Using Stablilization - trade off in video clarity?

I must admit that I am no expert at using Stabilization in DaVinci Resolve and my use has been largely experimental and through bits of following online advice and trial and error.

I am going through many recordings of stage performances by one person, a monodrama. The performances that are not good quality were mostly either taken by mobile phones or an old Sony HDR CX240 camcorder and there have been other issues to do with incorrect settings for low light recordings and the camera being too far from the stage. Many recordings have almost been deemed unusable because there is so much camera shake.

Generally some settings I would try are either the default Stablilization setting which is:

Mode: Perspective
Zoom: Ticked
Cropping Ratio: 0.500
Smooth: 0.250
Strength: 1.00

or a one new attempted variation of the above which I tried recently of me walking behind someone else walking in a forest as:

Mode: Perspective
Zoom: Ticked
Cropping Ratio: 0.900 (I do not wish to crop so much and I wish to keep as much of the original video as possible)
Smooth: 0.250
Strength: 0.500

I am not sure there is a one size fits all solution for stablization and there seems to be a trade off in terms of video clarity for most of my stablization attempts. Also many of my results, while certainly reducing video shake, appear unnatural.

Any ideas?

Problem of stabilization (in any software) is two-fold:
1) Transformation that counteracts motion in footage can introduce softness due to filtering. Image needs to be resampled to apply a transform and that resampling is in essence a custom-weighted averaging of pixel values. Different filter kernel types can try to counteract it by applying sharpening but its effect can vary.
2) Stabilization magnifies the visual prominence of motion blur, which originally was hidden in the motion. Removing motion makes it more visible and it looks as if image is blurred. That blur was there from the beginning ofcourse, it just isn't that noticeable by itself when image moves around all the time. There is no practical way around this in Resolve afaik, de-convolution (blur removal) is a nontrivial problem.

Whether stabilized footage is artistically nice is a matter of taste, just like artificial camera shake.

Hi. I'm no expert either. I experimented with stabize in post but never use it in camera.
One thing I did was put 1080p into a 1080p timeline, and stabilize. Let's say there is a ball in center of frame and it's bouncing around from shake (up down right left). To keep it in center when it moves right the image must move left, which would leave a black line ( end of frame on right ), so it has to zoom IN to keep that line from showing up. That in itself will degrade the image, the zoom in part.

So how about if you have 1080p stuff and put it into a 720p timeline ? When it zooms in you don't lose quality of the image.

Just a thought.

For short bumps there's a de-blur filter in Adobe After Effects. It doesn't work miracles, but sometimes it does a decent job. I wish there was something like it in DR.

So how about if you have 1080p stuff and put it into a 720p timeline ? When it zooms in you don't lose quality of the image.

Just a thought.

Thanks for all these replies so far...

So if I understand what you mean is initially creating a new timeline of 1280 x 720 HD 720p (see screenshot attached):

1280 x 720 HD 720p

Screenshot 2024-05-13 164425.png (61.65 KiB) Viewed 1546 times

rather than the default timeline of 1920 x 1080 HD, importing the media and then try to stabilize the clip or even changing the existing timeline to those settings?

By the way when I import clips into DaVinci I normally never change the project frame rate. I don't know if this is correct procedure (see screenshot attached):

Change Project Frame Rate

Screenshot 2024-05-13 164846.png (30.66 KiB) Viewed 1546 times

yes, 720p. I don't know about changing existing timeline. I think I would just make new project as 720 and import the stuff and let it fit the project monitor. So you see the whole frame of 1080 in the 720 project.

I do really short simple stuff so I don't care much about frame rate changes. If I shoot 23.97fps and start a 24fps project it won't matter for sound sync if I change the fps or not. I think usually I click yes ( to change to project) but when I deliver ( export for vimeo etc. ) I use 24fps. That stuff doesn't matter much cause if you round off 23.97 it is 24. Only long projects and sound sync will be effected by those settings IMO.

I'll practice your method and see what comes of it...

There is not much I can do about poor past recordings but can just try to learn and look to the future...

My main camera is now a basic Sony ZV-E10 which I still need to learn... I have Sony's Wireless Shooting Grip which is the GP-VPT2BT as well as a standard tripod for recordings. It looks like professionals use professional stabilizers which is beyond my budget at the moment. So except for low light recording which is an art to get right, at least for me, this camera is better than the other one.

On a technical point when I import video clips into DaVinci I don't normally add a timeline but just let DaVinci add its own timeline when the clip is dragged down to the editing area. I hope this is correct...
At some point I expect to be working on a largish personal project with many video clips and photographs etc. and if I am correct timelines do not need to be manually created first before importing multiple video clips?

I think the basics are this:
make a project that resembles what you want to deliver ( export on deliver page), but keep in mind that you can do a 1080p project and export it at lower resolution ( like 720p at the end ) and make proxies and optimized stuff that suits your needs. In my case if I got 4k sony stuff from a DP I have to optimize it as dnxhq ( for pc) or my wimpy computer starts choking on the 4k stuff. Here's an example. It was sony 4k and exported I think as 720p, from a 1080p timeline.

the computer was choking on the 4k stuff otherwise ... I have an old computer with 4 drives ( source, cache, exports, and something else I can't remember now... some SSD some spinning raid.

about 2 min or 3 min.



it's all wild sound except a couple seconds ( like kid yelling yeah snoopy)... and it was in 1080p exported I think as 720p for vimeo.

optimized as dnxhq 1080p

I just do simple stuff and make my timelines manually knowing what source I got and how I have to optimize it ( aka proxy) and export. simple stuff. Start simple and see what you can handle with storage and resolutions and keep pushing the envelope little by little ( especially as you will do color stuff and other things as you move along ). I have to do basic level adjustments using micro panel ( lift gamma gain) just so I can start basic edit, and then bounce back and forth from edit to color. I never use fusion or sound stuff cause my sound stuff is audition and saved as wav and then sync'd with clapper. Simple stuff.

good luck

Thanks for all your help. I like your video. It's actually quite interesting and makes you feel as though you wish it were Christmas...

I will take your advice and try out your suggestions.

I upgraded from Windows Movie Maker to DaVinci Resolve a couple of years ago and have no regrets in doing so. I just try to figure out problems by myself as they come along using online resources but it will probably soon be time to do some video or book training, even if it does not cover all these small problems.

Looking forward, I will try to prevent these problems again by learning the new camera better even if it takes more time than I wish. My main enemies have been wind and low light, which I have been learning the hard way...

A half decent tripod is more stable than a gimbal. The problem is you can't walk with a tripod while filming. You could put it on wheels I guess but that won't work on rough ground.

But if you're in a situation a fixed tripod shot is fine you don't need to dream about a gimbal.

You can hang a small, cheap tripod off your camera when going handheld. It'll stabilize your camera to some degree by inertia. Next, train to walk like, no, not an Egyptian, but like a dancer, keeping your knees bent.

Next, train to walk like, no, not an Egyptian, but like a dancer, keeping your knees bent.

!!!

The Marching Band Trick to Steadier Handheld Moving Shots
I stumbled across this some time back. It looks silly when you are doing it, but seems to help.

If you want to get a clean picture here is the order of importance:

A Fixed, Stable Tripod Setup: This is the most critical factor for achieving stable video footage. A sturdy tripod eliminates unwanted movement and vibration, essential for any type of video recording, especially in scenarios requiring long takes or fixed shots.

Sensor-Based Image Stabilization: This stabilization corrects video shake by adjusting the sensor's position inside the camera body. It's particularly effective because it compensates for movement across all axes, providing smooth footage regardless of the lens used. This makes it invaluable for dynamic shooting situations where handheld camera work is involved.

Gimbal Stabilization: Gimbals provide excellent stabilization for dynamic, moving shots by using motors and sensors to maintain the camera's orientation. Ideal for handheld use, gimbals allow for smooth movement even when the operator is walking, running, or moving over uneven terrain.

Lens-Based Image Stabilization: This technique reduces shake by adjusting elements within the lens. It's especially beneficial for zoom lenses that magnify the effects of camera shake, making it a key tool for videographers who need to capture clear footage at varying focal lengths.

Stabilization in Post-Production: Digital stabilization in post-production helps to refine video stability. However, it's generally less effective than in-camera stabilization methods because it typically does not have access to gyroscopic data (3D motion information), which leads to less precise compensation for camera movement.

I would consider post-production stabilization primarily as a hack you should try to get it right way before that.

I'm really happy to see so many good posts and suggestions from so many talented people.
To the original poster I would just get back to basics and take things one at a time.
In my experience film has always been a way to tell a story ( whether it is journalistic, documentary, drama, industrial or 'commercial' ( selling a product)). So the first thing is to decide what you are going to do with the camera ( what purpose and story). Regardless of whether you have millions of dollars or no dollars you decide what you want as a 'product'. With millions you can hire crews, rent equipment, do pre production and scouting and casting and distribution etc.... while people like me just go out with a prosumer camera to do something simple or edit something simple by myself.
I'm not steven spielberg or clint eastward or you know what I mean. I'm just a retired grip who wants to keep being productive some way with cheap prosumer cameras and no money.
A young person can really use the current stuff to learn about the basics and eventually become the next famous DP, Director, Producer, Editor, etc. which is the GOOD thing about what technology is providing.
Spielberg started as a kid with 8mm film using supermarket carts as his dolly, or whatever he could find on wheels to follow motion of kid friend 'actors'. The new technology is offering tons of opportunity.

Focus on the basics, like you said... learn about the camera you got and how to get the most out of it. Focus on some kind of 'story' or product. You could sell your TV if you want to, with a few shots of the TV and some friend being 'interviewed' by you about the value of the TV.... do what you want and keep it simple and learn.
If you edit and you didn't shoot it you'll need the script, the sides, the sound to sync ( never in camera on pro jobs) and use that to put the puzzle pieces together. Stuff is NEVER shot in sequence... like sc. 1, sc. 2, sc. 3 ( take 4), etc. It's a puzzle to put together in post. Pro editing stuff requires tons of people like doing dailies ( to strike sets and move on), do edit, do color, do export, etc.

It's a giant factory kind of business and the best thing is to start simple, love it, and stick with it.

I can't tell you how many times and hours I've spent leveling track and putting down dance floors, and making marks on floor and on hydraulic boom arm for camera dolly to keep it smooth and match the actor's marks so it's in focus and the right shot for editing. More than 30 years of it. Stabilization was ME and the dolly, camera cranes, jib arms, and all that. So just start fresh and do what you can.

For short bumps there's a de-blur filter in Adobe After Effects. It doesn't work miracles, but sometimes it does a decent job. I wish there was something like it in DR.

Topaz video enhancer do sometime miracle with motion deblur, but cost time processing long time processing


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Sometimes it does miracles, sometimes makes it worse. AI is still quite unpredictable. Or does it just have a different taste than humans?

I'm really happy to see so many good posts and suggestions from so many talented people.

I completely agree with you. Many thanks to all contributors for your feedback and suggestions.

There is a reality to this though... A family member of mine has performed monodramas over the years. In many shows there really wasn't the budget to hire a professional person to make recordings and many years ago no recordings were made at all, even though we have photographs, but when there was, which was in the minority of cases, the videos are generally excellent with not just a camera in a fixed position but at least some zooming forwards and backwards and in one or two cases, use of multiple cameras. Sadly this is in the minority of cases and even when I could go back and try to find some other well-produced footage it was destroyed by the television channel in the UK - hard to believe, but true. Putting together someone's personal archive and trying to show their life in the way in which they want is also a responsibility but there is a side to this which is very rewarding as well because you are recording history. 

I'm trying to watch as many documentaries as possible to learn the tricks of the trade, especially on biographies of famous people. I am sure if I gave this project to someone professional, they would do a better job than me but we don't have a budget at all and then you would really have to trust the person that you are working with.

maybe think about a voice over ( V.O. ) to bridge the gaps between the video you have and the still images you have to tell the story. Time the V.O. with a stop watch so you know how many seconds you are dealing with when you get your pace and Rythm going with the overall edit ( and other music etc.).
Write stuff down and do simple story boards with arrows pointing to parts of the V.O., whatever it takes to get the basics down before you start the edit.
The narration ( V.O) will tell the story with the images, along with music. Here's a simple example using just still images about a friend of mine who died years ago.

maybe think about a voice over ( V.O. ) to bridge the gaps between the video you have and the still images you have to tell the story. Time the V.O. with a stop watch so you know how many seconds you are dealing with when you get your pace and Rythm going with the overall edit ( and other music etc.).
Write stuff down and do simple story boards with arrows pointing to parts of the V.O., whatever it takes to get the basics down before you start the edit.
The narration ( V.O) will tell the story with the images, along with music. Here's a simple example using just still images about a friend of mine who died years ago.

This was a really effective video. Thank you.

We have a lot of family pictures going back to even around the 1940s and before. I was always afraid to introduce background music to this project but your example has clarified things a little. I would have to look at royalty-free background music to use etc.

I have actually practiced a few things in DaVinci like zooming and using dynamic zoom etc. and it seems as though most photographs in documentaries don't stand still. Luckily the majority of the old photographs we have were scanned with a standard scanner and the quality is acceptable. This is a far more enjoyable part of the project than trying to sort out the video clips and being frustrated about quality issues!

I also managed to find newspaper articles and go hunting online in the off chance that a website has something hidden in it.

There is of course the legal side to using these materials but I think the general line of it will be for 'non-profit educational purposes' and it will probably be shown privately in the first instance to get some feedback.

I often think that people should write their own life stories as well (autobiographies) before leaving us, if possible, but we are now living in a TikTok world of fast visual actions...

I have done some testing at home and find that zooming on photographs for longer rather than shorter periods gives me more time to concentrate on them. This goes against the grain of what is happening today with quick scene changes etc.

So with the photographs, newspaper articles, audio clips, video clips and narration I hope that we will get an effective result.

I was thinking generally of recording video of the subject narrating and doing full screen overlays of the above photographs, newspaper articles, audio clips and video clips. I am not sure if this is the correct way to do it or using your example audio only or a mix of video and audio.

I have never used DaVinci for a big project but I can see one danger that there will be masses of gigabytes to process. Also I am not sure whether to film the subject narrating in 4K or HD as this will be for internal and not online showings.

Google Ken Burns effect.

The method I'm fairly sure is older then him but his name has become attached to it.

Google Ken Burns effect.

The method I'm fairly sure is older then him but his name has become attached to it.

I just saw a video about this on YouTube but I didn't know that it was used for videos as well:

I've generally been testing out Dynamic Zoom with only photographs and it actually seems to have a better effect if the photograph is left for longer i.e. 7 plus seconds and not 3-4 seconds etc.

if you use on video ( and stills as well ) try to make sure the image/video is large enough to zoom in and not lose resolution ( start looking fuzzy ). for example, you can put 4k into a 1080 timeline and zoom in and not lose quality... I forget how far you can go but think it's somewhere around 50% ?? someone here will know.

You can even go a bit further with SuperScale (Studio only).

The Marching Band Trick to Steadier Handheld Moving Shots
I stumbled across this some time back. It looks silly when you are doing it, but seems to help.

Nice video.

First time I see someone talking about walking techniques for handheld.

if you use on video ( and stills as well ) try to make sure the image/video is large enough to zoom in and not lose resolution ( start looking fuzzy ). for example, you can put 4k into a 1080 timeline and zoom in and not lose quality... I forget how far you can go but think it's somewhere around 50% ?? someone here will know.

I am thinking of filming in 4K instead of HD now, or at least trying to do so, as I have lost quality after cropping videos filmed in HD.

I have no experience of filming in 4K. Is it that much better in general in terms of quality, even if you don't crop or zoom?

4k is about four times the resolution of HD.

But to which degree that's visible depends most of all on the device your audience is using…

And regarding the marching band video: quite a few more of that guys videos are worth watching, if you also want to understand the technology of our cameras better.

But to which degree that's visible depends most of all on the device your audience is using…

I'm just going to show this on my PC linked to a television or larger screen for now. I have no intention of putting the final documentary online.

On another point, if I use 4K for filming, and before importing media into DaVinci with video clips, which will be mostly in HD format, will the standard timeline of 1920 x 1080 HD (i.e. standard project settings) also accept 4K and is it necessary to create this timeline first before importing 4K videos into DaVinci?

DR is pretty much resolution agnostic. Many users with a bit weaker hardware tend to keep the timeline at HD while working and switch to UHD before rendering.

DR is pretty much resolution agnostic. Many users with a bit weaker hardware tend to keep the timeline at HD while working and switch to UHD before rendering.

OK, many thanks for your advice. My hardware is quite strong but there is no harm in testing this out first...

I'm no expert at my camera settings. I selected XAVC 4K as the file format but it gives me an option of record settings as either 25p 60M or 25p 100M. I'm not sure which one to choose?

Everything else being the same, a higher bitrate will be better quality.

Everything else being the same, a higher bitrate will be better quality.

Thanks a lot. As I thought. I will start doing some testing with 4K recordings.