How to tell when stabilisation is what is making your footage shaky

Last updated 2026-09-15 · 8 min read

What is the short version?

Stabilisation is a correction, and a correction can lose. When the processing cannot separate camera movement from subject movement it invents a slow drift of its own, and what comes back is footage that swims in a way the original clip never did.

1. Go to Vizard Agent with both versions.
2. Say the processed cut is worse than the source.
3. Ask for a version with no motion processing at all.

What do you need before you start?

The processed cut and the original files, both of them. Vizard Agent needs the pair because the entire diagnosis is a comparison — "it feels shaky" is not something anybody can act on until it becomes "it is shakier than the footage I handed over".

• The original clips. Untouched.
• The processed version. For comparison.
• Where it looks worst. A timestamp helps.
• Whether reframing was applied. It compounds the problem.
• How long the cut needs to be. Steady holds are shorter.

What do you type into Vizard Agent?

Tell Vizard Agent it is worse than the source, in those exact words. "It is shaky" invites yet more stabilisation; "it is shakier than the footage I sent you" points squarely at the processing, which is very nearly the opposite instruction.

Prompt

Variants worth knowing:

• "Shakier than my original." The diagnosis, in one line.
• "Stop stabilising anything." Not less; none.
• "The parts that were already steady." Selection, not repair.

What does Vizard Agent actually do?

Here is the arc Vizard Agent went through on a real set of reels cut from handheld clinic footage. Stabilisation was tried properly and then escalated before it was abandoned, which is the honest order to do these things in.

1. Measures the camera movement across the usable footage.
2. Prepares stabilisation for the shots that need it.
3. Tests a stronger, locked-off treatment.
4. Checks that stronger pass for distortion.
5. Stabilises the source segments before any cuts are made.
6. Replaces segments that still need too much correction.
7. Compares the rebuilt reels against the untouched source.
8. Finds genuine camera holds in the original footage instead.
9. Exports from the originals with no motion processing at all.
10. Trims off a blurry opening and a shaky tail outright.

Step eight is the turn. Repairing movement and selecting stillness are different strategies, and most footage that resists the first contains enough of the second — a few seconds where the operator stopped moving, which is all a short reel needs.

Step five is worth doing even when you end up abandoning it. Stabilising source segments before cutting is the right order — stabilising an assembled cut fights every join — so if stabilisation is going to work at all, that is how it works.

Step ten is the cheapest fix in the whole list. A shaky tail is not a correction problem; it is frames that can be removed, and removing them costs a second of runtime and nothing else.

What does the result look like?

A cut that is as steady as the footage ever actually was, which turns out to be steadier than any processed version of it. It is built from shorter pieces, because naturally steady holds are briefer than the shots they came out of, and nothing in it drifts.

Vizard Agent also tells you which holds it used and how long each one ran, so you can ask it to extend one when the runtime needs the seconds.

When does this not work well?

Selection needs something to select. Footage that moves continuously — a walking shot, a handheld follow — contains no holds, and there the choice is between a stabilised version with artefacts and using the movement as it is.

• Continuously moving footage. No holds to find.
• Long shots required. Holds are usually brief.
• A walking camera as the style. The movement is the point.
• Very long durations. You run out of steady material.
• Footage that is only shaky. Then stabilisation is the lesser evil.

How do you fix a result that came back wrong?

Say which version you are comparing it against. Because Vizard Agent is holding both the processed cut and the originals, "still worse than the source" and "steady but too short" point at two different problems and lead to two different answers.

• "Still worse than the source." More processing is hiding somewhere.
• "Steady but too short." More holds, or accept some movement.
• "You cropped it." Reframing also adds apparent motion.
• "Keep the movement in that one." Marked as intentional.

How does Vizard Agent compare to doing it yourself?

By hand the response to shake is always more stabilisation, because that is the control labelled for the problem. Each pass looks better in isolation and worse against the original, and nobody makes that comparison because the original is not on the timeline.

Common questions

Why does stabilisation add shake? Because it can misread subject movement as camera movement and correct for it.

How do I know that is what happened? Compare against the original. Vizard Agent does exactly that.

Does cropping make it worse? It can, and Vizard Agent counts it as processing: reframing magnifies whatever movement is left.

Will the cut be shorter? Often. Steady holds are brief, and Vizard Agent will say how much it found.

Can it stabilise properly instead? Yes, and it tries that first — before concluding it is not working.

What about rolling shutter? That is a common cause. Vizard Agent will flag the distortion it produces.

Should I stabilise before or after cutting? Before. Vizard Agent stabilises source segments rather than an assembled cut.

Can it mix both approaches? Yes. Vizard Agent stabilises where it works and leaves the rest untouched.

What if there are no steady moments? Vizard Agent will say so, and then the choice is yours.

Does slow motion help? Rarely. Vizard Agent finds it exaggerates the drift more often than it hides it.

Can it just trim the shaky parts? Yes, and Vizard Agent will usually suggest it as the cheapest fix available.

Will the framing change? Not if you ask for original framing, which is the point here.

Does this apply to phone footage? Especially. Phones stabilise in camera before Vizard Agent ever sees the file.

Why did each version look worse? Because the correction was compounding rather than converging, and each pass had more of it to fight.