or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Premiere Pro CC Warp Stabilizer comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Premiere Pro CC Warp Stabilizer comparison

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
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.

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.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 7/13/13 at 6:32pm
post #2 of 6
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 !.

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.
post #3 of 6
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
post #4 of 6

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.

post #5 of 6
Thread Starter 
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.
post #6 of 6
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...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Premiere Pro CC Warp Stabilizer comparison