Re: Neck chain or foot cord better for stability?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:51:07 GMT, 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.
    >
    >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)?


    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
     
    tony cooper, Mar 26, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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 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.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    DT Guest

    nikks wrote:
    > On Thu 26-Mar-2009 13:57, 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.
    >>
    >> 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
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I like that idea of a length adjuster.


    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
     
    DT, Mar 26, 2009
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.

    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.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 26, 2009
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    TheRealSteve Guest

    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
     
    TheRealSteve, Mar 26, 2009
    #5
  6. In rec.photo.digital 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.
    >>>>> 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.


    > 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.


    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, Mar 27, 2009
    #6
  7. In rec.photo.digital DT <> wrote:
    > nikks wrote:
    >> On Thu 26-Mar-2009 13:57, 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.
    >>>
    >>> 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
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, I like that idea of a length adjuster.


    > 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.


    Add another foot cord for the other foot and you have an even more stable
    tetrahedron :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 27, 2009
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On 27 Mar 2009 10:21:23 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    wrote:

    >In rec.photo.digital 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.
    >>>>>> 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.

    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >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.


    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 - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2009
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
    >>>>>> 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.


    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.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2009
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:40:05 +0000, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>>>>>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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


    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.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2009
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    J. Clarke Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:40:05 +0000, bugbear
    > <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >
    >> tony cooper wrote:
    >>> 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. 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.
    >>>
    >>> 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

    >
    > 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.


    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?
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 27, 2009
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    Wally Guest

    On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:16:35 -0400, tony cooper
    <> 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
     
    Wally, Mar 28, 2009
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:38:54 -0600, Wally <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:16:35 -0400, tony cooper
    ><> 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.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 28, 2009
    #13
  14. In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On 27 Mar 2009 10:21:23 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > wrote:


    >>In rec.photo.digital 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.
    >>>>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>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.


    > Can you tell me the difference between "steady the camera" and "reduce
    > image blur due to camera shake"?


    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, Mar 28, 2009
    #14
  15. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember Wally <> 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.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Mar 28, 2009
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    Pat Guest

    On Mar 27, 11:46 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:38:54 -0600, Wally <> wrote:
    > >On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:16:35 -0400, tony cooper
    > ><> 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.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    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.
     
    Pat, Mar 30, 2009
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > 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
     
    Peter, May 1, 2009
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    Irwell Guest

    On Fri, 1 May 2009 12:50:19 -0400, Peter wrote:

    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> 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. :)


    Especially when shoes are being hurled at them.
     
    Irwell, May 1, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. n
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    787
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Dec 4, 2004
  2. ray
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    295
    Chris Malcolm
    Mar 28, 2009
  3. Mary Hanna

    Neck Strap & USB cord

    Mary Hanna, Oct 18, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    553
    Mary Hanna
    Oct 18, 2009
  4. Mary Hanna

    Neck Strap & USB cord

    Mary Hanna, Oct 19, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    477
    Richard
    Oct 19, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    399
    Sweetpea
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page