Motion control shots are not finalized in the camera, they require a dedicated post-production step on a computer. This step ensures the footage achieves the smoothness and precision expected from motion control systems. In fact, any motion control footage shared or broadcast on professional platforms has already gone through this process.

However, most manufacturers do not clearly communicate this requirement in their own resources, leaving inexperienced users unaware of this essential stage. As a result, this critical step is often overlooked, and discovering its necessity later on can lead to confusion.

But as the creators of this technology, it’s our responsibility to help users set the right expectations. We’re proud to lead with clarity. On this page, you’ll find examples showcasing a wide range of unfinalized shots (A)—alongside the stunning final results achieved after finalization (B).

In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) only provides real-time correction and cannot distinguish between intentional camera movements and unintended micro-vibrations in motion control shots. As a result, it often interferes with the carefully programmed motion, leading to distorted or unusable footage. For this reason, all stabilization settings on your camera and lens must be disabled during motion control recordings.

You need to capture the micro-vibrations as they are, and handle the finalization entirely in post-production using dedicated software. This approach ensures full control and preserves the integrity of the motion you've designed.

Although stabilization software is often seen as a solution that heavily alters the image, it causes almost no harm when cleaning up footage captured with motion control devices. That’s because the micro-vibrations created by motion control systems are extremely low in amplitude. Stabilization software can suppress these micro-level shakes without requiring any meaningful cropping or degradation. In other words, the bad reputation of stabilization tools doesn’t apply when working with motion control footage. This clearly shows that instead of trying to eliminate all vibrations at the hardware level—which would increase cost, complexity, and reduce portability—the smarter approach is to reduce vibrations to a manageable level so that stabilization software can easily clean them up in post. This unlocks far greater flexibility, mobility, and cost-efficiency, allowing us to offer the technology we provide at a fraction of what it would otherwise cost.

This is a common question, especially from those who are new to motion-controlled cinematography and still exploring how it truly differs from traditional tools.

Stabilization is a corrective measure. It’s designed to clean up unintentional imperfections—shakes, bumps, or micro-vibrations typically found in handheld or gimbal shots. It’s a way to salvage motion, not to create it.

Motion control, by contrast, is about designing the movement from the ground up. It enables you to choreograph smooth, precise, and intentional camera paths that don’t just follow the subject—they help tell the story. Timing, pacing, and spatial consistency become part of the creative language, allowing the camera to move with purpose rather than improvisation. That kind of cinematic clarity simply can’t be recreated in post.

It’s also important to understand how the human eye responds to movement. We’re highly sensitive to micro-vibrations—often more so than to larger, slower shakes. While these micro-movements may seem like the main issue, they’re actually the easiest for stabilization software to correct. The real challenge lies in the slower, body-induced variations that occur when trying to execute complex moves without motion control: subtle vertical shifts, inconsistent tracking speeds, or premature movements that make the subject drift awkwardly within the frame. These errors break immersion and are difficult to correct in post without sacrificing resolution or introducing visual warping.

Even if you apply a touch of stabilization to polish the result—perhaps to eliminate micro-shakes from the floor or tripod—you’re starting with a solid foundation built by motion control: one that is mechanically precise and narratively deliberate. It’s the difference between enhancing a great shot and trying to fix a flawed one.

So no—motion control isn’t made obsolete by stabilization. If anything, stabilization is most effective because motion control has already done the heavy lifting. These tools are not rivals; they’re partners—each playing a role in crafting visuals that truly captivate.