Premiere Pro CC Warp Stabilizer comparison - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 Old 07-13-2013, 06:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Stabilized one is on the left and non stabilized one in on the right. I just used the standard setting. Their are different settings to use. I shot this just to see how the stabilizer compares to the non stabilized footage and so I didn't care about shooting it well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CykDEwEhFg

I wish I had the Black Magic 4K camera doing this. In that case, it would matter a bit less how severe the shakes was since it has more resolution to deal with it if your final output is 1080p. It's true that a physical stabilizer also helps. Yes, it's true that YouTube has it's own stabilizer but for quality sake, it's better doing it on your own before you upload than to have YouTube destroy another generation of your footage. Still, for the people who doesn't have a program to stabilizer footage, the YouTube version is still fine. It took me about a half an hour to stabilize this clip. I'll update my CC software to make it fully up to date to see if it'll be any quicker. Probably not.

Too late now but I probably should have put this post in here than to make a new thread. Ah well.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475982/stabilizer-software
Paulo Teixeira is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 Old 07-14-2013, 05:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Pepster returns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I also use the ADOBE WARP STABILIZER for pretty much all my footage now - even locked down tripod shots.

I also have the Prodad MERCALLI stabilizer plugin for ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS, but, although it is quick to process, the footage looks waaay to soft for my liking.

WS works so well, that after going through all the trouble of stabilizing a fast jetboat ride on a very shallow (hit rocks !) Shotover River, I deleted it and used the original, SOOC footy instead, as the WS footy was waaaay to smooth - the boat hardly looked like it was moving !.
http://arcoonastudios.zenfolio.com/p897346936/h5c3ad6f6
http://arcoonastudios.zenfolio.com/p897346936/h5c3bbaf2

I believe the biggest single factor to give your footy a pro 'broadcast' look, is proper stabilization. WARP is magic - and it can also fix rolling shutter.
Pepster returns is offline  
post #3 of 10 Old 07-14-2013, 05:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
Pepster returns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
The jetboat footy in the last post was shot handheld on the tiny Canon EOSM with the tiny kit 22mm F2 lens, in a Dicapac WP610 waterproof bag http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/610181-REG/DiCAPac_WP610_WP610_Waterproof_Underwater_Case.html
Pepster returns is offline  
post #4 of 10 Old 07-17-2013, 11:09 AM
Member
 
RobAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Paulo,

That is some extreme zoom happening to eliminate the "floppy" panning you were doing smile.gif

I will never use the Youtube anti-shake feature. No control over how much of the sides gets chopped off and a lot of things can get missed when this happens.
I finally played around with my NLE built in stabilizer and it gives more control- but again with the cutting off of the outsides of the video.

So I stumbled upon Mercalli and from the looks of it- no extreme false cutting.. the test footage they have up look the same!
Is this true ? I need to d/l and try it for myself.

Rob
RobAC is offline  
post #5 of 10 Old 07-17-2013, 07:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 33
In order for the stabilizer to work, their has to be some zooming and it's true that you can control how much of a crop you want in an editor. With the way I was shooting, Premiere tried to be aggressive with my footage. For less severe shakes, it wont need that much zooming. I think I did see in the past that YouTube allows you to choose how much cropping you want with a YouTube editor. If I find the link, I'll post it.
Paulo Teixeira is online now  
post #6 of 10 Old 10-24-2013, 12:40 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mark Petersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Not completely true. Warp stabilizer has a non-crop mode that synthesizes the edges. That's supposed to be the hot ticket in getting the sharpest image. No cropping and stretching needed. That's the theory anyway, I haven't seen it proven to my satisfaction yet, but I'm still fiddling...
Mark Petersen is offline  
post #7 of 10 Old 01-06-2015, 01:05 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
The WARP STABILIZER is my favorite tool in Premiere pro. But I learned the hard way that you can't rely on it to fix all poor camera work. Not only it zooms into the frame, it also introduces a strange disorienting effect. Right now I'm going through great pains trying to fix stuff that I was sure I had under control when I was shooting relaxed, and without much care.
Glasper is offline  
post #8 of 10 Old 01-06-2015, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,166
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 109
This is a really old topic and it is about "Premier Pro". Last fall Adobe released version 13 of the baby version Premier Elements, and it's at least a cousin. There were only a couple key "new" features that were appealing to me, 4K and "an improved shake stabilzer". Over the Black Friday weekend the price got down to $40! The older versions had shake stabilizers, but the weren't very good.

My first experiment with 4K and the new stabilization seems to have worked well!

Here is a short two part clip, with and with out. It was shot in 4K while walking. The original is downloadable.

bsprague is offline  
post #9 of 10 Old 01-09-2015, 04:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glasper View Post
The WARP STABILIZER is my favorite tool in Premiere pro. But I learned the hard way that you can't rely on it to fix all poor camera work. Not only it zooms into the frame, it also introduces a strange disorienting effect. Right now I'm going through great pains trying to fix stuff that I was sure I had under control when I was shooting relaxed, and without much care.

The problem with those warp stabilizer is that they can create weird distortions when you are using lens stabilization. When the GH4 first came out and footage posted, I ran some of it through WS to reduce some of the camera shake. But what happened is that the IS was moving lens elements around inside the lens, causing subtle distortions in foreground objects set against a distant background (the foreground objects move back and forth relative to the background). Running the footage through WS eliminated most of the camera movement but amplified this foreground movement, resulting in a strange jelly pulsating effect. It looked like the foreground objects were on a sheet of paper that was slowly flexing in the breeze.

Last edited by Tugela; 01-09-2015 at 04:48 AM.
Tugela is offline  
post #10 of 10 Old 01-09-2015, 08:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,166
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
The problem with those warp stabilizer is that they can create weird distortions when you are using lens stabilization. When the GH4 first came out and footage posted, I ran some of it through WS to reduce some of the camera shake. But what happened is that the IS was moving lens elements around inside the lens, causing subtle distortions in foreground objects set against a distant background (the foreground objects move back and forth relative to the background). Running the footage through WS eliminated most of the camera movement but amplified this foreground movement, resulting in a strange jelly pulsating effect. It looked like the foreground objects were on a sheet of paper that was slowly flexing in the breeze.
Thanks for the tip. I saw some of that in my Premier Elements 13 test with the marina clip. I didn't know what it was and it was toward the end, so I trimmed it off.
bsprague is offline  
Reply Camcorders

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off