Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. No - once the image has been captured blurred, software IS can only fix
    it by deconvolution with the blur PSF, which will ALWAYS be at the
    expense of noise. While software IS is a useful technique for
    scientific or evidential images, it isn't a general purpose IS
    technology with the capabilities of in-lens or in-camera IS, and there
    are certain laws of physics (actually the underlying mathematics) that
    mean it never can be.
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 7, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    Check his profile on Google and you will see that he has written many
    THOSANDS of posts, most of which were insulting.

    I plonked him. Technology is good.
    jeremy, Dec 7, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    But not as well as in lens does. And I'm not convinced on the efficacy of
    IS on a 15mm fisheye...
    And if I divide the cost difference of say the 70-200 f2.8 and the IS
    version by $70x the number of cameras I've had that the lens would mount on,
    the cost comes down, somewhat.
    Skip, Dec 8, 2006
  4. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    And don't forget the possibility of in camera IS affecting focus, as someone
    else mentioned...
    Skip, Dec 8, 2006
  5. So I'll use nothing, thanks. ;-)
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 8, 2006
  6. 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!

    Little Juice Coupe, Dec 8, 2006
  7. Måns Rullgård wrote:
    Never say "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....

    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  8. "David J Taylor"
    Recovering a blurred images is mathematically impossible.
    The software exists alright. The problem with the ones I've tried is
    that they tend to introduce more errors than they remove.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  9. 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 J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  10. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
    J. Clarke, Dec 8, 2006
  11. That's why I said "partial". So it's not "impossible", which was claimed.

    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  12. 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 McEwen, Dec 8, 2006
  13. "David J Taylor"
    If only a partial recovery is possible, then a full recovery is
    impossible, which is exactly what I meant.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  14. Måns Rullgård wrote:
    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

    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  15. "David J Taylor"
    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.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  16. Al Clark

    Justin C Guest

    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, Dec 9, 2006
  17. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    No one claimed "nothing works better than in-camera stabilization."
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.