«

http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml

30 fps, too!

"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> writes:
>http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml

>30 fps, too!

Where did you get the impression that the camera does IS in the camera,
and not in the lens? Or that it would do IS with anything other than
its default zoom lens?

The article doesn't say it doesn't do this, but neither is there
anything to suggest that it will.

And what does frame rate have to do with it?

Dave

"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
news:eg4k8i$sd$...
> "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> writes:
>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml
>
>>30 fps, too!
>
> Where did you get the impression that the camera does IS in the camera,
> and not in the lens? Or that it would do IS with anything other than
> its default zoom lens?
>
> The article doesn't say it doesn't do this, but neither is there
> anything to suggest that it will.
>
> And what does frame rate have to do with it?
>
Video cams have been doing in-camera IS for years. It's not in the lens.
And the 30-fps was a joke, as Canon's best still camera does "only" 8.5fps

"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> writes:
> Video cams have been doing in-camera IS for years. It's not in the lens.
> And the 30-fps was a joke, as Canon's best still camera does "only" 8.5fps

No that's completely wrong, the A540, A700, and (I'm pretty sure)
several other models all do 30 fps. My A530 which is a cheap entry
level model shoots 15 fps video which is actually fairly watchable.

just bob <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:
>"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message

>>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml
>>
>>>30 fps, too!
>>
>> Where did you get the impression that the camera does IS in the camera,
>> and not in the lens? Or that it would do IS with anything other than
>> its default zoom lens?
>>
>> The article doesn't say it doesn't do this, but neither is there
>> anything to suggest that it will.
>>
>> And what does frame rate have to do with it?
>>
>Video cams have been doing in-camera IS for years. It's not in the lens.

But the IS that video cameras do is completely different from camera
IS and is incompatible with cameras.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
[]
> But the IS that video cameras do is completely different from camera
> IS and is incompatible with cameras.

Although, there is nothing to stop a non-SLR digital camera using the same
electronic image stabilisation as used in video cameras. The Nikon 8400
has electronic VR, for example.

David

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:02:21 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
wrote:

>
>"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
>news:eg4k8i$sd$...
>> "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> writes:
>>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml
>>
>>>30 fps, too!
>>
>> Where did you get the impression that the camera does IS in the camera,
>> and not in the lens? Or that it would do IS with anything other than
>> its default zoom lens?
>>
>> The article doesn't say it doesn't do this, but neither is there
>> anything to suggest that it will.
>>
>> And what does frame rate have to do with it?
>>
>Video cams have been doing in-camera IS for years. It's not in the lens.
>And the 30-fps was a joke, as Canon's best still camera does "only" 8.5fps
>

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Canon's best only does 8.5fps;
the S3 does 15/30fps.
What do you consider to be Canon's "best"? (Not that I consider the S3
to be Canon's "best".)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:02:21 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
>>news:eg4k8i$sd$...
>>
>>>"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> writes:
>>>
>>>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/reviews/...amcorder.shtml
>>>
>>>>30 fps, too!
>>>
>>>Where did you get the impression that the camera does IS in the camera,
>>>and not in the lens? Or that it would do IS with anything other than
>>>its default zoom lens?
>>>
>>>The article doesn't say it doesn't do this, but neither is there
>>>anything to suggest that it will.
>>>
>>>And what does frame rate have to do with it?
>>>
>>
>>Video cams have been doing in-camera IS for years. It's not in the lens.
>>And the 30-fps was a joke, as Canon's best still camera does "only" 8.5fps
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say Canon's best only does 8.5fps;
> the S3 does 15/30fps.
> What do you consider to be Canon's "best"? (Not that I consider the S3
> to be Canon's "best".)
Would you settle for "best in my current price range"?


P.

--
I do *NOT* have a short attention sp...(Oooh!! shiny!!)

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>[]
>> But the IS that video cameras do is completely different from camera
>> IS and is incompatible with cameras.
>
>Although, there is nothing to stop a non-SLR digital camera using the same
>electronic image stabilisation as used in video cameras.

Yes, there is. Video IS aligns consecutive frames by using a
larger-than-needed sensors and using different parts of it as the
image moves. If the image moves to the left two pixels then the video
camera will detect the motion and take the image from the area of the
sensor that is two pixels to the left. Nothing actually moves and so
it's all electronic and cheap to make.

But a photo camera only takes one shot at a time. In order to
stablize and image either the sensor has to move or a lens has to
move. That makes it expensive.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
> David J Taylor
> <david-> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> []
>>> But the IS that video cameras do is completely different from camera
>>> IS and is incompatible with cameras.
>>
>> Although, there is nothing to stop a non-SLR digital camera using
>> the same electronic image stabilisation as used in video cameras.
>
> Yes, there is. Video IS aligns consecutive frames by using a
> larger-than-needed sensors and using different parts of it as the
> image moves. If the image moves to the left two pixels then the video
> camera will detect the motion and take the image from the area of the
> sensor that is two pixels to the left. Nothing actually moves and so
> it's all electronic and cheap to make.
>
> But a photo camera only takes one shot at a time. In order to
> stablize and image either the sensor has to move or a lens has to
> move. That makes it expensive.

Well, I have a digital camera, a Nikon Coolpix 8400, which uses electronic
stabilisation. Of course, it uses it when making video, and not for still
shots, and I hope my message did not state otherwise.

David

David