Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Reply
Thread Tools

Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

 
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
"David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> []
>> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
>> exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
>> give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
>> think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.

>
> Never say "impossible"!


Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.

> In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle the still image
> shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely that
> stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
> software is already freely available....


The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried is
that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.

--
Måns Rullgård
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> []
>>> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
>>> exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
>>> give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
>>> think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.

>>
>> Never say "impossible"!

>
> Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.
>
>> In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle the still image
>> shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely that
>> stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
>> software is already freely available....

>
> The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried is
> that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.


We we're not talking blurred images (if you mean out-of-focus), but shaken
ones. There is a mathematical difference. As to mathematically
impossible, didn't the Hubble space telescope scientists successfully
recover blurred images (before the corrector lens was fitted)? At least a
partial recovery?

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:07:56 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> []
>>>> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
>>>> exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
>>>> give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
>>>> think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.
>>>
>>> Never say "impossible"!

>>
>> Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.
>>
>>> In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle the still image
>>> shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely that
>>> stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
>>> software is already freely available....

>>
>> The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried is
>> that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.

>
> We we're not talking blurred images (if you mean out-of-focus), but shaken
> ones. There is a mathematical difference. As to mathematically
> impossible, didn't the Hubble space telescope scientists successfully
> recover blurred images (before the corrector lens was fitted)? At least a
> partial recovery?


For some subjects when they already had a general knowledge of what the
subject looked like and an exact knowledge of the optical cause of the
blurring. But even so they did not recover to the theoretical performance
limits of the system--if they were able to do that there would have been
no need for the repair mission.

>
> David


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:07:56 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> "David J Taylor"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded,
>>>>> the exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution
>>>>> algorithm to give better results than guessing the shake would.
>>>>> I still don't think it would replace a stable capture in the
>>>>> first place.
>>>>
>>>> Never say "impossible"!
>>>
>>> Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.
>>>
>>>> In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle the still image
>>>> shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely that
>>>> stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
>>>> software is already freely available....
>>>
>>> The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried
>>> is that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.

>>
>> We we're not talking blurred images (if you mean out-of-focus), but
>> shaken ones. There is a mathematical difference. As to
>> mathematically impossible, didn't the Hubble space telescope
>> scientists successfully recover blurred images (before the corrector
>> lens was fitted)? At least a partial recovery?

>
> For some subjects when they already had a general knowledge of what
> the subject looked like and an exact knowledge of the optical cause
> of the blurring. But even so they did not recover to the theoretical
> performance limits of the system--if they were able to do that there
> would have been no need for the repair mission.


That's why I said "partial". So it's not "impossible", which was claimed.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
In article <45790504$0$34574$(E-Mail Removed)>, Little Juice
Coupe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Ah, the same choice you made when god asked if you wanted a brain. She said
>nothing works better than a brain and so you took nothing!
>

Clearly you are still waiting to be asked. There is no "god" to ask the
question, I inherited my brain, a rather good one as it happens, through
a process called evolution. I don't rely on offerings from some
imaginary superior being, because there aren't any.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
"David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:07:56 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>> "David J Taylor"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded,
>>>>>> the exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution
>>>>>> algorithm to give better results than guessing the shake would.
>>>>>> I still don't think it would replace a stable capture in the
>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never say "impossible"!
>>>>
>>>> Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.
>>>>
>>>>> In this case, deconvolution may be able to handle the still image
>>>>> shake problem to a degree, although I agree completely that
>>>>> stabilisation before capture is far preferable. Simple deshake
>>>>> software is already freely available....
>>>>
>>>> The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried
>>>> is that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.
>>>
>>> We we're not talking blurred images (if you mean out-of-focus), but
>>> shaken ones. There is a mathematical difference. As to
>>> mathematically impossible, didn't the Hubble space telescope
>>> scientists successfully recover blurred images (before the corrector
>>> lens was fitted)? At least a partial recovery?

>>
>> For some subjects when they already had a general knowledge of what
>> the subject looked like and an exact knowledge of the optical cause
>> of the blurring. But even so they did not recover to the theoretical
>> performance limits of the system--if they were able to do that there
>> would have been no need for the repair mission.

>
> That's why I said "partial". So it's not "impossible", which was claimed.


If only a partial recovery is possible, then a full recovery is
impossible, which is exactly what I meant.

--
Måns Rullgård
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
Måns Rullgård wrote:
[]
> If only a partial recovery is possible, then a full recovery is
> impossible, which is exactly what I meant.


Oh, I agree with you there. But the image stabilisation we have doesn't
do "full recovery" either, but it doesn't stop it being good enough to be
useful.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
"David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> []
>> If only a partial recovery is possible, then a full recovery is
>> impossible, which is exactly what I meant.

>
> Oh, I agree with you there. But the image stabilisation we have doesn't
> do "full recovery" either, but it doesn't stop it being good enough to be
> useful.


Mechanical IS can keep shake blur within the CoC, and this invisible,
in many cases where it would be visible without IS. No deconvolution
algorithm I've seen can manage this. They're not even close.

--
Måns Rullgård
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
In article <45790504$0$34574$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Little Juice Coupe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ah, the same choice you made when god asked if you wanted a brain. She said
> nothing works better than a brain and so you took nothing!



Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

(attr. ?)

--
Justin C, by the sea.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Sullivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
No one claimed "nothing works better than in-camera stabilization."


 
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
Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens? Paul Ciszek Digital Photography 5 06-08-2012 05:02 AM
Re: Nikon Sues Sigma Over Lens Stabilization Patent - Photography Bay nospam Digital Photography 3 05-27-2011 06:35 PM
Point and Shoot with wide angle lens (28mm min), optical or electronicviewfinder, image-stabilization, and support for external flash (hot shoeor wireless) SMS 斯蒂文• 倏 Digital Photography 4 11-21-2007 09:00 PM
Swivel lcd + lens stabilization + high optical zoom Norm Digital Photography 7 09-20-2004 04:34 PM
Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70 Alan Wonsowski Digital Photography 14 05-30-2004 03:48 PM



Advertisments