DIY stabilizer

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty solution for
stabilizing your camera.


http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...nt-hurt-your-p
ocket-literally-and-metaphorically/

old trick.

On 1 Apr 2014 04:45:45 GMT, Sandman
wrote:

In article , Peter Jason wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty solution for
stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Instead, tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.

I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the stabilization
will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick will most likely make
the camera more unstable, and even one string you step on will only give it
perpendicular stabilization, while this three-point idea will give you both
lateral and perpendicular stabilization.

The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't
dangle at all.

On 2014-04-02 02:44:35 +0000, Peter Jason said:

On 1 Apr 2014 04:45:45 GMT, Sandman
wrote:

In article , Peter Jason wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty solution for
stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Instead,

tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.

I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the stabilization
will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick will most likely make
the camera more unstable, and even one string you step on will only give it
perpendicular stabilization, while this three-point idea will give you both
lateral and perpendicular stabilization.

The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't
dangle at all.

Oh for crying out aloud! Buy a damn tripod, monopod, or a decent
stabilized lens.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Peter Jason wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty
solution for stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Peter Jason:
Instead, tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.

Sandman:
I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the
stabilization will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick
will most likely make the camera more unstable, and even one
string you step on will only give it perpendicular stabilization,
while this three-point idea will give you both lateral and
perpendicular stabilization.

The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't dangle at all.

So.. the brick is on the ground? That kind of limits your movements,
doesn't it?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article 201404012009403622-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty
nifty solution for stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Peter Jason:
tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the assembly
will resist vibrations.

Sandman:
I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the
stabilization will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick
will most likely make the camera more unstable, and even one
string you step on will only give it perpendicular
stabilization, while this three-point idea will give you both
lateral and perpendicular stabilization.

Peter Jason:
The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't dangle at all.

Oh for crying out aloud! Buy a damn tripod, monopod, or a decent
stabilized lens.

Hear hear, then you won't look quite so stupid as in the link




--
Sandman[.net]

In article 201404012009403622-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-04-02 02:44:35 +0000, Peter Jason said:

On 1 Apr 2014 04:45:45 GMT, Sandman
wrote:

In article , Peter Jason wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty solution for
stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Instead,

tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.

I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the stabilization
will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick will most likely make
the camera more unstable, and even one string you step on will only give it
perpendicular stabilization, while this three-point idea will give you both
lateral and perpendicular stabilization.

The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't
dangle at all.

Oh for crying out aloud! Buy a damn tripod, monopod, or a decent
stabilized lens.

The brick idea is kind of nuts, but the point of the string system is
that it's lightweight, compact, and portable. You can use it in places
where a tripod isn't allowed, like within shooting distance of the White
House (for some reason the brilliant marksmen at out security agencies
think that a lightweight camera tripod can be used to support a sniper
rifle--certain movies have reinforced that notion--apparently none of
the agencies have ever tried it to see what actually happens).

On 2014.03.30, 18:18 , RichA wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/

Might be applicable to rifles too. If it works.


I wrote about "stringpod" here some years ago.

It works (I posted "with" and "without" shots at a lowish shutter speed).

I've used it in the field less than 5 times, however ...


--
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
for the services these companies offer. What they really
want is to have us "on the leash."
-David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

On 2014.04.01, 22:44 , Peter Jason wrote:

Instead, tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.


This is a poor idea. Increasing mass decreases your ability to keep
something steady because you're correcting for more when there is a
disturbance which means muscles have to work harder (leading to fatigue
and less ability to control).

(Trying to shoot freehand with a 300 f/2.8, for example, teaches you
this quite quickly).

Adding mass for stability only works (typically) when the mass is
attached to the ground, or when it is a resonant tuned system and the
mass is carefully calculated (or experimented with) to find the right mass.

--
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
for the services these companies offer. What they really
want is to have us "on the leash."
-David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

On 4/1/2014 11:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-02 02:44:35 +0000, Peter Jason said:

On 1 Apr 2014 04:45:45 GMT, Sandman
wrote:

In article , Peter Jason
wrote:

Sandman:
Will make you look pretty stupid, but a pretty nifty solution for
stabilizing your camera.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...etaphorically/


Instead,

tie the camera to a heavy brick. The weight of the
assembly will resist vibrations.

I sort of have the idea that in the idea in the link, the stabilization
will be from two points, not one. A dangling brick will most likely make
the camera more unstable, and even one string you step on will only
give it
perpendicular stabilization, while this three-point idea will give
you both
lateral and perpendicular stabilization.

The camera is tied firmly to the brick; it doesn't
dangle at all.

Oh for crying out aloud! Buy a damn tripod, monopod, or a decent
stabilized lens.


there are a lot of places that don't allow tripods, or monopods. But, I
guess the string should give you at lease 1-2 extra stops.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:57:31 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.03.30, 18:18 , RichA wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/smal...ilizer-doesnt-
hurt-your-pocket-literally-and-metaphorically/

Might be applicable to rifles too. If it works.


I wrote about "stringpod" here some years ago.

It works (I posted "with" and "without" shots at a lowish shutter
speed).

I've used it in the field less than 5 times, however ...

I agree. When I have needed to use it (other than deliberate
experimentation) the string has been at home and I haven't........



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.