Slamfire
Contributor
These are two versions of the same video. One with YouTube stabilizing and the other without. Which is better or least worse? Do we lose more than we gain by stabilizing it in YouTube?
YouTube stabilizing -- is it worth it? Sample Videos
- Thread starter Slamfire
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
youtube stabiliser is not good for underwater use
you need to improve your buoyancy and video skills
you need to improve your buoyancy and video skills
LowDrag
Contributor
My experience with YouTube stabilizer for my underwater video's has not been good. My video's that I tried it on were a lot different that what I saw in your video though. The entire video had a waving motion to the top and bottom edges and the video shook throughout the playing of it, it was weird. I played both of your videos simultaneously/side by side and the video on the right looked much more stable than the one on the left. If you stabilized the one on the right I would be surprised.
toozler
Contributor
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 86
Youtube's stabilization has improved on the last year or so, I remember it being much worse. You still get some weird streching and zooming, specially when it really bounces around.
I've tried stabilization with Kdenlive, here is a comparison (without cropping). It has a few more finetuning options than Youtube.
[video=youtube;F3phfPyX3kE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F3phfPyX3kE[/video]
I've tried stabilization with Kdenlive, here is a comparison (without cropping). It has a few more finetuning options than Youtube.
[video=youtube;F3phfPyX3kE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F3phfPyX3kE[/video]
Unless you are using a tripod, it doesn't work well when we push the record button while off the bottom. Look in the viewfinder, pick a spot and try to hold that spot still in the frame.
[vimeo]86352978[/vimeo]
[vimeo]86352978[/vimeo]
Disclaimers: Video Experience - Rank Amature. Have used video camera for less than a year. Video Camera: GoPro Hero Black 3+
I was able to watch both in sync (started both and then paused the one I started first for a split second to sync them up). The original video was very jumpy. Perhaps you had some bodacious current and surge. But I agree with others, that you could achieve the results of the stabilized version with the original camera (many of which have stabilization). But in terms of quality, the You Tube Stabilized version in this example is more pleasant to watch. For my own use, I have not seen a significant difference and so usually just go with my original.
Bottom line, the answer to "Is You Tube Stabilization" will depend on the individual video. For some, the difference is not worth the loss, for others (such as the OP example) the answer is yes it is worth it. Also worth it are investments in video lights that have a wider field of illumination.
A noobs suggestion: The camera needs to be held but not in a viselike grip. A very tight grip is not only tiring but transmits muscle tremors to the camera. Hold the camera, but don't choke it. In short, loosen up, relax, and move slowly.
I was able to watch both in sync (started both and then paused the one I started first for a split second to sync them up). The original video was very jumpy. Perhaps you had some bodacious current and surge. But I agree with others, that you could achieve the results of the stabilized version with the original camera (many of which have stabilization). But in terms of quality, the You Tube Stabilized version in this example is more pleasant to watch. For my own use, I have not seen a significant difference and so usually just go with my original.
Bottom line, the answer to "Is You Tube Stabilization" will depend on the individual video. For some, the difference is not worth the loss, for others (such as the OP example) the answer is yes it is worth it. Also worth it are investments in video lights that have a wider field of illumination.
A noobs suggestion: The camera needs to be held but not in a viselike grip. A very tight grip is not only tiring but transmits muscle tremors to the camera. Hold the camera, but don't choke it. In short, loosen up, relax, and move slowly.
OP
Slamfire
Contributor
The less shaky a video is to begin with, the better deshake will work and if you do a good enough job, you might not need any antishake at all. The sample video was shot with a Hero2 with no viewfinder nor lcd screen. You just basically have to use the force with this one, no targeting computer to get the photon torpedo into the death star.
My question is then, at what point of original shakiness is it more advantageous to apply software deshaker? Similarly, at what point of shakiness is the original video too far gone to try to rescue with software deshaker? I realize these are too ambiguous questions to try to answer with a clean cut universally applicable guideline. That's why I posted the sample videos. Are those too shaky to try to rescue and all I have is crap better suited for the recycle bin? Is the stabilized version marginally better or should I just stick with the original?
By comparison, look at Howard's video, it's so stable to begin with that it really doesn't matter that much if software deshaker was applied. It's so good that it shames my video shooting skills.
---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ----------
Also, I've found that when I hold the camera in front of my face and approach an animal, it usually gives me the tail and I end up with mostly tail shots of animals moving away. So on this dive I held the rig by one of the light arms with the camera about 2.5 in front of my face pointing perpendicularly to my swimming direction. It turns out this is good for getting side shots of animals, but not good at all for getting stable shots in the surge.
My question is then, at what point of original shakiness is it more advantageous to apply software deshaker? Similarly, at what point of shakiness is the original video too far gone to try to rescue with software deshaker? I realize these are too ambiguous questions to try to answer with a clean cut universally applicable guideline. That's why I posted the sample videos. Are those too shaky to try to rescue and all I have is crap better suited for the recycle bin? Is the stabilized version marginally better or should I just stick with the original?
By comparison, look at Howard's video, it's so stable to begin with that it really doesn't matter that much if software deshaker was applied. It's so good that it shames my video shooting skills.
---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ----------
This reef is around 30ft deep and there was some surge that night. You can see how the surge moves the plants and animals in relation to the fixed bottom. It got to the point that I had to throw up at 20ft shortly after initial descent on the 2nd dive of the night.
Also, I've found that when I hold the camera in front of my face and approach an animal, it usually gives me the tail and I end up with mostly tail shots of animals moving away. So on this dive I held the rig by one of the light arms with the camera about 2.5 in front of my face pointing perpendicularly to my swimming direction. It turns out this is good for getting side shots of animals, but not good at all for getting stable shots in the surge.
Stunning, just stunning!
OP
Slamfire
Contributor
I know! I saw that and I was thinking that my videos are not worthy of even being in the same thread as this.
That video is from Howard hall a professional that works for imax and nat geo and does not shoot a gopro for sure so of course there is no comparison
Similar threads
