Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Dpreview does away with formal resolution tests in their reviews

Reply
Thread Tools

Dpreview does away with formal resolution tests in their reviews

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2012
On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
>>>
>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).

>>
>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter much.

>
>Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).
>
>The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. Yaw is a lesser
>concern. When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
>little. Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
>(pitch).


A less ambiguous way to describe pitch would be to say it is rotation
about the axis running horizontally across the sensor. Or, more
simply, tilting up and down.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2012
On Tue, 01 May 2012 16:49:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-05-01 16:41 , John A. wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
>>>>>
>>>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).
>>>>
>>>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter much.
>>>
>>> Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).
>>>
>>> The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. Yaw is a lesser
>>> concern. When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
>>> little. Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
>>> (pitch).

>>
>> A less ambiguous way to describe pitch would be to say it is rotation
>> about the axis running horizontally across the sensor. Or, more
>> simply, tilting up and down.

>
>As you like.


Point being if "along the lens axis" describes pitch, it also
describes yaw (swinging side to side). Or rotation about any arbitrary
axis running parallel to the sensor plane and intersecting the lens
axis, for that matter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2012
On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
>>>>
>>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).
>>>
>>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter much.

>>
>>Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).
>>
>>The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. Yaw is a lesser
>>concern. When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
>>little. Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
>>(pitch).

>
>Pitch movement of the lens axis is the same as roll around the X axis.
>
>My point is that roll only matters if it deflects (as distinct from
>rotates) the lens axis. The lever effect of a long lens axis (to the
>subject) makes such movements critical.


So if the camera is spinning about the lens axis so as to turn, say,
ten degrees during the exposure, that will make no difference to the
shot so long as said axis itself doesn't move?
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2012
On May 2, 5:52*am, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
> >><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/

>
> >>>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).

>
> >>>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter *much.

>
> >>>Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).

>
> >>>The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. *Yaw is a lesser
> >>>concern. *When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
> >>>little. *Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
> >>>(pitch).

>
> >>Pitch movement of the lens axis is the same as roll around the X axis.

>
> >>My point is that roll only matters if it deflects (as distinct from
> >>rotates) the lens axis. The lever effect of a long lens axis (to the
> >>subject) makes such movements critical.

>
> >So if the camera is spinning about the lens axis so as to turn, say,
> >ten degrees during the exposure, that will make no difference to the
> >shot so long as said axis itself doesn't move?

>
> I was considering only the movements likely to be encountered in
> normal use. I'm not quite sure how you could obtain 10 degrees
> rotation during any exposure sufficiently short for any stabilisation
> system to have any effect. In fact, I don't think any stabilisation
> system could cope with 10 degrees of rotation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


It can't. You'd have to have something like they use in the fire
control system of tanks to deal with that. I don't think it would fit
in the camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2012
On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:52:47 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter much.
>>>>
>>>>Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).
>>>>
>>>>The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. Yaw is a lesser
>>>>concern. When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
>>>>little. Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
>>>>(pitch).
>>>
>>>Pitch movement of the lens axis is the same as roll around the X axis.
>>>
>>>My point is that roll only matters if it deflects (as distinct from
>>>rotates) the lens axis. The lever effect of a long lens axis (to the
>>>subject) makes such movements critical.

>>
>>So if the camera is spinning about the lens axis so as to turn, say,
>>ten degrees during the exposure, that will make no difference to the
>>shot so long as said axis itself doesn't move?

>
>I was considering only the movements likely to be encountered in
>normal use. I'm not quite sure how you could obtain 10 degrees
>rotation during any exposure sufficiently short for any stabilisation
>system to have any effect. In fact, I don't think any stabilisation
>system could cope with 10 degrees of rotation.


1/10 degree, then. That will give you about a pixel-width of
rotational motion blur per ~573 pixels (1800/pi) out from the center
of rotation. (So at about 1150 pixels from the center you get about 2
pixels of motion blur, and so on.)

Hmmm... Presumably lateral (x & y) stabilization would take care some
portion of that if the center of rotation is way off-center, say at
your tripod mount or monopod foot. So I imagine that would that reduce
the task of rotational stabilization to being centered mid-sensor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2012
On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:32:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:43:29 -0400, Alan Browne
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-05-02 05:52 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> I was considering only the movements likely to be encountered in
>>> normal use. I'm not quite sure how you could obtain 10 degrees
>>> rotation during any exposure sufficiently short for any stabilisation
>>> system to have any effect. In fact, I don't think any stabilisation
>>> system could cope with 10 degrees of rotation.

>>
>>In the limited space inside a camera, the compensation is probably no
>>more than a degree (maybe more, probably less) in any axis.
>>
>>There are commercial and military stabilization systems for various
>>cameras and sensors that cope with much more. They are larger and often
>>extremely expensive.

>
>And how do you compensate for rotation about the axis of the lens?
>Rotate the sensor (with all it's connections)?


Yup. IIRC that's how Pentax did it in the K5 (and K7?) It can also
compensate for slightly tilted horizons.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2012
On Fri, 04 May 2012 08:49:23 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:49:02 -0500, "C. Neil Ellwood"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2012 06:54:35 -0700, RichA wrote:
>>
>>> On May 2, 5:52*am, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>>> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> >><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 2012-04-30 11:58 , RichA wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Very nice stabilization system (pitch, roll, yaw, y, z).
>>>>
>>>> >>>> I suspect only the X and Y rotational axiis matter *much.
>>>>
>>>> >>>Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).
>>>>
>>>> >>>The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. *Yaw is a
>>>> >>>lesser concern. *When you depress the shutter you can easily roll
>>>> >>>the camera a little. *Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is
>>>> >>>the other concern (pitch).
>>>>
>>>> >>Pitch movement of the lens axis is the same as roll around the X
>>>> >>axis.
>>>>
>>>> >>My point is that roll only matters if it deflects (as distinct from
>>>> >>rotates) the lens axis. The lever effect of a long lens axis (to the
>>>> >>subject) makes such movements critical.
>>>>
>>>> >So if the camera is spinning about the lens axis so as to turn, say,
>>>> >ten degrees during the exposure, that will make no difference to the
>>>> >shot so long as said axis itself doesn't move?
>>>>
>>>> I was considering only the movements likely to be encountered in normal
>>>> use. I'm not quite sure how you could obtain 10 degrees rotation during
>>>> any exposure sufficiently short for any stabilisation system to have
>>>> any effect. In fact, I don't think any stabilisation system could cope
>>>> with 10 degrees of rotation.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>> It can't. You'd have to have something like they use in the fire
>>> control system of tanks to deal with that. I don't think it would fit
>>> in the camera.

>>
>>The gun (main armament) in a tank is a little larger and has to cope with
>>much greater movement than that which occurs in a camera.

>
>And they don't worry about rotation about the axis of the barrel.


IIRC they actively (or passively?) encourage it in the projectile.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2012
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:15:26 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-05-03 19:13 , Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:05:40 -0400, Alan Browne

>
>>> In the Oly case, the amount of rotation is small. The entire sensor
>>> package is mounted on the articulation system. It's the articulation
>>> system that moves. The connection from that to the camera electronics
>>> would most likely be flexible-printed circuit.

>>
>> But these don't normally bend sideways. I wonder how they do it?

>
>"bend"? Nothing about bending, it's just degrees of articulation.
>
>For example a z-y translation table mounted on a x-axis rotation table
>mounted on a z, y axis tilt table. Probably driven by piezo actuators
>which can make tiny, precise, repeatable movements. The magic is in
>making it all very thin such that it fits and the two tilt axis' result
>in the center of the sensor not changing the focal length when activated.


I wonder how much range the tilt has and if the firmware can be hacked
to set it manually.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ben brugman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2012
> "Alan Browne" wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...


> Translation (y,z) are a lot of it (same as the Sony system).


> The weakness of that is pitch and roll is also present. Yaw is a lesser
> concern. When you depress the shutter you can easily roll the camera a
> little. Along the lens axis, if not well balanced, is the other concern
> (pitch).


Translation of the sensor (as the Sony system) is used to counteract the yaw
and pitch (rotation) of the camera.

To my knowledge it is not used to counteract the translation of the camera
itself.
That would be usefull for closeup situations, but not for general usage.

Ben

 
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
D800 samples. High resolution, sharpness like other FF's is somewhatsoft (Dpreview) RichA Digital Photography 1 03-20-2012 01:50 PM
Cowards at Dpreview strip the exif data out of their images from Fotokina RichA Digital Photography 13 11-28-2010 01:54 AM
Leaf Unveils World’s Highest Resolution Digital Camera Back - DPReview.com Bruce Digital Photography 9 10-14-2010 11:37 PM
"Refreshed (Dpreview) Olympus E-5" is likely their last DSLR RichA Digital Photography 2 09-15-2010 02:12 AM
dpreview test: Leica Digilux 2 blows away Canon G5 ThomasH Digital Photography 12 05-15-2004 03:11 AM



Advertisments