Dpreview does away with formal resolution tests in their reviews

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> 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.
     
    John A., May 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 01 May 2012 16:49:21 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-05-01 16:41 , John A. wrote:
    >> On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> <> 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.
     
    John A., May 1, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>> <> 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? :)
     
    John A., May 2, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 2, 5:52 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    > >><> wrote:

    >
    > >>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    > >>>> <> 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. :)
     
    RichA, May 2, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:52:47 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>>> <> 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.
     
    John A., May 2, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:32:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:43:29 -0400, Alan Browne
    ><> 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.
     
    John A., May 3, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 04 May 2012 08:49:23 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:49:02 -0500, "C. Neil Ellwood"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 02 May 2012 06:54:35 -0700, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> On May 2, 5:52 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:02:35 -0400, John A. <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> >On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:29:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
    >>>> ><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >>On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:17 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> >><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >>>On 2012-04-30 22:55 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:13:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> >>>> <> 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.
     
    John A., May 4, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:15:26 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> 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.
     
    John A., May 4, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    ben brugman Guest

    > "Alan Browne" wrote in message
    > news:...


    > 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
     
    ben brugman, May 12, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    ben brugman Guest


    > Sense it (gyros).
    > Rotate the sensor in opposition (keep it 'still' wrt to the scene).


    > As I say in the other recent post the image sensor is mounted on an
    > articulation base with 5 axis freedom (3 angular, 2 translation).


    This is hightly unlikely,

    Pitch and yaw.
    Is normaly counteracted by x and y movement of the sensor.

    X and Y translations of the camera.
    Can be compensated by x and y movement of the sensor. But is complex,
    because the distance to the subject is important. (On infinity no movement
    at all is needed, for closeups movement is needed.)


    For the roll of the camera, the shift of the sensor can not counteract the
    movement. So the sensor has to be rotated within the camera.

    The rotation of the sensor is new. And that the camera compensates for 5
    directions of movement is new as wel. But this can be done with 2
    translations of the sensor and one rotation of the sensor.

    For the sixth axis of freedom, movement of the camera towards or from the
    subject, this has for general fotografie no visible effect. For very close
    up it could have a visible effect, but using the AF to keep focus on the
    subject, the motion will hardly have any effect.

    So 5 axis of freedom can be corrected by 3 axis of freedom for the sensor.
    (x,y and rotate)


    Ben
     
    ben brugman, May 12, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. licknlabia
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
    licknlabia
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. ThomasH

    dpreview test: Leica Digilux 2 blows away Canon G5

    ThomasH, May 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    835
    George Preddy
    May 15, 2004
  3. bbiandov
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,054
    bbiandov
    Dec 22, 2008
  4. Clint Kennedy

    Re: The Formal Apology.

    Clint Kennedy, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: MCSA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    335
    Clint Kennedy
    Aug 14, 2003
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    717
    RichA
    Sep 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page