Vegas Studio 10, Stabalisation "magnifies"
Thread: Vegas Studio 10, Stabalisation "magnifies"
Been trying out some of the features in this program.
There are five levels of stabalisation, from general to very smooth.
However, I wonder if others have found this odd effect beyond the third-level of stabalising? I find it cuts out the external image and the frame appears to "zooms in" to the centre.
I can imagine that if there are a huge number of errors, then pixels have to go....and those at the outside are likely to be missing as the view bounces about. However, I don't think I want them thrown away - rather I want the computer to take some of the good frames and stitch them into the frames where they are missing.
I believe PanOptica has good reviews, but then the feature in Vegas ought to work. By taking a sinigle squence I applied the different levels of stabalisation as comparison, - but I'm now not convinced it is really better than er, well nothing.
Does anyone have a way of getting good results?
I think you're asking quite a lot to expect the software to stitch together the "missing" pixels from arond the image based on what's in frames around it. I can see that potentially it might be done, but Mercalli (which is what Sony uses here) simply doesn't do it that way. Some people love the program. I bought it (Mercalli 1) but have never been that impressed - or more accurately, I have never managed to achieve as good a result as other people. I believe Vegas uses the engine from this original version. Mercalli 2 is supposedly better. But I simply use a tripod. It's better for me.
Nothing odd about it. That's exactly how the s/w is meant to perform. What it does is to adjust horizontal and vertical movement by very quickly panning and tilting the "frame" - to oppose the movement you gave the camera by shaking/wobbling it. Because the s/w pans and tilts, the error of movement is transfered to the edge/border of the frame. Putting this another way, if you moved/wobbled LEFT, then the s/w compensates this movement RIGHT. What you are then left with is an ugly/unfortunate continuously, asymmetrical border that appears on the LEFT. Now, increase this "effect" by having vertical/tilt movement and this black/void border is added to either the top of the frame or the bottom of the frame. OK? Well, to "obscure" this unfortunate result what the s/w THEN does is to zoom-in on the reaming, now steadied footage to "push" this ugly border away. In doing this you get to unfortunate results: A loss in resolution and the added unfortunate result of seeing more grain. So, pixels aren't being thrown away. as you say, but the WHOLE frame is being automatically realigned to steady the footage.
However, I don't think I want them thrown away - rather I want the computer to take some of the good frames and stitch them into the frames where they are missing.
Now, some s/w will attempt to "fill" this border void by making "smeary" in-fills of the void. In this way there is no zooming-in and, consequently, no loss of reso.
Over the years I have tried at least 5 steading s/w approaches, but as Tim says, use a tripod and where that is not possible, then get the next best thing - some form of steadying contraption and that's where I use my DV-Rig Pro. I look stupid wearing it, but the footage doesn't and being paid for looking stupid is an added bonus. The third way is to utilise some trued and tested steadying tips. Do a search on the Internet, there are zillions.
Now, having said ALL the above, the solution is rather not to be too hard on yourself; take a pragmatic view of your work; see what you could possibly employ to become more professional (you are asking the best questions! And that is, you want better.) and also realise that a small bit of wobbly-cam or gliding smooth cam, can be quite acceptable - and NO I don't mean the crap one sees on You-Toob and You've Been Froomed.
Presently I do use Merc2 and "wobble" between that and the NewDeshaker script that has past through several programming hands to end up a more than decent steadying s/w script. Although it uses Virtual Dub, in the background, this latest format has a very simple - Grazie-Proof Award! - GUI.
So, yes to a tripod, but there again sticks aren't always an option nor part of the narrative or opportunity in getting said narrative.
Thanks both, I guess it's the way the sw works. Indeed the trial would not have benefited from a tripod or "steadycam" - I was stationary on a moving staircase, the image was the passing posters which were slightly jumpy as the camera tries to make sense of the image (I'm guessing)..... and then I used this copied-over to test the different levels of Vegas Studio compensation.
Unfortunately it's far from clear (to me) how the sw will work in a given situation. "Help" being somewhat dumb, as usual.
When I tried moving a bit further back, wider angle, etc. - this fixed it, but then you can't read the text. It being too small. If I wanted to film this, I guess I'd have to fake it, using copyright-free home-made posters.
I'd found this "Magnifying effect" on some general footage a few weeks ago .... hence this Test.... as I wondered if I'd miss-cued the Editor.
What I may try is to start at the 1st level and then try the result in the higher-levels....that should be fun, eh?
Last edited by vidmanners; 07-24-2011 at 12:24 AM.
Hello! Help me please! I use "stabilize media" in vegas. In result i see moving borders. Why it is? So picture stabilize but the frame is jumping. Sorry for english, im from Russia. Thank you.
Yep the good old tripod is the answer, but for those times when a tripod is impractal I use a monopod with a flag carriers harness hung around my neck. This is great for stability and allows me to change position easily, it's also great at wedding discos where I can raise the monopod and get shots of dancers instead of the backs of thier heads. Cost about £30 all in, far cheaper than any other portable steadier I have seen & works really well.
Last edited by David Eager; 07-24-2011 at 11:19 AM.
David Eager, the use of a tripod (in the OP scenario), would make no difference, since neither I nor the camera was moving. I was on a moving staircase, holding the camera on steady device. . . in use only because I had it with me.
It seemed a great opportunity to test the abilities of Vegas Studio 10 "stabalise media" option.
The difficulty is trying to achieve something like "standardised material" - anyone living near a City-centre can film it easily....this means others could try their hand at a fix...etc.
Last edited by vidmanners; 07-25-2011 at 11:52 AM.
Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD 9.0 "An Exception Has Occured"