Neck chain or foot cord better for stability?
nikks
I want to attach a neck cord or foot cord to my compact (digital)
camera so it can be held taut. It's hard for me to test if the neck
or foot cord works better because I don't have a way to test using
the same amount of shake each time.
QUESTION 1: In your experience (or perhaps by the geometry of the
chain) which gives the least camera shake? Bearing in mind that
the digital camera is held away at a distance of about 15 inches in
my case.
When I tried these out I found the foot cord had a few inches of
extension whilst under tension as I used some of that scruffy
looking polyproylene cord. QUESTION 2: Would some sort of
specialised inextenisable cord be better (if such a thing exists)?
bugbear
> I have a couple of questions so please put up with me! :-)
>
> I want to attach a neck cord or foot cord to my compact (digital)
> camera so it can be held taut. It's hard for me to test if the neck
> or foot cord works better because I don't have a way to test using
> the same amount of shake each time.
>
> QUESTION 1: In your experience (or perhaps by the geometry of the
> chain) which gives the least camera shake? Bearing in mind that
> the digital camera is held away at a distance of about 15 inches in
> my case.
Surely a neck cord mainly controls front-back
motion (which is not much of an issue) whereas
a foot cord control up-down motion. That would
make a foot cord the winner.
> When I tried these out I found the foot cord had a few inches of
> extension whilst under tension as I used some of that scruffy
> looking polyproylene cord. QUESTION 2: Would some sort of
> specialised inextenisable cord be better (if such a thing exists)?
Try a chandlery, or hiking/climbing shop
BugBear
tony cooper
I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move. If you want
rigid, use a tripod.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bugbear
>
> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move.
Not vertically, it can't, and having something to brace
against (the tension) also helps your arms
reduce horizontal motion, I find.
> If you want
> rigid, use a tripod.
Well, to qualify, if you want TOTALLY rigid, yes, quite.
But a string-pod is lighter to carry, and may be permitted
where tripods aren't (museums and galleries, perhaps)
And a string pod gives (IMHO) around 1 1/2 - 2 stops
worth of improvement.
Here's mine, which has an addition over the minimal version;
a storage-winder-cum-length adjuster, and a hook (which goes
into a shoelace loop) to avoid getting mud on the string
from standing on it.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/string_pod.jpg
BugBear
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move.
>
>Not vertically, it can't,
Of course it can. If your body moves, the camera moves. If you could
hold your body completely motionless, you wouldn't need the cord.
> and having something to brace
>against (the tension) also helps your arms
>reduce horizontal motion, I find.
"Helps". Not "can't" (move), but "helps" (to minimize move).
>> If you want
>> rigid, use a tripod.
>
>Well, to qualify, if you want TOTALLY rigid, yes, quite.
>
>But a string-pod is lighter to carry, and may be permitted
>where tripods aren't (museums and galleries, perhaps)
I agree. My comment wasn't that the string-pod is not useful, but
that the OP should understand the limitations of the string-pod. He
seems to feel that the type of string/cord is essential. Any
string/cord that is not of a stretchable material like elastic will
suffice. The idea is to create tension, and any string or cord that
is strong enough to resist moderate pull will work.
nikks
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> nikks wrote:
>> I have a couple of questions so please put up with me! :-)
>>
>> I want to attach a neck cord or foot cord to my compact
>> (digital) camera so it can be held taut. It's hard for me to
>> test if the neck or foot cord works better because I don't
>> have a way to test using the same amount of shake each time.
>>
>> QUESTION 1: In your experience (or perhaps by the geometry
>> of the chain) which gives the least camera shake? Bearing in
>> mind that the digital camera is held away at a distance of
>> about 15 inches in my case.
>
> Surely a neck cord mainly controls front-back
> motion (which is not much of an issue)
I see what you mean. Altho' I feel the camera is held more
steady and this seems to helps to limit up-down and left-right
movement.
> whereas a foot cord control up-down motion. That would
> make a foot cord the winner.
>
>> When I tried these out I found the foot cord had a few inches
>> of extension whilst under tension as I used some of that
>> scruffy looking polyproylene cord. QUESTION 2: Would some
>> sort of specialised inextenisable cord be better (if such a
>> thing exists)?
>
> Try a chandlery, or hiking/climbing shop
>
Maybe I could use a tape measure. That shouldn't have any
stretch. Altho' the stretch does let the tension occur over
several inches and maybe that's a good trade off with the
alternative of changing the length inch by inch until the camera
is at the right height. Dunno.
nikks
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
Yes, I like that idea of a length adjuster.
Jürgen Exner
>I have a couple of questions so please put up with me! :-)
>
>I want to attach a neck cord or foot cord to my compact (digital)
>camera so it can be held taut. It's hard for me to test if the neck
>or foot cord works better because I don't have a way to test using
>the same amount of shake each time.
>
>QUESTION 1: In your experience (or perhaps by the geometry of the
>chain) which gives the least camera shake? Bearing in mind that
>the digital camera is held away at a distance of about 15 inches in
>my case.
Don't do that. Use the viewfinder and steady the camera against your
forehead. Your camera doesn't have a viewfinder? Well, too bad.
Or steady the camera against some stationary object, e.g. a doorframe, a
tree, a car hood, a pillar, a bridge railing, ...
Or use a tripod to begin with, that's what they are for.
>When I tried these out I found the foot cord had a few inches of
>extension whilst under tension as I used some of that scruffy
>looking polyproylene cord.
Well, that is the worst possible material for anything except when you
need a floating line.
>QUESTION 2: Would some sort of
>specialised inextenisable cord be better (if such a thing exists)?
Get a Kevlar line from any boat shop, they have virtually no stretch at
all.
jue
DT
I'm an old fart, but I just can't get used to trying to take photos
while waving the camera at arm's length. If you've got any kind of
viewfinder, learn to use it.
Barring that, put a neck strap on your camera. Then carry the
adjustable foot cord, and you'll have the best of both worlds. The two
strings and your body should make a fairly stable triangle.
DT
bugbear
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:10 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>>> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move.
>> Not vertically, it can't,
>
> Of course it can. If your body moves, the camera moves.
If there's a piece of (more or less) inelastic
cord running more-or-less vertically to
a fixed point on the ground (your foot), how
can the camera move up or down?
left and right, yes, forward and back, also yes,
but vertically? I don't see how.
Can you explain?
BugBear
Pat
What about a steadycam?
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
>I have a couple of questions so please put up with me! :-)
>
>I want to attach a neck cord or foot cord to my compact (digital)
>camera so it can be held taut. It's hard for me to test if the neck
>or foot cord works better because I don't have a way to test using
>the same amount of shake each time.
That is all you really need to know to answer your question.
If YOU can not see a difference, then there is no meaningful
difference.
There may be a difference to me or may not. Chances are not
everyone will experience a difference and I would bet that those who
do experience a difference will not all experience the same
difference, with some doing well with the one and others doing their
best with the other.
>
>QUESTION 1: In your experience (or perhaps by the geometry of the
>chain) which gives the least camera shake? Bearing in mind that
>the digital camera is held away at a distance of about 15 inches in
>my case.
I have used both and seldom use either. I try to just brace
myself against a wall or some other object. It seems to work as well
if one is available. My second choice would be the foot, but that is
because I found it easier to use.
ray
I would think you'd get better results holding the camera in the 'old-
fashioned' way - up in front of your eye. Holding things at arm's length
is just simply not very stable.
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
When you move your body forward and back it results in a movement of a
camera extended at arm's length in a vertical arc. All you have to do
to understand this is to try it.
The objective of the string is to steady the camera. It helps do
this, but it does not immobilize the camera. How much it helps is not
dependent on the type of string/cord.
Wayne R.
<krishn...@divine-life.org> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>Aircraft cable:
>
><https://www.kryptonitelock.com/products/ProductDetail.aspx?cid=1001&scid
>=1001&pid=1124>
A truly good selection of aircraft cable (and pretty much anything
else that's hardware) is at McMaster.
<http://www.mcmaster.com/#aircraft-cable/=169qr9>
Fittings, etc., also, for those cables.
(Play with the site, it's terrific. Just type "screws" into the
search, it's amazing. And their service is also terrific.)
TheRealSteve
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:10 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move.
>
>Not vertically, it can't, and having something to brace
>against (the tension) also helps your arms
>reduce horizontal motion, I find.
>
>> If you want
>> rigid, use a tripod.
>
>Well, to qualify, if you want TOTALLY rigid, yes, quite.
>
>But a string-pod is lighter to carry, and may be permitted
>where tripods aren't (museums and galleries, perhaps)
>
>And a string pod gives (IMHO) around 1 1/2 - 2 stops
>worth of improvement.
I like the string pod idea for a compact P&S camera. But anything
heavier will be kind of a pain to keep the string taut. For that, use
a monopod. A lot of places that don't allow tripods do allow
monopods. And a good monopod will work much better than a string pod
even for a P&S.
Steve
Chris Malcolm
The objective is to reduce image blur due to camera shake. If the
camera is pointing roughly straightforwards and the cord is roughly
vertical then the motion you describe is orthogonal to the image plane
and will result in very little image blurring.
It will also definitely help to be using a kind of cord which can't be
stretched perceptibly by the usual pulling taut forces, which will not
be true of weaker or more elastic cords.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Add another foot cord for the other foot and you have an even more stable
tetrahedron :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
bugbear
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:54:02 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:10 +0000, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>>>>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>>>>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>>>>> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move.
>>>> Not vertically, it can't,
>>> Of course it can. If your body moves, the camera moves.
>> If there's a piece of (more or less) inelastic
>> cord running more-or-less vertically to
>> a fixed point on the ground (your foot), how
>> can the camera move up or down?
>>
>> left and right, yes, forward and back, also yes,
>> but vertically? I don't see how.
>>
>> Can you explain?
>
> When you move your body forward and back it results in a movement of a
> camera extended at arm's length in a vertical arc. All you have to do
> to understand this is to try it.
yes, but if the angle of the arc is small, the vertical change
is very small. Try it, or do the math.
>
> The objective of the string is to steady the camera. It helps do
> this, but it does not immobilize the camera.
This trivial point is already agreed on.
BugBear
bugbear
>
> I would think you'd get better results holding the camera in the 'old-
> fashioned' way - up in front of your eye. Holding things at arm's length
> is just simply not very stable.
Actually, that's not the *most* stable. An old trick
with a TLR was to press the camera into your stomach,
and pull down on the neck strap.
A TLR's waist level viewfinder makes this practical.
This gives very good stability.
Although (before somebody points it out)
not as stable as a heavy tripod.
BugBear
Avery
Kevlar cord from a boat supply shop. Very light, strong and no
stretch.
tony cooper
wrote:
Can you tell me the difference between "steady the camera" and "reduce
image blur due to camera shake"? Or "it helps do this" and "very
little blurring"?
You've said the same thing I have, Chris, but posed it as
contradiction.
>It will also definitely help to be using a kind of cord which can't be
>stretched perceptibly by the usual pulling taut forces, which will not
>be true of weaker or more elastic cords.
And then inserted a "duh".
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
What is not clear about "the cord *minimizes* shake"?
>>
>> The objective of the string is to steady the camera. It helps do
>> this, but it does not immobilize the camera.
>
>This trivial point is already agreed on.
Then why are you disagreeing?
The string is an aid to keeping the camera steady. It does not
prevent camera movement. Used correctly, it can minimize camera
movement.
ray
I didn't say it was the *most* stable. I said it would be better than
trying to hold at arm's length - which is about the *least* stable, no
matter how you slice it.
bugbear
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:07:30 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:54:02 +0000, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:10 +0000, bugbear
>>>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>>>>>>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>>>>>>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>>>>>> Not vertically, it can't, ###################
>>>>> Of course it can. If your body moves, the camera moves. #################
>>>> If there's a piece of (more or less) inelastic
>>>> cord running more-or-less vertically to
>>>> a fixed point on the ground (your foot), how
>>>> can the camera move up or down?
>>>>
>>>> left and right, yes, forward and back, also yes,
>>>> but vertically? I don't see how.
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain?
>>> When you move your body forward and back it results in a movement of a
>>> camera extended at arm's length in a vertical arc. All you have to do
>>> to understand this is to try it.
>> yes, but if the angle of the arc is small, the vertical change
>> is very small. Try it, or do the math.
>
> What is not clear about "the cord *minimizes* shake"?
>
>>> The objective of the string is to steady the camera. It helps do
>>> this, but it does not immobilize the camera.
>> This trivial point is already agreed on.
>
> Then why are you disagreeing?
On the narrow point of your claiming that a camera fixed to the ground
by an inelastic cord can move VERTICALLY.
(in the lines marked with #'s above)
BugBear
bugbear
Agreed. I was trying (and apparently failing :-( )
to add to the discussion, with a hopefully relevant
and helpful tip.
BugBear
bugbear
Or a bow string from an archery supply shop, should you be near
such a thing. They're also Kevlar.
Kevlar is overkill for the purpose at hand though!
BugBear
tony cooper
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
The only way you are going to understand this is to do it. Get
yourself a camera and a string. Point the camera to some specific
point. Now, sway forward or backwards. Notice that the camera is
then pointed higher or lower. That's vertical movement. The string
did not stop you from swaying. Just a slight sway will move the
actual point of focus several inches.
The fact that the camera is fixed to the ground by an inelastic cord
doesn't stop the movement. Try it with a monopod. In that case,
you've fixed the camera to the ground with a rigid pole. Swaying will
still cause vertical movement in an arc.
The idea of a string-pod is to minimize movement of the camera because
we involuntarily move our bodies. Swaying is an involuntary movement
that we don't really notice.
Ever been to a meeting with a speaker who sways (usually left and
right) during his presentation? It'll drive you nuts. Ask him, after
the meeting, if he's aware that he sways. He'll deny it.
J. Clarke
Oh, Holy Crap. Nobody is claiming that a string-pod is a substitute for an
85 pound studio tripod. The issue is whether it is better than just holding
the thing without assistance, and enough people have found it to be so, it's
cheap enough to implement, and the downside if some particular individual
finds it doesn't help him is so tiny that I don't see any point in arguing
the matter. Just get fifty cents worth of string and ten cent screw and try
it. If it doesn't work for you then toss the bolt into your junk drawer
until you need it and pull the string for the cat to play with and what have
you lost?
Wally
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The only way you are going to understand this is to do it. Get
>yourself a camera and a string. Point the camera to some specific
>point. Now, sway forward or backwards. Notice that the camera is
>then pointed higher or lower. That's vertical movement. The string
>did not stop you from swaying. Just a slight sway will move the
>actual point of focus several inches.
>
>The fact that the camera is fixed to the ground by an inelastic cord
>doesn't stop the movement. Try it with a monopod. In that case,
>you've fixed the camera to the ground with a rigid pole. Swaying will
>still cause vertical movement in an arc.
This is indeed a very difficult and highly technical subject.
Seems to me that using a string from foot to camera will essentially
eliminate vertical movement of the camera. Movement of the camera to
and fro, and side to side, will still happen. But any of these camera
movements will have little effect on the image of a distant subject.
I said movement of the camera -- that is, translational movement.
Rotation of the camera is different.
The string won't impede rotation of the camera about the vertical
axis, but should reduce rotation about the other two axes. That will
help steady the image.
This swaying you are talking about... if it is slight, it constitutes
just about only translational movement, with little rotation... its
effects can be ignored for distant subjects.
If you find you are personally swaying more than this, and (say) the
street lights in your night shots are always smeared vertically, then
perhaps you have bigger problems.
Wally
tony cooper
>On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:16:35 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The only way you are going to understand this is to do it. Get
>>yourself a camera and a string. Point the camera to some specific
>>point. Now, sway forward or backwards. Notice that the camera is
>>then pointed higher or lower. That's vertical movement. The string
>>did not stop you from swaying. Just a slight sway will move the
>>actual point of focus several inches.
>>
>>The fact that the camera is fixed to the ground by an inelastic cord
>>doesn't stop the movement. Try it with a monopod. In that case,
>>you've fixed the camera to the ground with a rigid pole. Swaying will
>>still cause vertical movement in an arc.
>
>This is indeed a very difficult and highly technical subject.
>
>Seems to me that using a string from foot to camera will essentially
>eliminate vertical movement of the camera. Movement of the camera to
>and fro, and side to side, will still happen. But any of these camera
>movements will have little effect on the image of a distant subject.
Where I would use a string pod is when I going into an area where I
didn't want to carry heavy gear and might be photographing small
object like songbirds at a distance with a longer lens. Small
targets. I agree completely that the string pod would *help*
stabilize the camera. Minimize, in other words.
>This swaying you are talking about... if it is slight, it constitutes
>just about only translational movement, with little rotation... its
>effects can be ignored for distant subjects.
Not small objects like songbirds at a distance. The whole image might
not show much effect of movement, but the bird details will.
Chris Malcolm
Because some camera motions introduce much more image blur than others
of the same magnitude, if you're trying to reduce image blur by
steadying the camera you should concentrate on steadying movement in
the directions responsible for the most blur. With wide angle lenses
translatioal movements produce the most blur, whereas with long lenses
it's rotational movements.
When holding a camera at arm's length vertical translational and pitch
rotational shaking due to trying to exert fine muscular control over
the long levers of the arm contribute far more to image blurring than
the translational and rotational components of body sway. But if
holding the camera pressed firmly into the face or forehead to look
through the viewfinder this is no longer true.
A foot string is good at reducing vertical translation.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> ray wrote:
>>
>> I would think you'd get better results holding the camera in the 'old-
>> fashioned' way - up in front of your eye. Holding things at arm's length
>> is just simply not very stable.
> Actually, that's not the *most* stable. An old trick
> with a TLR was to press the camera into your stomach,
> and pull down on the neck strap.
> A TLR's waist level viewfinder makes this practical.
> This gives very good stability.
If you can aim using a viewscreen visible from various angles there
are lots more good body stabilising tricks. If you can look down on
the screen you can drop down on one knee and stand the camera on the
other knee. That's a very good body stabilisation method, but needs a
screen which can be viewed from above.
For long telephotos you can lie on your back with your knees up and
together and prop your log lens between them, another very stable
position usable with a back-viewable LCD.
--
Chris Malcolm
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> saying
something like:
>This is indeed a very difficult and highly technical subject.
Indeed. The best solution is for the hapless stringpod user to have a
vertical cord, a second cord looped around the neck for P&S LCD users to
provide horizontal stability, and a pole rammed up their arse, so that
they my form a human tripod.
edi...@netpath.net
photographing stuff for Web sale and illustrating articles. The
resulting photos are sharp enough to clearly see scratches on the
countertop!
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your souce for hard-to-find stuff!
bugbear
> The only way you are going to understand this is to do it. Get
> yourself a camera and a string. Point the camera to some specific
> point. Now, sway forward or backwards. Notice that the camera is
> then pointed higher or lower. That's vertical movement.
That's angular movement.
X,Y,Z pitch, roll yaw.
String pods control Z
BugBear
Pat
There are other, easy stabilization techniques out there, you know.
For example, bow hunters need to hold a bow against a fully extended
arm. They need to hold it to get a pretty accurate shot and no second
chance. For stability, they often add weight to the bow, in fact bows
come with a pre-drilled, pre-engineered place to add it. It helps
some during sighting but it helps a whole lot when you let go of the
string and release an arrow -- which creates all kinds of movements in
3-D. So one thing to consider in stabilization is to just bolt a
weight to the bottom of the camera. If you use screw a threaded rod
-- especially a long one -- in the tripod hole and put a weight on it
(maybe 3' below the camera), you have a rudimentary steadycam.
I've also seen someone use an umbrella as a stabilizer, indoors, as a
crude steadycam. Any movement is buffered by the large surface area
against the air.
Peter
news:sl8qs4la6ahe20kld...@4ax.com...
>
> Ever been to a meeting with a speaker who sways (usually left and
> right) during his presentation? It'll drive you nuts. Ask him, after
> the meeting, if he's aware that he sways. He'll deny it.
>
Some speakers are better at swaying, left or right, than others. :-)
--
Peter
Alan Browne
Well put. ;-)
It's a common thing for speakers who are a little nervous. I've been
known to do it myself (a presentation in DC a few years ago with about
300 in the audience, shareholders and some rather interesting former WH
cabinet members and retired generals comes to mind...).
And I don't need to be told, I realize it and try to calm it.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Irwell
Especially when shoes are being hurled at them.