Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Easy Way to Stabilize Video?

Discussion in 'Phantom 2 Vision Discussion' started by grochester, Jan 18, 2014.

  1. grochester

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ8xhgrI ... ata_player is a video in which a Sony Action Cam HDRAS15 is apparently velcroed to the camera of a P2V. The videos from the P2V and the Sony are shown side by side. The Sony video is much more stable and seems to be better quality than the P2V. I would assume that the Sony stabilizes the video, but could it be that much better? Is this an cheap and easy way to get real time video while flying and a better quality video recording?
     
  2. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    That just means the sony modifies the video with stabilization and the vision camera it has to be done afterward. Keep in mind the vision camera was built for less weight too so that's part of why that has to be done in post production instead of being built into the camera.
     
  3. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    Point taken. Like I said though, if DJI had added it that would have likely increased the weight of the camera and possibly price of the unit. IMO can still be easily corrected in post or with a proper gimbal. I'm anxiously awaiting reasonably priced brushless gimbals...
     
  4. garygid

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Laguna Hills, Orange county, CA 92653
    EIS tends to correct for a little bit of tilt, and possibly some yaw.
    The gimbal tries to correct for roll, right?
     
  5. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    Honestly I have to disagree. I've had some VERY shaky video from wind and just playing around flying very aggressively and I was actually shocked how well it turned out in post.
     
  6. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    The stock 1 axis "gimbal" corrects for forward and backward tilt but not roll...but a brushless gimbal like the dronexpert gimbal would.

    My video is boring. Nothing special. Just a video of my parents house and their dog while I was visiting. I was flying aggressively and it was windy. You won't really have anything to compare it to without the original but I can tell you this video is WAY more stable than the original. Honestly all I did was throw music on it and let youtube stabilize it and just the crappy stabilization from YouTube made it night and day.

    http://youtu.be/BKk2ehnxlAA
     
  7. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    In most of the video I wasn't worrying about taking video I was just flying it around demonstrating it. Otherwise I would have made much better shots. I had a lot of fun playing with the dog with it. Tough to get good shots of him chasing it. The opening shot was the only decent one I could get him to cooperate for....haha
     
  8. grochester

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    In my experience video stabilized in the camera is much better than that done with editing programs afterwards.
    The Sony camera weighs only 60 grams or so. Would the motors to be recalibrated to achieve level flight?
     
  9. Shrimpfarmer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Sussex UK
    Well I have always refused to allow youtube to correct my video when it identifies it as shaky. Now that I have seen your results I will experiment with it. I thought Youtube had done a pretty amazing job there and it certainly is a better effect than I can achieve using the stabiliser in Final Cut Pro X

    Thanks for posting that.
     
  10. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    No problem. Yeah I was a little nervous to let YouTube edit it but it wasn't a video I really cared about and I was pleasantly surprised how well it turned out. They also let you undo the edit if you don't like the results.
     
  11. Shrimpfarmer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Sussex UK
    Having just messed around using Youtube stabilisation on one of my videos I have to say Youtube does a very good job. The only video I could test was one where some image stabilisation had already been applied in Final Cut Pro so it still looks a bit of a mess. However I know the bits that were not stabilised and they have been improved.

    I recommend people try it out as It might delay your need for a gimbal until there are more of them and the price drops. For my next film I am going to let Youtube deal with the shaking and not correct any in FCPX.
     
  12. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    Very cool. I've never tried FCPX but yeah I was pleasantly surprised with the stabilizing. I'm anxious to use it on a better video and a day it's not as windy or I'm not flying as aggressively. I figure if it made a video that was super shakey that much better I would bet a video where the piloting is slow with gradual turns and low wind would look amazing.
     
  13. Shrimpfarmer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Sussex UK
    Ok here is a little comparison. I took the same piece of bumpy film and made 3 videos.

    1. The original Phantom Vision 2 as it came out of the camera.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zk2pVvfXQk[/youtube]

    2. Same clip but using Final Cut Pro X stabilisation.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T1HSp-5VsA[/youtube]

    3. Same clip as it came out of the camera but this stabilised by Youtube alone.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvZwLwIgiW8[/youtube]

    For me Youtube wins hands down and there is no way I am buying a gimble just yet now I know this.
     
  14. HVMSTORMER

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Shrimpfarmer,

    Great comparison, I'm Also impressed with what Youtube can produce, you may have just saved me a couple of hundred quid in waiting for a bit before buying a gimbal - cheers!
     
  15. djayz

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, the YouTube stabilization is DRAMATICALLY better. The Final Cut Pro barely did anything. Like hmvstormer mentioned, that post YouTube processing made it look like it came out of a good gimbal!

    Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison Shrimpfarmer.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  16. dkatz42

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Note that FCP's image stabilization mechanism has multiple adjustable parameters, so the comparison may or not be valid.
     
  17. Shrimpfarmer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Sussex UK
    Well I am an FCPX lover and I have to say I have never used a better video editor. However I have played with the various parameters but I could not make it any better. If your aware of the best settings to use to correct vision video then please do share here.
     
  18. dkatz42

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    That's why I said "may or may not"...didn't mean to besmirch your proficiency. One of the other posters said that the FCP clip didn't seem to do anything; my guess is that if you cranked it up it would do *something* (not necessarily good).

    No experience myself, just cautious of broad statements.

    I've got a buddy who's a video pro; I'll see if he'll give it a whirl.
     
  19. Scottrod

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    Shrimp farmer great comparison. I figured you guys would laugh at my suggestion of letting youtube stabilize the video but as you can see it does a seriously good job. I was impressed. The only thing that still makes me want a gimbal is the tilt on the horizon when leaning right or left. Otherwise yeah I agree the YouTube stabilization is seriously impressive. I'm actually leaning away from a gimbal just because of the reduced flight time and how well youtube stabilizes the video.
     
  20. Shrimpfarmer

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Sussex UK
    You didn't I am no expert with FCPX even though I have used it since day one.

    Scottrod

    No poster should shy away from offering an opinion because they may just have the golden nugget. True there will be some people who laugh but there are many more who take heed and look a little further.

    Phantasmic

    Your observations are correct as can be seen in this film which I re-uploaded without any stabilisation and then let Youtube stabilise it. It does show some pretty awful warping when objects are near the edge of the frame. Having said that it was very windy and these days I wouldn't think of filming in those conditions. Of course a gimbal would allow you to. I suppose its a case of try Youtube and see if your happy with the results. Previously I had dismissed it without even trying it.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fLf6L-ZhEI[/youtube]