimbal. More realistically, one would prefer to shift the center of gravity of the components rather than add weight.

Your "sled" should start off in good fore-and-aft and side-to-side balance. Using a rod as a fulcrum, sit the sled on the rod (like a see-saw) and slide it fore and aft until it tends to not fall forward or back. That point should ideally be under the center post. If it isn't, reposition the weights from front to back until it is. Do the same for side-to-side balance by turning the rig 90 degrees and placing on the fulcrum again. Now the sled is fairly well balanced.

You can do the same thing with the camera, i.e. place it on a rod in both directions. The intersection of the fore-and-aft and side-to-side balance is the center of gravity of the camera as seen from above. This point should end up directly over the center of the post on the sled. Hopefully your rig will allow for some sort of adjustment when mounting the camera to facilitate this.

Once mounted, the last axis of top-to-bottom balancing should be adjusted by either moving the gimbal up and down or adding weight to the bottom(less preferable). When you turn the rig horizontally, it should fall back to vertical slowly, around 3 seconds. Perform a fine adjust on the camera (fore-and-aft and side-to-side) until it is truly level, and the rig will be nicely balanced.

There's allot of info on www.homebuiltstabilizers.com. I learned allot from this site and eventualy built my own rig. You can see my system on "full rigs" ("cosmin's rig"). Is not the best to be displayed but I'm quite proud of what i acomplished. Also, you can see a "demo clip" ("cosmin's system"/"VideoClips").
Anyway, you will not find ready made plans. But there's all you need to know and allot of help from the community to design your own system
Good luck!

Thanks Charles and Cosmin...I am on it!

Cosmin,
Thanks for the pics. I have been browsing that site for sometime and find it very informative.
Just acouple questions:
1) Did you have access to a machine shop or did you buy the parts premade?

2) Are you able to adjust the tension in the springs?

3) It looks a little heavy. Did you need that thick of aluminum?

BTW- Love the short little video you did. LOL.

Rob:D

"1) Did you have access to a machine shop or did you buy the parts premade?"

All the parts are custom made... I designed the parts but I don't have the tools and knoledge to do the work myself. Anyway I'm lucky to have some friends that helped me with this. So it costs me... nothing, compared to the real price for such work.

"2) Are you able to adjust the tension in the springs?"

Yes. You realy need this option. You can't calculate 100% the springs. So you need to be able to adjust them. Also, you might change something in the setup, in the future (like the camcorder...), that will alter the weight of the sled.

"3) It looks a little heavy. Did you need that thick of aluminum?"

It is quite heavy. :) I think is about 23Kg. All: sled, arm, vest, camcorder, monitor, accu... Compared to the pro rigs loaded with film camera and all.... my setup is light!
I think I could have use thiner aluminium... At least I'm sure it won't brake! LOL

Glad you liked the video!

The main thing I keep wondering with these systems is where
people get the vests. Do you/they actually buy a "standard"
steadicam vest and built the rest themselves or is there some
other "secret"?? Prices?

I made that.
some metal plates in front and I also did the sewing myself! ;-)
Not the hardest part on the rig...

check out www.homebuiltstabilizers.com. I learned all I know from there. You can see allot of pics with what others have acomplished. Also, there's a forum where members (like me) are willing to help answering your questions. There are more experimented guys then me on the forum so, come by!

Cheapie Steadicam/monopod Rig
 

I built a cheap steadicam rig with a monopod, but I didnt cut anything.

Home Depot Shopping list:
20 Bumper washers
2" wide aluminum
bolts and washers

Taking 2 inch wide aluminum , cut a chunk 1 ft. long. I measured and drilled two slots- one at each end. Drill one hole directly in the middle. After some finishing and filing, I put a bolt through a stack of bumper washers on each end. You can slide them for balancing now. I took the rubber foot off of the bottom of the monopod, and used that to secure the aluminum foot on. Being the cheap SOB that I am, I just use my two fingers as a gimble under the handle-collar on the monopod. It works reasonably well. There's a slight tendency to "dive" around corners, but then its doable.
Now onto making that jib...

Jeff

What is this "monopod thing" and where do I find it to alter it???

Ok, I found it.... Looks like a tripod with 1 leg.

Yea, I guess you need that piece to put the camera on, the figure out the rest.

Would it just be easier to buy the Steadicam Jr for the GL2???

Is it any good compared to home made stuff???

One of the issues with lightweight cameras on a stabilizer is the lack of mass which translates into less inertia, and thus less stable images. The JR deals with this by expanding the masses away from the center. A weighted monopod keeps the masses lined up in the center. Such a design will be inherently less stable. Also, the ideal is to have the masses as far from the fulcrum/balance point as possible, as a mass becomes exponentially more inert by distance from this point. A monopod had fairly equally distributed weight, so you are in essence "throwing away" its weight by having it places it doesn't need to be, meaning you are carrying extra dead weight. In a perfect world, you have the camera on the top, weights in the bottom (preferably useable weight such as batteries) and very little weight inbetween.

Hey Charles
 

Charles, do you know anything about the Basson? http://www.bassonsteady.com.ar/shop/index.asp
I asked a couple guys who do Steadicam, but they had no information on it. Looks to be a pretty good knock-off of the Steadicam, with a lower price tag.

BTW, I don't believe I have seen this book mentioned in the discussions of camera stabilizers: "Steadicam; Techniqes and Aesthetics" by Serena Ferrara. Maybe the reason is, that it is not very good, since it is short on "techniques," but it does have a reasonably good history of the Steadicam and lots of pictures of G.B.'s early devices, which look amazingly like Glidecams and "home-built" stabilizers. That's right folks, Garrett Brown traveled all these roads long before there were light weight video cameras, and no one has really made any major improvements on his designs, as evidenced by how well his patents held up. Not a perfect book, but certainly of interest.