Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Image Stabilisation - How many extra f stops?

Reply
Thread Tools

Image Stabilisation - How many extra f stops?

 
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004

"Tony Morgan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <Ywl5d.20464$(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Wheeler
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >Read here:
> >
> >http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...ak/stabilizer/
> >

> I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I read this:
>
> "Image stabilized lenses and cameras use tiny gyroscopes to counteract
> camera motion for sharper shots."
>
> With the exception of the dolly's that are used to track shots taken by
> large heavy professional video cameras (which do use gyros), image
> stabilisation works like this:
>
> Firstly, the image is taken from a window within the CCDs area
> (unfortunately reducing the maximum possible resolution), and this
> window is moved around to compensate for camera shake.


Uh...
Earth to Doofus...
Come in...Doofus...

We're not talking about VIDEO here.
We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo LENSES.
Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.

PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
I'm afraid you are very wrong re Canon IS. There are sensors and
actuators in the lens which do the job; that's why only some lenses are
IS. You can actually hear them operated if you try.

Your discussion may apply to some other company.

Phil

Tony Morgan wrote:

> In message <Ywl5d.20464$(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Wheeler
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>> Read here:
>>
>> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...ak/stabilizer/
>>

> I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I read this:
>
> "Image stabilized lenses and cameras use tiny gyroscopes to counteract
> camera motion for sharper shots."
>
> With the exception of the dolly's that are used to track shots taken by
> large heavy professional video cameras (which do use gyros), image
> stabilisation works like this:
>
> Firstly, the image is taken from a window within the CCDs area
> (unfortunately reducing the maximum possible resolution), and this
> window is moved around to compensate for camera shake. Some of the more
> expensive pro and semi-pro video cameras sometimes use, instead,
> electrical servos control the optics to move the window about. The spec
> usually tells you that the camera uses digital or optical image
> stabilisation.
>
> Window movement is controlled by a signal processor which detects "edge
> movement" (that occurs with camera shake) within the CCD image area, and
> then drives the window to compensate.
>
> Unfortunately, where there is a fast moving object within the overall
> image area, the signal processor tries to "chase" (by a small amount)
> that moving object before it detects that it isn't camera shake. This
> results in the introduction of edge artefacts in the resulting picture.
>
> You might notice that cameras that offer image stabilisation give one
> figure for the "maximum pixel area" and a lower figure for "image area".
> This is to provide the "image area" window that moves within the
> "maximum pixel area".
>
> There is one product (using gyros) called "Steady-Cam" that can be used
> for shoulder mounted professional video cameras. This is often used by
> the shoulder-mounted video camera operators seen on the back of
> motor-bikes following athletes in marathons and the like.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
Phil Wheeler wrote:

> I'm afraid you are very wrong re Canon IS. There are sensors and
> actuators in the lens which do the job; that's why only some lenses are
> IS. You can actually hear them operated if you try.
>
> Your discussion may apply to some other company.
>
> Phil



It sure as hell doesn't apply to Minolta's A2 either.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004

"Phil Wheeler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wTp5d.21443$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm afraid you are very wrong re Canon IS. There are sensors and
> actuators in the lens which do the job; that's why only some lenses are
> IS. You can actually hear them operated if you try.
>
> Your discussion may apply to some other company.


The dork was describing **video camcorders.**




 
Reply With Quote
 
ThomasH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
zxcvar wrote:
>
> Greetings!How many extra f stop advantage one gets when one takes
> pictures with a camera with image stabilisation compared to a camera
> with no image stabilisation in taking pictures of stationary objects
> like inside of a church or a museum without flash? With thanks.


Popular Photography made recently a nice test of IS
by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic (Lumix) and Minolta.

"Blur Busters!" By Dan Richards August 2004
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?...&page_number=1

Both Canon and Nikon lenses provide a gain of up to 3 stops.

Thomas
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
"Tony Morgan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <Ywl5d.20464$(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Wheeler
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >Read here:
> >
> >http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...ak/stabilizer/
> >

> I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I read this:
>
> "Image stabilized lenses and cameras use tiny gyroscopes to counteract
> camera motion for sharper shots."
>
> With the exception of the dolly's that are used to track shots taken by
> large heavy professional video cameras (which do use gyros), image
> stabilisation works like this:
>
> Firstly, the image is taken from a window within the CCDs area
> (unfortunately reducing the maximum possible resolution), and this
> window is moved around to compensate for camera shake. Some of the more
> expensive pro and semi-pro video cameras sometimes use, instead,
> electrical servos control the optics to move the window about. The spec
> usually tells you that the camera uses digital or optical image
> stabilisation.
>
> Window movement is controlled by a signal processor which detects "edge
> movement" (that occurs with camera shake) within the CCD image area, and
> then drives the window to compensate.
>
> Unfortunately, where there is a fast moving object within the overall
> image area, the signal processor tries to "chase" (by a small amount)
> that moving object before it detects that it isn't camera shake. This
> results in the introduction of edge artefacts in the resulting picture.
>
> You might notice that cameras that offer image stabilisation give one
> figure for the "maximum pixel area" and a lower figure for "image area".
> This is to provide the "image area" window that moves within the
> "maximum pixel area".
>
> There is one product (using gyros) called "Steady-Cam" that can be used
> for shoulder mounted professional video cameras. This is often used by
> the shoulder-mounted video camera operators seen on the back of
> motor-bikes following athletes in marathons and the like.
> --
> Tony Morgan
> http://www.camcord.info


Before one derides another's statements, one should make sure one's own
statements are not deserving of derision.
What you describe is most decidedly NOT how Canon's image stabilization
works, otherwise it would not work on film cameras. Nor is it the way
Nikon's works, nor Sigma's, which both work the same way as described for
Canon. Minolta's works by moving the entire sensor to keep it on a plane
with the image.
Next time, it would be advisable to do one's own homework before commenting
on other's.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Yehuda Paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
please bear in mind that image stabilisation depends a lot on focal length:
The more you zoom in (i.e., towards tele), the less you can depend on it. As
a rule of thumb, I'd say you can gain about 2 stops when in "wide", but only
1 stop (or even none) when in "tele".
sorry, there ain't no free lunch...
"Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tyj5d.335175$Oi.95433@fed1read04...
>
> "zxcvar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> > Greetings!How many extra f stop advantage one gets when one takes
> > pictures with a camera with image stabilisation compared to a camera
> > with no image stabilisation in taking pictures of stationary objects
> > like inside of a church or a museum without flash? With thanks.

>
> 2-3 stops both according to Canon, and also in my experience.
> It is amazingly useful.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004

"Yehuda Paradise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cj5ng4$nee$(E-Mail Removed)...
> please bear in mind that image stabilisation depends a lot on focal

length:
> The more you zoom in (i.e., towards tele), the less you can depend on it.

As
> a rule of thumb, I'd say you can gain about 2 stops when in "wide", but

only
> 1 stop (or even none) when in "tele".
> sorry, there ain't no free lunch...


I would suggest you go pick up a 400mm 2.8 IS L lens, and watch through the
viewfinder as IS engages.

I don't mean to be rude, but you simply don't know what you're talking
about.
-When/if you DO look through that lens at high tele extensions, the folly of
your statement will be incredibly obvious.

I've taken shots at 400mm that are VERY nice right down to 1/30th of a
second, hand-held (and slower). -And I'm very picky! That's WAY WAY slower
than the general rule of focal length=shutter speed dictates for acceptable
hand-held steadiness.

As you move up to tele extension, your limitations increase, yes...but the
benefits of IS stay proportionally beneficial along side those naturally
present limitations as you go up as well.

I own and use four different IS lenses from 28-400mm, utilizing three
generations of IS technology. I am speaking from both experience and
understanding of the technology. I don't know where you're coming from, but
you are simply incorrect here.

> "Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tyj5d.335175$Oi.95433@fed1read04...
> >
> > "zxcvar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> > > Greetings!How many extra f stop advantage one gets when one takes
> > > pictures with a camera with image stabilisation compared to a camera
> > > with no image stabilisation in taking pictures of stationary objects
> > > like inside of a church or a museum without flash? With thanks.

> >
> > 2-3 stops both according to Canon, and also in my experience.
> > It is amazingly useful.
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
In message <oIp5d.335243$Oi.250996@fed1read04>, Mark M
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
Snipped....

>We're not talking about VIDEO here.
>We are talking about optical image stabilization in 35mm still photo
>LENSES.


You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital

> Said lenses have no CCDs and none of the things you mention.


Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking *******s.
>
>PAY ATTENTION before you mock other's posts.
>It just might prevent you making a fool of yourself NEXT time...


ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2004
Tony Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> You blind or something. Here, I'll help you:
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Digital cameras have no CCD? You're talking *******s.
> ROFL.... Try honing you reading skills and powers of comprehension.


Tony - why don't you just admit you were wrong and
get over it?

What you described was video stabilization usually
found in camcorders.

The original question was regarding image stabilization
for still cameras. A totally different task.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Optical image stabilisation internals .... David J Taylor Digital Photography 0 08-02-2007 09:35 AM
Image Stabilisation - why? Justin C Digital Photography 109 01-19-2007 04:07 AM
image stabilisation ~ how does it work? MichaelM Digital Photography 56 06-26-2006 06:52 PM
Canon 86X f/1.7 zoom with image stabilisation.... David J Taylor Digital Photography 3 07-17-2005 08:02 AM



Advertisments