Build Your Own Steadicam 293
John Jorsett writes "Always wanted to film one of those cool 'walking' sequences, where the camera stays rock-steady as you trudge along? Well, so did Johnny Chung Lee, except he didn't want to lay out major cash for a professional Steadicam rig, so he built his own for $14. He further claims you can do it in about 20 minutes if you know what you're doing. What more could a cheap, impatient Spielberg wannabe ask for?"
Does what it says it does (Score:5, Informative)
the story's better at memepool. (Score:3, Informative)
memepool [memepool.com]
Inventor of the original Steadicam (Score:-1, Informative)
Text-only mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:1, Informative)
Why build a cheap steadycam?
Steadycams (or camera stabilizers) are attachtments used to capture smooth looking video even when the camera and camera operator are in motion. The camera operator may walk (or even jog), move through tight hallways and doorways, and even climb up and down stairs without shaking the camera. Unfortunately, professional steadycams cost around $1500. Even the cheap 3rd party ones cost $600+. Not exactly a bargain considering many of us use cameras in that price range. So, I decided to make my own version. It turns out, it only costs $14. Not too bad. And I'll show you how to build your own right here (or you may simply buy one from me). Whether you are an aspiring filmmaker, a videographer, the family documentarian, or just want more utility out of your video camera, you'll appreciate a steadycam.
If you know what you are doing, you can probably built one of these in about 20 minutes. It might take you an hour if you have to read this web page while you do it and aren't very good with tools.
This steadycam works with anything that has a tripod mount. However, I would not recommend attaching anything heavier than 5-6 pounds (without modification). This is because as camera weight increases, so does the likely hood that sudden movements will restult in physcial damage to the camera base (physics 101: larger mass = higher moment of inertia).
Tools
The main tools you'll need to get your hands on are a drill and a stationary vice. It's possible to do it without the vice, but it's far more difficult and potentially dangerous. You can buy a vice for about $15 from Lowes and it's well worth the money if you are going to do any future projects. It's meant to be table mounted, but I just bolted it to a big board that I can stand on while I use it. Mounting it is important. I tried doing this once without mounting it (didn't have spare board at the time) . It was a p-a-i-n.
You'll need drill and a 1/4" drill bit that can go into galvanized steel. So, cheap wood bits will probably not survive this project. This happens to be a very nice drill in this picture, but any power drill will do.
You also need a wrench, screwdriver (type depends on the bolts you get), and a hammer. I had a little combo thingy I got from the dollar store. It actually works pretty well because the wrench part is a little bit clawed, so it grips pipes really nicely.
Parts
Pipes
First you'll need three pipes. I like to use 1/2" galvanized steel. It's strong, threaded at the ends, and a comfortable thickness. You can use any length pipes you like, but this project uses three 12" pipes (about $1.50 from Lowes).
End caps You'll also need three end caps. You can get away with just two, but the last one is used to cover up those nasty sharp threads on the end of the pipes. I've gotten cuts while building these things by accidentally grabbing the threads too hard . These are about 80 cents a piece. Make sure they fit the pipes, 1/2" diameter.
Tee
Basic T-joint. Again, make sure it fits the pipes. If Lowes doesn't have this, try Noland plumbing near the downtown mall. About $1.30.
Weight This is just a simple barbell weight from a sports store. The one shown in the picture is 2.5 pounds, but you can buy any weight you want. But, anything heavier than 5 pounds starts getting too heavy to carry around. Get a weight that has a 1 1/4" diameter hole. These are about $3. Other small parts Here's a break down of what you'll need: A - two 1-1/2" 1/4" machine bolts B - one 1/4" wing nut C - three 1-1/2" diameter flange washers for 1/4" bolts D - three lock washers for 1/4" bolts. E - two 1/4" machine nuts.
All these together costs about two dollars. You can find these for really cheap at Philips Hardware. Lowes charges
It real (and really cheap) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the story's better at memepool. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty cool stuff (Score:3, Informative)
If you REALLY want to impress people, try building your own camera crane [creativemac.com], bonus geek points for computer motion control.
Re:Lego steadicam (Score:3, Informative)
Good film btw.
Slashdotted? Here is a PDF copy of the site! (Score:4, Informative)
The $14 Steadycam [yorbamicro.com]
Re:Pretty cool stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does what it says it does (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There was an old magazine called Cinemagic (Score:2, Informative)
Better Links (Score:5, Informative)
if you want some real inspiration check out the following websites:
http://homebuiltstabilizers.com/
The original site for all your home built video needs
http://pub173.ezboard.com/bhomebuiltstabilizers
Discussion forum full of lots of useful information
http://www.codydeegan.com/
Might take a bit more effort, but the results are incredible. Cody's plans are awesome, and I would gladly purchase them again.
Not a Steadicam (Score:5, Informative)
This is really more similiar to a lower end Glidecam [glidecam.com] stabilizer (even this is floating).
There are also some rather cheap [markertek.com] alternatives out there to make a camcorder smoother.
Granted this is significantly cheaper to make than these products, but from my experience anything that is handheld doesn't work as well as the bodyrigs. Personally, I'd rather just do it by hand alone.
You also might want to check out a relatively cheap [markertek.com] jib [glidecam.com] too.
Re:Inventor of the original Steadicam (Score:5, Informative)
I saw a documentary about Garrett Brown, and it showed his various prototype stages. The original one looked exactly like this - a length of pipe. The second one was more like a pantograph to try to keep the camera level. Then he added the seperate handle connected to the upright portion wih a gimbal. The rest of the development was on the counter-balance arm and the vest. All of this was necessary because Brown was building these for 35mm film cameras.
If you're looking to improve this design, the things I'd look at are: a gimbal, so allow the operator to hold the unit more comfortably and lightly, and avoid transferring hand motion to the camera; a sliding mount at the top, to allow the camera's balance to be shifted forward and back to tilt up or down.
The Steadycam JR Lite [steadicam.com] is a great one to look at. It was designed by the great Frogdesign studio (the NeXT cube). The camera sits on top of a slide, and right on top of the gimbal and handle. The arm is divided into two parts at a 90 degree angle, connected to the slide at 45 degrees. And the whole thing folds up. It's a wonderfully slick design - and obscenely overpriced [bhphotovideo.com].
That is *not* a steadycam. (Score:5, Informative)
All this does is add more weight - which will help you hold your modern teeny-tiny camera steady, but's that's far cry from being able to hold the camera still while you jog up the Art Museum steps.
SteadyHand (Score:3, Informative)
Nowadays I would probably fix it in combustion, where I'd have more control over it.
Re:What I'd like to know... (Score:3, Informative)
Some of my friends cling to the notion that the two greatest things in this world are duct tape and Gold Bond.
Blake
Re:Pretty cool stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Simple: It's not a tripod, and it has no wheels.
At best, you could call it a monopod, but even then, it's meant to be carried, it doesn't rest on the ground. So I guess it's a nonopod.
What it really is is a stick with a weight attached. The weight steadies the camera from sudden jerks, simply due to it's own inertia. It still relies on the camera guy to have a fairly steady hand, this just "takes the edge off" of the shakiness, so to speak.
How StediCams Work (Score:1, Informative)
The harness itself is quite interesting. The weight shifts from your hands to your torso and usually the vests will put it all square on your shoulders (not on top, against them) - This is quite a difficult balance to get used to initially. I felt like I couldn't move without falling over.
That's the fun part... I could use one finger to hold up the camera and move around as much as I wanted to. Even despite knowing how it works and trying one myself, Stedicam equipment still amaze the heck out of me.
The counterweights can be changed to reflect on the load... and in most cases, as long as you can remain upright with all the weight against your back, it works pretty well. Most of the times for running/high movement shots... a more stripped down version is used. The setup that I tried on myself had a monitor strapped against the weights so that you could look down at the screen to see what you were filming AND look down at the ground to see where you were stepping. A steadicam wipeout isn't pleasant at all.
The problem with this $14 setup is that you continue to put ALL of the weight on the hands/harms. Stedicams work better, as I said, by putting the weight against your back. The camera itself basically free-floats in the rig. Instant turns, swivels, tilts, pans and etc... it's really quite a trip if you've never tried it yourself. Sort of the idea like how you think everything moves when you hit acid. (Disclaimer: I've never done acid.
This one cost a bit more but still home made (Score:1, Informative)
Works a treat!
One slightly successful director did this before! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does what it says it does (Score:5, Informative)
the best solution I have ever seen was a monopod modified to have a plastic coated weight at the bottom, it collapses into something that can be carried and is much easier to control plus costs less and weighs less.
although it is still NOTHING like a real steadicam.. wearing that vest with the spring arm and rest of the gear coupled with a REAL 5 inch LCD monitor mounted on the weight plate... a trained operater can almost run at full speed without motion in the camera... the home brew units can not do anytihng like that.
Plus I find the vest unit to be more comfortable and can shoot for much longer... having your body support the weight compared to the home built that requires your arms to support everything is significant!
First Major Use of the Steadicam (Score:2, Informative)
Done much better but still cheap... (Score:2, Informative)
As a bonus, he has a great sense of humor...
Well, that looks simple... (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't care the hours the building takes, then I'd suggest building something like this guy did: a full steadicam-like setup with a vest, two suspension arms, a fully working gimbal and all the stuff this $14 poor man's "steadicam" has [jamesarnett.com]. The costs? About $30, plus 20 hours of work. Sure, it looks ugly but you can't beat the price for the functionality. You'll need stabilizer arms for a stable picture while running or glimbing stairs.
(As a sidenote, "SteadiCam" is a trademarked term. Wikipedia has more information about steadicams in general [wikipedia.org].)
Re:its a piece of bent steel (Score:1, Informative)
That could be said for most things.
This is actually pretty slick (I've used one).
You basically hold just the handle with one hand, and control the direction that the camera points with just your thumb and index finger (by rolling the little ball above the handle). Rotating your hand has no effect on the camera direction, so it's easy to raise and lower the camera or turn around without worrying about the angle.
And the LCD is pretty useful there.
Re:Does what it says it does (Score:3, Informative)