Personal View site logo
Cinema gear deals, direct from factories - Gear deals and Gear deals section. Also check Cameras, lenses, software, gear deals.
You support is vital for us. To keep this place ad free and independent, select one of the options below.
Donations are going to laboratory, support costs, hosting, etc. Your support allows to improve and expand this site.
  • SteadXP a "game changer" tool for video stabilization and hyperlapse for any cameras.

  • 41 Replies sorted by
  • LOL. It is not game changer. It is just simple thing helping software stabilization.

    Good gimble for GoPro will outperform it by wide margin and do not require any heavy post processing.

  • This is pretty awesome... Yes, a good gimble can out perform what can be done in software... but that being said, depending on the needs of the shoot, a gimble might not be practical to use. I'd look at popping one of these on my camera while attached to my monopod for extra stabilization when things get crazy on my event shoots. Shoot in 4k to get a little more wiggle room, and you're set. Obviously not the end all be all solution, but definitely a neat one.

  • I see this working well in windy conditions which could make operating a steadicam difficult

  • Great idea! In a very short time this will be inside cameras, using a gyro and accelerometer with processing in real time before it goes onto the SD-card.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Good gimble for GoPro will outperform it by wide margin and do not require any heavy post processing.

    Gimbals are much harder to wrangle than After Effects. ;)

  • Gimbal is just proper tool, as software correction is very limited. In fact, every camera doing active/hybrid stabilizer (including most Panasonic compacts and camcorders) have same sensors and doing very similar thing. But it is just limited due to nature of thing.

  • It really has nothing to do with proper stabilizer.

    Very strange comment. What is "proper"? If the image ends up being stabilized without compromising the integrity of the image quality, has the product not performed its intended function well? That's like saying RAW files and color-correction have nothing to do with "proper" lighting or filmmaking. And if all camera manufacturers have sensors already doing very similar things, why do the results look nowhere nearly as good as those posted in their promotional video? Futhermore , they claim that the image is not cropped to perform the stabilization since that's not how their system works. Again, I would refer you back to the actual footage in their video they claim was stabilized using their device. If this is really the end result of their hardware/software doing its stuff, then isn't what is "proper" the method that allows you to get those results most efficiently (i.e. least effort at the smallest cost)?

  • If the image ends up being stabilized without compromising the integrity of the image quality,

    With good lighting and a fast shutter speed, post stabilization can work well without compromising image quality (if you have resolution to spare). But if you want a more natural shutter speed, post stabilization fails to remove the motion blur of camera movement within an exposure.

    Where'd they say they don't crop? I don't see how that's possible.

  • @spacewig

    Futhermore , they claim that the image is not cropped to perform the stabilization since that's not how their system works.

    Well, shit. Such stabilization is not magic and all restrictions are know for years.

    For example, similar approach is used in Panasonic video cameras in active mode.

    It is advertised and pushed as answer to everything, stabilization device for you. Just avoid it.

    Go and get 3 axis GoPro gimbal on ebay.

  • It doesn't crop because it stitches content from other frames to fill empty areas. This has it's own funky side effects, since often perspective has slightly changed on the area from frame to frame, which can sometimes have a subtle 3D warping effect on the final composite. It's interesting technology, that's for sure and who knows where it will go in the future. Using one of these with 4k and cropping in past the 'stitching' could make for some VERY smooth 1080p video (it appears to be smoother than all other software stabilization I've seen). It's true that it's no replacement for real stabilizers and properly trained operators, but I'm sure it will have it's market and creative uses. Hell, I'd like to play around with it on a few different cameras to see how far I can push it and what usefulness I might be able to squeeze out of it.

  • It doesn't crop because it stitches content from other frames to fill empty areas. This has it's own funky side effects, since often perspective has slightly changed on the area from frame to frame, which can sometimes have a subtle 3D warping effect on the final composite

    If you think a little - most of the time in real video this information actually does not exist. Contrary to that they state.

    I think this device need real independent testing instead of hype.

  • You can think of it working similar to the content aware tools in photoshop, only this software tries to fetch data from other frames, but as Vitaliy mentioned, sometimes appropriate data does not exist, so it fills it with the closest match, which can sometimes be strange.

    But remember, this stitched content is only the edge of the frame in most cases (unless the stabilization is very extreme, i suppose).

    Gathering and leveraging gyro data for better post stabilization is really cool though and with cropping larger resolutions could be very useful in certain situations. It's so small it could be used when a 3 axis stabilizer would be too big. I wonder the effect it has on micro vibrations, say from being in a vehicle or helicopter. Definitely needs some independent testing.

  • You can think of it working similar to the content aware tools in photoshop, only this software tries to fetch data from other frames

    Well, it has nothing to do with Photoshop (it is just one among huge number of software), but math algorithms used to erase parts of images and fill it using adjustment data are not super advanced and very frequently can produce bad results (sometimes good :-) ). They are also very badly suited for video (doing same in sequence of frames). Add to this that they work mostly only if you have your area surrounded by big number of image data instead of situation here where you need mostly boundaries.

    If you ask me, I think whole presentation and statements are mix of fake and specially arranged thing.

    I wonder the effect it has on micro vibrations, say from being in a vehicle or helicopter. Definitely needs some independent testing.

    Most people also do not realize that sensors in such thing are quite low quality and math methods and advanced algorithms are used by camera companies to make them work good.

  • Of course it has nothing to do with photoshop, it was a comparison to help people understand how they stabilize without cropping. If the demo is real, it speaks for itself, and I, for one, am interested to see what it can really do.

  • Goodness me, so much negativity over an "idea". Let's embrace the intent and see where it goes. At worst, we're where we started to begin with, .why shit on it before it's had a chance to see the light of day? If it doesn't work, so be it.

  • Goodness me, so much negativity over an "idea"

    No negativity here. Just another view. Such things constantly appear with hype, some more sane view won't hurt.

  • Agreed spacewig - I prefer to give such ideas the benefit of the doubt, rather than assume they are vapourware or untruthful right out of the gate - if they are, that will come out in the wash - if they are NOT, it's a whole lot of wasted negative energy for nothing. I especially don't understand it when they are excitedly releasing demos of their tech and doing their best to explain their intentions and approach. I think sometimes people react negatively to over-used media hype lines such as "game changer". Hey, their just trying to get above the noise, WE decide whether it is a game changer or not, but I don't fault them for thinking that is is (i actually believe they think it is THAT good - and maybe we're in for more of a surprise than we expect).

  • Microsoft are currently financially backing a group developing a concept similar to this. It could prove to be very useful in the right application.

  • Did not realize some of us on this forum could be so gullible, excited over a software post correction idea disguised as a revolutionary concept...

  • Indeed, all this thing does is provide - supposedly - better motion vector tracing than, for example, Adobe's Warp Stabilizer. There are all kinds of limitations to software stabilization in post, but correct motion tracing hasn't struck me as an issue yet. (Unrecoverable motion blur and resolution loss through rotating, cropping and zooming the image is - and can only be prevented with true optical hardware stabilization.) Sounds like snake oil.

  • Microsoft are currently financially backing a group developing a concept similar to this. It could prove to be very useful in the right application.

    Most probably they'll focus on smartphones and tablets. It can be one of the marketing thing to make so similar products different from competition for a while.

    But also note that Microsoft projects are one of the most inefficient in industry, they abandon almost all of them without any actual product.

  • I'm waiting a long time for this!

  • Gone live on Kickstarter. I have been waiting for this for a while, and have nothing to do with the project...

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1091165875/steadxp-the-future-of-video-stabilization