Steady Cam Techniques
in Cinematography
Kian Marandi
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE
Supervisor: Dr. Paul Milgram
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
i Abstract Camera stabilisation is a crucial aspect of cinematography. Users of all types must deal
with unwanted camera vibrations. Various stabilisation methods are available. While
there is no commonly accepted performance metric for measuring stability performance,
a paired comparison can be employed between various stabilisations methods to gain a
sense of the relative performance between them. As such, four camera-stabilisation
system setups are examined in this paper; no stabilisation assistance, on-board (OIS)
assistance, simple mechanical systems, and a novel propietary software developed by
Herman Lo referred to as System X.
Results indicate that simple mechanical systems continue to be the best choice for
vibration reduction performance, while the on-board assistance provides little noticeable
improvement to vibration reduction. Finally, System X shows a lot of potential for
cinematographic applications as it ranked highly among the 4 options.
ii Acknowledgements Professor Paul Milgram Herman Lo Professor A.N. Sinclair The Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Toronto iii Table of Contents
ABSTRACT I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II LIST OF FIGURES V LIST OF TABLES VI INTRODUCTION 2 OBJECTIVE 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4 THE MOVIE CAMERA STABILISATION SYSTEMS – THE STEADICAM® STABILISATION SYSTEMS – SIMPLE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS STABILISATION SYSTEMS – ON-BOARD SYSTEMS STABILISATION SYSTEMS – “SYSTEM X” EVALUATING STABILISATION PERFORMANCE 4 7 8 9 11 11 METHOD 13 TEST DESIGN STEP 1: FOOTAGE CAPTURE STEP 2: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 13 14 15 MATERIALS 17 MATERIALS – STEP 1: FOOTAGE CAPTURE GENERAL: SETUP 1 (NO STABILISATION ASSISTANCE): SETUP 2 (ON-BOARD STABILISATION): SETUP 3 (SMS): SETUP 4 (SYSTEM X): MATERIALS – STEP 2: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 RESULTS 20 SESSION 1 RESULTS – WITHOUT SYSTEM X FOOTAGE SESSION 2 RESULTS – WITH SYSTEM X FOOTAGE 20 22 DISCUSSION 24 CONCLUSION 25 APPENDIX A – DATA FOR EVALUATION SESSION 1 27 iv APPENDIX B – KEY FOR EVALUATION SESSION 1 28 APPENDIX C – RELATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCES (LARGE) (SETUP 4 OMITTED)
29 APPENDIX D – DATA FOR EVALUATION SESSION 2 30 APPENDIX E – KEY FOR EVALUATION SESSION 2 31 APPENDIX F – RELATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCES (LARGE) 32 v List of Figures
Figure 1 – Comparison of Common Video Resolutions
Figure 2 – Interlaced Video
Figure 3 – The Main Parts of a Steadicam
Figure 4 – Examples of Simple Mechanial Stabilisation Systems
Figure 5 – Schematic of Panasonic’s MegaOIS System
Figure 6 – Example of Digital Image Stabilisation
Figure 7 – Example of Evaluation Session Screen
Figure 8 – Panasonic AG-HVX200 Camera (left) and Firestore FS-100 Recorder (right)
Figure 9 – Relative Psychological Distances (Setup 4 Omitted)
Figure 10 – Relative Psychological Distances
vi List of Tables Table 1 – Camera Operator and Skill Level
Table 2 – Stabilisation Methods for Each Setup
Table 3 – Proportion of Choice of Case Footage Based on Stability (Setup 4 Omitted)
Table 4 – Z-Scores (Psychological Distance) Between Case Footage (Setup 4 Omitted)
Table 5 – Case Rankings (Setup 4 Omitted)
Table 6 – Proportion of Choice of Case Footage Based on Stability
Table 7 – Z-Scores (Psychological Distance) Between Case Footage
Table 8 – Case Rankings
2 Introduction Being able to achieve a steady shot without unwanted vibrations while filming is
important for cinematographic applications. Professional cinematographers and amateur
home-movie makers alike must cope with the same set of physical challenges when using
their movie cameras. Professional filmmakers use heavier cameras and thus will often
mount their cameras onto expensive and elaborate mechanical systems to steady their
filming [1]. Consumer level cameras, on the other hand, will make use of on-board
systems that are based either purely on software algorithms, or simple mechanical
systems that work in tandem with on-board software processing [2]. While on-board
software solutions can be cheaper and provide for a lighter and less cumbersome camera
setup, there is a level of control that the camera operator is surrendering to the judgments
of the software’s algorithms. For the professional cinematographer, ultimate control of
the captured image is paramount. Thus, the software and mechanical based solutions that
exist in consumer video camera models today may be suitable for consumer applications
where manufacturers are aiming to create smaller and lighter cameras, but it is still
problematic for the professional cinematographer. A trade-off also occurs with usability.
Whereas software systems may not perform as well as their mechanical counterparts,
their use is fairly simple. Using the advanced mechanical systems often requires training.
Herman Lo and Dr. Paul Milgram at the University of Toronto have developed a
novel proprietary image processing software that approaches the problem of stabilising
video in a different way than the aforementioned existing software systems. As such, this
3 new software has potential for cinematographic applications and is worth investigating.
Due to legal reasons, the software system will henceforth be referred to as “System X”.
Objective
The overall purpose of this thesis project is to use a systematic approach to
evaluate existing techniques for stabilising video cameras as well as “System X” which
was developed in the ETC Laboratory at the University of Toronto and to determine its
feasibility for cinematographic applications.
4 Background Information
Since the aim of this thesis is to examine the effective stabilisation performance
of various systems, it follows that a basic discussion regarding these systems should be
present. Furthermore, these systems all work to assist a camera while it captures footage.
Thus, an introduction to the various camera types and technologies is also presented.
The Movie Camera
Many camera types are available today fulfilling the requirements of various user
groups. Professional filmmakers working on large-scale productions will often use a
35mm film camera that captures an image onto a film that moves at 24 frames per second
[3]. Popular manufacturers of these types of cameras include Arriflex and Panavision.
The needs of the professional cinematographer require the camera system to be capable
of accommodating various lenses, film cartridges, and grip systems. The compromise
with having professional levels of image capture performance and modularity is that
these camera systems are expensive, heavy, and require experience to operate.
The advent of the digital video era technologically provided the means to improve
the performance of more affordable cameras and thus gave rise to the “SemiProfessional” camera market segment. Semi-professional, or “prosumer”, users include
event videographers and amateur filmmakers. Instead of capturing the image onto a
physical film, the digital video camera works by converting the images captured by the
image sensor into a digital format that can be stored on various types of storage media.
Storage media include digital tape, hard-drives, and solid-state memory. The advantages
5 of the cameras that fall into this market segment include increased user friendliness and
decreased cost and physical weight. These improvements are gained at the expense of
image quality when compared to professional film cameras, and the weight and size of
these cameras are still greater than those of consumer video cameras. Many camera
models that fall into this market segment are capable of capturing High-Definition video,
which currently exists in three common formats; 720p, 1080i, and 1080p [4]. A full
discussion of these video standards is beyond the requirements of this project, however it
is useful to know that the numerical value (720, 1080) represents the number of
horizontal lines of resolution of the captured image (see Figure 1 below). The appended
letter, “p” or “i”, designate “progressive” and “interlaced” respectively. A simple
explanation of the two terms would be that with a progressive video source, the entire
frame of the viewed image is recorded and subsequently presented to the viewer at the
same frame rate that the camera is set to record at. Thus, if a camera is set to record at 24
fps (frames per second) using a progressive scan pattern, upon playback the viewer will
be presented with 24 separate and complete frames every second. An interlaced video
source, on the other hand, presents each frame as two separate fields that were originally
captured one after the other wherein each field is only one half of the entire frame (see
Figure 2 below) [5]. Thus, if a viewer was presented with an interlaced video source at 60
fields per second, the viewer is only actually presented with 30 complete frames every
second [5]. However, since each field is captured chronologically in succession, the
viewer will perceive the smoother motion that is characteristic of a video source that is
truly 60 frames (and not fields) per second due to the persistence of vision.
6 Figure 1 – Comparison of Common Video Resolutions
(Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Common_Video_Resolutions_2.svg/700pxCommon_Video_Resolutions_2.svg.png)
Figure 2 – Interlaced Image
(Source: http://www.anchorbaytech.com/_media/images/support/interlaced-scan.jpg)
In addition to the ability of capturing high-definition video, some semi-professional
cameras are capable of capturing video at user selectable frame rates. While 60 fps
provides the common look and “feel” of motion of what is referred to as “home video”,
30 fps provides the look of most television programs, and 24 fps provides the look that is
common to professional, “Hollywood” films [6].
7 Consumer digital video cameras, available in most electronics stores, are more
compact and lightweight than their semi-professional counterparts. Since consumers
typically do not require the same performance from a camera as professionals and semiprofessionals, the cameras will subsequently also be much less expensive. The method of
recording is the same as the digital semi-professional cameras mentioned above.
However, consumer cameras will use fewer image sensors, or sensors of lower quality
(i.e. smaller size, resolution and colour depth).
Stabilisation Systems – The Steadicam®
The Steadicam® was invented by Garrett Brown in the 1970’s and continues to be
an effective method of image stabilisation today [7]. The Steadicam® is an apparatus that
is worn by the camera operator and consists of three main components; the camera sled,
arm, and vest [1] (see Figure 3 below). The camera sled acts as a mounting point for the
camera and any additional equipment that is necessary such as batteries or monitors. The
sled is connected to the vest via the arm.
Figure 3 – The Main Parts of a Steadicam
®
(Source: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/steadicam1.htm)
8 Together, the system provides smooth footage even during shots where the camera
operator is travelling [1]. Operating the Steadicam® however requires training [1], and is
clearly a system that is elaborate and cumbersome. Some of the early movies that
showcased the effectiveness of the Steadicam® system include The Return of the Jedi and
The Shining. In the The Return of the Jedi, the system was used to film a walkthrough
shot of a forest to be used as the background footage used to create the fast-moving
speeder-bike sequence [8]. In Stanley Kubrick’s, The Shining, the Steadicam® was used
to film the famous scene where the camera is following the young boy on his tricycle as
he quickly pedals his way through the halls of the Overlook Hotel [9]. Unfortunately,
Steadicam® systems are costly and consequently are not readily accessible to prosumers
and consumers.
Stabilisation Systems – Simple Mechanical Systems
The term “steady cam”, spelled with a “y” is a generic term used in the industry
that can refer to any mechanical device that a camera is mounted on to provide
stabilisation support. However, to avoid confusion with the trade name “Steadicam®”,
other methods of image stabilisation via a mechanical system will be henceforth referred
to as SMS (simple mechanical systems). Various types of SMS exist, however they all
function using a similar principle; the system has a centre of gravity (COG) that is in a
different location than that of the bare camera, such that either the operator is holding the
apparatus at the COG or the COG exists directly in-between both of the operator’s hands
(see Figure 4 below).
9 Figure 4 – Examples of Simple Mechanical Stabilisation Systems
(Sources: http://www.newdaypictures.com/images/Steadicam_Merlin_Hire.gif and
http://www.dv.com/dv/magazine/2007/July/goodman0707figrig_r.jpg )
These types of systems are popular with prosumers, since they are cost-effective and easy
to use. As mentioned above, for cinematographic applications ultimate control over what
the camera is recording is important. These systems provide stabilisation support while
maintaining the level of control available to the operator.
Stabilisation Systems – On-Board Systems
Many cameras available today, prosumer and consumer alike, will often have an
on-board feature that can assist in the stabilisation of the recorded footage. These systems
are available in two varieties; optical image stabilisation, and digital image stabilisation.
Optical image stabilisation (OIS) is a term used in reference to any system wherein the
camera mechanically adjusts the angle of the lens with respect to the image sensor such
that unwanted vibrations are reduced [2]. The OIS system employed by Panasonic (see
Figure 5 below) is controlled via software algorithms that respond to the inputs provided
by on-board sensors that detect camera vibrations [2].
10 ®
Figure 5 – Schematic of Panasonic’s MegaOIS System
(source: http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MegaOISExplained?storeId=15001)
Digital image stabilisation (DIS), on the other hand, executes all the adjustments
digitally. The image sensor captures an oversized frame (the blue frame in Figure 6
below), and what the operator observes through the camera, and subsequently what the
camera records, is a smaller frame within the larger one (the red frame in Figure 6
below). The area of the captured frame that is not visible to the operator acts as a buffer
against vibrations. Thus, as the camera vibrates, the smaller frame will move within the
larger frame in order to keep the image centred and stable (as indicated by the arrows in
Figure 6 below).
Figure 6 – Example of Digital Image Stabilisation
11 Of course, both of these systems are subject to the decision making of the built-in
software algorithms. However, while the user is sacrificing image control to the built-in
system, the system is very easy to operate considering that it usually consists of merely
pressing a button to activate it.
Stabilisation Systems – “System X”
System X, as mentioned above, is a novel proprietary image processing system
developed by Herman Lo and Dr. Paul Milgram in the ETC Laboratory at the University
of Toronto. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions, the working principles of System X
must be omitted from this report. However, it is hypothesized that in a fully implemented
form, System X will provide a new approach for real-time on-board video stabilisation.
Evaluating Stabilisation Performance
While no formal and widely accepted performance metric has so far been
discovered within the literature review for evaluating stabilisation systems, a study by
Borys Golik entitled Development of a Test Method for Image Stabilizing Systems is
worth mentioning [10]. Golik’s study focuses on the stabilisation systems used by leading
manufacturers of digital still cameras. During the study, Golik proposes using a test rig
that a camera can be mounted on that would shake at a user-defined frequency and
amplitude to simulate the vibrations typically caused by physiological tremor. The
application of Golik’s method to this project is unfortunately limited. The study focuses
on digital still cameras, which poses a different set of physiological challenges to the
camera operator. Where using a movie camera would involve controlled panning, tilting,
translation, and even walking, a digital still camera requires the operator to not move at
12 all. Thus, not only does the product from using a movie camera involve greater degrees
of freedom, the biomechanical requirements of the operator are also different. Therefore,
a test rig that vibrates only to simulate the physiological tremor experienced while
holding an object still cannot adequately simulate the wide range of physical challenges
encountered by movie camera operators. Furthermore, Golik’s test is designed to treat a
single still image, whereas video requires the analysis of many still images being viewed
in succession.
13 Method
Test Design
The testing procedure used for evaluating the stabilisation techniques included
having three camera operators film a target recording using four different camerastabilisation system combinations. The three camera operators were selected such that
their experience with operating a camera was varied:
Table 1 – Camera Operator and Skill Level
Camera Operator
Experience Level
A
Experienced
B
Amateur
C
Novice
The four camera-stabilisation system combinations that were evaluated are as follows:
Table 2 – Stabilisation Methods for each Setup
Setup
Stabilisation Method
1
No stabilisation assistance
2
On-board stabilisation assistance – (OIS)
3
SMS
4
System X
Thus, in total there were 12 cases (4 setups for each of the 3 camera operators). After the
footage was prepared, the 12 cases were judged by numerous test subjects using a pair
14 comparison test such that they can be ranked relative to one another on a single
continuum.
Step 1: Footage Capture
For each setup, the operators used the camera to capture a short 30-second predefined “target” recording. The target recording involved having the operators walk down
a well-lit hallway while at a set pace. The operator’s walking pace was controlled using a
digital metronome that provided an auditory signal via its built-in speaker. During the
setup of the recording process, the camera operators decided that a signal of 100 bpm
from the metronome provided a comfortable target walking pace.
Setup 1 (no stabilisation assistance) had the operators capturing the target footage
using only the bare camera with no on-board or mechanical assistance. Setup 2 (on-board
stabilisation assistance) was done with the camera’s on-board OIS system activated.
Setup 3 (SMS) had the camera mounted on a SMS with the on-board OIS turned off.
Finally, Setup 4 (System X) involved the use of System X to process the video captured
during Setup 1. For all setups, the camera’s auto-focus feature was turned off to eliminate
the differences between recordings that may arise from the camera’s auto-focus
algorithms.
During preliminary pilot testing, it was determined that the amount of zoom used
during recording has a strong effect upon the visible amount of shake. An increase in
telephoto will increase the amount of visible camera vibrations. Thus, the zoom was kept
at a moderate level of 25% telephoto during all of the actual target recordings.
Furthermore, the different ways to grip the camera also proved to impact the results of the
15 footage during pilot testing. The overhand grip provided footage that was more stable.
However, since the overhand grip handle is a feature unique to the HVX200 (see Figure 8
below) and similar larger cameras, the camera operators were instructed to use a standard
grip in order to more comprehensively represent the ergonomics of the majority of
camera models available.
Finally, as a control case for the performance evaluation phase, the camera was
mounted on a tripod, which was then placed on a dolly so that a “perfectly smooth”
version of the target recording was captured by pushing the dolly down the hallway.
Step 2: Performance Evaluation
After the target recordings were captured, they were prepared for evaluation using
Final Cut Pro, a non-liner editing software suite. The method of analysis used is a pair
comparison as described in Trygg Engen’s, Psychophysics: II. Scaling Methods [12]. To
do so, a group of test subjects were required to observe 66 pairs of recordings such that
each case was paired with every other case once. During which, they were required to
indicate which recording of each pair (the left side or right side) was more stable
according to their own perceptions. However, before the test subjects began the 66 trials,
they were presented with the control case mentioned above. This was done so that the
subjects understand what an ideal target recording looks like.
Initial plans involved having the entire evaluation process completed online, such
that the test subjects can view the 66 trials on YouTube, and indicate their selection on an
online form. However, due to time constraints, the evaluation procedure was carried out
by having a group of test subjects observe a video screen in a room while indicating their
16 selections on a form. Figure 7 below is an example of what the video screen was
displaying.
Figure 7 – Example of Evaluation Session Screen
Thus, for each trial, the pair of recordings would play side-by-side for 10 seconds. After
which, the video screen would prompt the test subjects to input their response as well as
provide them a 5 second countdown for when the next trial will begin. In total, the time
required to carry out the experiment with the test subjects including time required for
instructions was approximately 25 minutes.
17 Materials
The materials required for this experiment can be divided according to the
separate steps and setups of the aforementioned test method.
Materials – Step 1: Footage Capture
General:
-
1 (one) Panasonic AG-HVX200 High-Definition Camera
-
1 (one) Focus Enhancements Firestore FS-100 DTE DVCPRO-HD Tapeless
Recorder
-
1 (one) digital metronome
-
1 (one) tripod dolly
The Panasonic AG-HVX200 is a high-definition 3CCD video camera. It is
capable of filming at 480i (standard definition), 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. The camera is
also capable of filming at a wide range of frame rates, including 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps
[11]. The HVX200 is a popular and widely used camera in the prosumer segment, and the
ability to natively record a progressive image at 24fps makes it an ideal candidate to
simulate cinematographic applications (see Figure 8 below). The Firestore FS-100 is an
external recording device that connects to the HVX200 and records the captured footage
onto a hard-disk (see Figure 8 below).
18 Figure 8 – Panasonic AG-HVX200 Camera (left) and Firestore FS-100 Recorder (right)
(Sources: http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/hvx_200_right500-1.jpg and
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/models/fs-100.jpg)
Setup 1 (no stabilisation assistance):
-
No extra materials required
Setup 2 (on-board stabilisation):
-
No extra materials required
Setup 3 (SMS):
-
Constructed mechanical stabilisation system
The SMS was constructed using the procedure available at www.steadycam.org. The
system design is by Johnny Chung Lee, and is a cost-effective solution that provides
equivalent stabilisation performance to more expensive, yet functionally identical,
systems that are manufactured professionally.
Setup 4 (System X):
-
System X: Configured to process the footage captured by HVX200 using Setup 1
19 The configuration of System X and the processing of the captured video was completed
by Herman Lo. System parameters were kept constant when processing the video for
each camera operator.
Materials – Step 2: Performance Evaluation
-
1 (one) Video projector
-
1 (one) Projector screen
-
1 (one) Final Cut Pro editing suite
-
Test subjects
-
Response forms for test subjects
20 Results
The evaluation phase was carried out twice. Once without the System X processed
footage and once with. The evaluation session carried out without the System X footage
was done before the processed footage was made available in an attempt to gain data in
the event that the System X footage was ultimately unavailable. As such, the number of
test subjects used was greater than in the session with the System X footage. Thus, the
results from the first evaluation phase can be used to support the results obtained from the
session with the System X footage included.
Session 1 Results – Without System X Footage
It should be noted that since Setup 4 was omitted for this evaluation session, there are
only 9 total cases that need to be evaluated. Thus, the total number of pairs that the test
subjects were required to respond to was 36. There were 53 test subjects in total The raw
data collected from the response forms were inputted into a chart (see Appendix A) in
order to find the proportion of test subjects that preferred a certain recording over its
paired counterpart.
Since the test subjects are not aware of which cases they are observing, a key (see
Appendix B) was used to decode the results such that they can be put in matrix form. The
following matrix provides the proportions for which the test subjects preferred the case in
the first column to the case in the first row. Note that the letter (A, B, or C) represents the
camera operator and the number (1, 2, or 3) represents the camera-stabilisation system
setup:
21 Table 3 – Proportion of Choice of Case Footage Based on Stability (Setup 4 Omitted)
Then as per the analysis method outlined in Trygg Engen’s, Psychophysics: II. Scaling
Methods [12], the proportions above were converted to equivalent Z-Scores. Then the
mean of each row was found and then linearly transformed so that all the number are
positive:
Table 4 – Z-Scores (Psychological Distance) Between Case Footage (Setup 4 Omitted)
Thus, the performance of each case can be placed on a single continuum to gain a sense
of their performance relative to one another as follows (for a larger version, please see
Appendix C):
Figure 9 – Relative Psychological Distances (Setup 4 Omitted)
22 Table 5 – Case Rankings (Setup 4 Omitted)
Session 2 Results – With System X Footage
The same analysis procedure was carried out for the evaluation session that included the
System X processed footage. There were 31 test subjects in total. The raw data is
available in Appendix D and the associated key in Appendix E. The proportions for the
responses are as follows:
Table 6 – Proportion of Choice of Case Footage Based on Stability
23 The converted Z-scores are as follows:
Table 7 – Z-Scores (Psychological Distance) Between Case Footage
And thus, the relative performance of each case is as follows (for a larger version, please
see Appendix F):
Figure 10 – Relative Psychological Distances
Table 8 – Case Rankings
24 Discussion
It is important to note that the scores for each case do not represent a measure of
absolute performance, but rather a relative psychological distance between the perceived
performance of each case [12].
For both evaluation sessions, the highest and lowest ranking cases remained the
same. Namely, the experienced camera operator using the SMS setup ranked the best,
whereas the novice camera operator using just the bare camera ranked the worst.
Furthermore, setups 1 and 2 rank fairly close to one another for all camera operators,
which may suggest that the on-board OIS system does not mitigate the camera vibrations
enough to create a very noticeable difference for this application.
Across all camera operators, the SMS setup was received much better than the
others. However, it is of interest to note that the System X software performed quite well.
Notably, case A4 outperformed case C3. This is indicative that the System X software
certainly has potential for application for on-board camera stabilisation applications.
From a qualitative perspective, the camera vibrations in the video processed by System X
do seem to be much “slower”. Which may suggest that the temporal nature of the footage
is being modified. Thus, for a true cinematographic application, future builds of the
System X software must ensure that objects moving independently of the frame (such as
people in motion) are not affected by this temporal ‘warping’. Clearly, for frame
compositions involving no independently moving objects, the algorithms in place work
quite effectively. Future research may include investigating how System X performs with
a dynamic frame composition.
25 Generally, the results agree with what is expected. Setup 1 with no stabilisation
assistance consistently performs the worst, with Setup 2 (OIS) performing only
marginally better. Then there is a sizeable gap leading up to Setup 3 and 4. Furthermore,
the ranking of setups 1, 2 and 3 are in general agreement between the two evaluation
sessions, thus fortifying the results.
Conclusion
Using a paired comparison to evaluate the relative performance between various camera
stabilisation methods proved to yield interesting results. Interestingly, the on-board
stabilisation system of the Panasonic HVX200 did not provide significant vibration
reduction that can be noticed by the test subjects. Furthermore, the results fortify that
simple mechanical systems continue to provide much better vibration reduction
performance than the alternatives, which suggests that among the systems tested, simple
mechanical systems may still be the best choice for amateur film-makers and serious
videographers. Finally, the strong results of System X indicate that the potential for its
cinematographic applications is significant. Future research regarding System X’s
performance with dynamic frame compositions will provide additional information as to
how future builds of the software should be approached in order to deal with any
potential temporal warping of the footage. Thus, future builds of System X can very well
be considered for application in both consumer and prosumer video cameras.
26 References
1.
Harris, Tom. November 22, 2001. How Steadicams Work. Internet.
<http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/steadicam.htm> . October 2, 2008.
2.
Unknown. Unknown. Panasonic MegaOIS Explained. Internet.
<http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/
MegaOISExplained?storeId=15001> . October 2, 2008.
3.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Motion-picture camera. Internet.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394179/motion-picture-camera>.
November 9, 2008.
4.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. November 9, 2008. High-definition video. Internet.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-definition_video&oldid=250609389>.
November 10, 2008
5.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Television. Internet.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1262241/television-technology>. November 11,
2008.
6.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. October 24, 2008. Frame rate. Internet.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frame_rate&oldid=247467059>. November 12, 2008.
7.
Knowledge@Wharton. February 27, 2006. Garrett Brown: Inventing the Future – And a Few
Handy Gadgets. Internet.
<http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1352&specialid=48>. November 13,
2008
8.
Brown, Garrett. 1983. Steadicam Plates for Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. American
Cinematographer. June 1983
9.
Brown, Garrett. 1980. The Steadicam and “The Shining”. American Cinematographer. August
1980.
10. Borys Golik. October 2006. Development of a Test Method for Image Stabilizing Systems.
Cologne University of Applies Sciences: Department of Imaging Sciences and Media Technology.
11. Unknown. Unknown. Panasonic – DVCPRO P2 –
<http://www.panasonic.ca/english/broadcast/P2/AGHVX200.asp>.
November 9, 2008.
AG-HVX200A.
Internet.
12. Trygg Engen, "Psychophysics: II. Scaling Methods”. Chapter 3 in J.W. Kling & L.A. Riggs
(ed's), Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, Third Edition, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1971, pp. 47-86.
27 Appendix A – Data for Evaluation Session 1 Each “1” indicates an instance when the test subject indicated the footage on the left side as more stable. 28 Appendix B – Key for Evaluation Session 1 29 Appendix C – Relative Psychological Distances (Large) (Setup 4 Omitted) 30 Appendix D – Data for Evaluation Session 2 Each “1” indicates an instance when the test subject indicated the footage on the left side as more stable. 31 Appendix E – Key for Evaluation Session 2 32 Appendix F – Relative Psychological Distances (Large)