How Do I get rid of "jello" when stabilizing hand held shots?

[Uli Plank]

I observe less with the Epic and about the same with Scarlet.

[Mick van Rossum, NSC]

I observe less with the Epic and about the same with Scarlet.

Did a test, mounted an Epic on a Scarlet and did some fast panning; the Scarlet has a bit more Jello indeed, but Epic was better than Red One. (non scientific test)

[Lee Dashiell]

I have never seen a rolling shutter/jello issue with RED One or Epic. I'm not aware of there ever being an issue with RED.

[kylebainter]

I have never seen a rolling shutter/jello issue with RED One or Epic. I'm not aware of there ever being an issue with RED.

I've never seen any on my RED One MX even shooting out a heli on my lap. But I have gotten Jello on the Epic. I'm wondering if it is because of the smaller size, being not as heavy, etc....

[Mike P.]

I've never seen any on my RED One MX even shooting out a heli on my lap. But I have gotten Jello on the Epic. I'm wondering if it is because of the smaller size, being not as heavy, etc....

Sensor is also bigger when you read the entire thing (as in, 5k vs 4k or 4.5k)

[Michael Brennan]

Hi Phil, I struggled precisely with the same problem of stabilizing aerials myself about a year ago. The challenge of stabilizing follows from the fact that the front glass of lens is far from being parallel with the ground level. For this reason a small change in tilt results in a rather big change in the projection onto the sensor. For an example, say one stands in the middle of a highway and shoots along the road shoots from a low angle. Changing the tilt and the hight a bit creates a rather big change in the projection of the highway onto the sensor.

Laurie,
If I understand correctly, the example you give is correct because the subject is close to the camera.
But I dont think it applies when the closest subject is 500 to 1000 feet from the lens.

Mike Brennan

[Michael Brennan]

Thank you , everyone for your comments on this thread. Just FYI, this shot was meant as a test only, so no offense taken on the "crappy footage" comment. I am planning a severe weather aerial storm chase, and expect that I will have to deal with footage at least this rough. So, I took a test flight in a Cessna last week just to see what it felt like. My Epic currently has the Optitek Nikon Mount but it may be worth purchasing the Canon mount and go with an IS lens. That is what I am thinking as I ponder everyone's comments.

Also, when I processed this in AE, I chose Position Scale, Rotation, not Subspace Warp (there is no pinning of the edges). I also chose Stabelize/Crop, not Autoscale.

Paul, thank you for going to the trouble to run another stabilization pass! I am impressed that most of my issues disappeared. Did you use The Foundry's Rolling Shutter plugin? Or did you just tweak the AE stabilizer? I did notice the luminance flashing at the top of the frame, what's that about? (not complaining, just want to understand).

Thanks again,
Phil

Phil,
The body is excellent at absorbing high frequency vibrations from the engine, so most of the shake is caused by ones body bouncing, one buffet can create a couple of body/arm bounces, if you are hand holding the movement of the arms trying to control extra G imparts unwanted tilts and pans, that far exceeds the rate and scope of the original buffet.
It is surprising how little wobble occurs when the camera is bolted to an airframe. But the issue with bolting a camera to an airframe is attenuating the high frequency vibrations caused by the engine.
Cinesaddle is good at reducing high frequency and eliminates secondary wobble so what is left is the aircraft wobble. A strut mounted camera in addition to hand held could be worth considering.

The difficulty in shooting near severe storms is the random localised downbursts where the rate of descent of the falling air is often greater than the rate of climb of the aircraft. ;)





Mike Brennan

[Lauri Kettunen]

Laurie,
If I understand correctly, the example you give is correct because the subject is close to the camera.
But I dont think it applies when the closest subject is 500 to 1000 feet from the lens.

Mike, the distance is not a true factor here. Although you have a point that objects become smaller with increasing distance and this may affect how the stabilized image appears. But I've seen the jello in aerials even the objects have been a mile away.