Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

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

  1. In article <>, Dan
    Sullivan <> writes
    >
    >jeremy wrote:
    >
    >> And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those improvements
    >> will be transferred to all the images produced by all of one's lenses. IS
    >> is still a developing feature and we should expect to see improved
    >> performance as time goes on.

    >
    >Is software IS around the corner?
    >

    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
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 7, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    "Aaron" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >>
    >> Are you just making this shit up? Trying to justify your
    >> impoverishment? Or what? Nothing you are saying is making any sense
    >> at all. Let me be blunt: in-camera IS (ICIS) systems for a DSLR are
    >> slam-dunk stupid. The entire point of an SLR is to "see what you are
    >> about to get", and this won't happen for ICIS for what should be
    >> obvious reasons. You can certainly build cameras that could use ICIS
    >> effectively ... but these won't be SLR's anymore. Indeed, you can
    >> inspect the offerings of most video camera companies for examples.
    >> Some of them even have interchangable lenses. Heck, Canon's high-end
    >> video gear can even accept EOS lenses with an adaptor.

    >
    > That's a really good point, eawckyegcy; with in-camera IS on a true
    > SLR, you will never be able to look through the eyepiece and SEE how
    > much stabilization you're getting, unless the system magically jiggles
    > the mirror at the same time it's jiggling the sensor.


    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

    "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:TyWdh.11$...
    > Skip wrote:
    >> "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> Måns Rullgård wrote:
    >>
    >> > I didn't even think of that difference. It quite obvious though, now
    >> > that you mention it. I suppose it would be possible to make a body
    >> > with stabilized focus sensors, but I doubt that's how they do it.
    >> >
    >> > Another aspect is the useful lifetime of lenses and body. A digital
    >> > body is obsoleted much sooner than a lens. Putting IS in the lens
    >> > means you don't need to pay for it every time you upgrade the body.
    >> > Over 10 years, which are you likely to buy more of, lenses or bodies?
    >> > 20 years? Many of the top end Canon lenses have been around for quite
    >> > a few years now.

    >>
    >> >If you haven't noticed the cost of in camera stabilization in the
    >> >Pentax DSLR cameras is about $70.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional

    > $70,
    >> that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the

    > IS
    >> would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

    >
    > Eventually the cost will come down even more..
    >
    > But you forget the ICIS also works on all the lenses you use that don't
    > have
    > ILIS.
    >
    > All those sharper/better pictures have to be worth something....correct?
    >

    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 Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 8, 2006
  4. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    Skip, Dec 8, 2006
  5. Yep, nothing works better than in-camera stabilization

    So I'll use nothing, thanks. ;-)
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 8, 2006
  6. Re: Yep, nothing works better than in-camera stabilization

    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!

    LJC


    "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    news:$...
    > So I'll use nothing, thanks. ;-)
    > --
    > Kennedy
    > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
    > replying)
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Dec 8, 2006
  7. 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"! 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  8. "David J Taylor"
    <-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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  9. Måns Rullgård wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  10. Al Clark

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:07:56 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Måns Rullgård wrote:
    >> "David J Taylor"
    >> <-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)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 8, 2006
  11. J. Clarke wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:07:56 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Måns Rullgård wrote:
    >>> "David J Taylor"
    >>> <-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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  12. Re: Yep, nothing works better than in-camera stabilization

    In article <45790504$0$34574$>, Little Juice
    Coupe <> 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 pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 8, 2006
  13. "David J Taylor"
    <-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"
    >>>> <-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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  14. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 8, 2006
  15. "David J Taylor"
    <-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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 8, 2006
  16. Al Clark

    Justin C Guest

    Re: Yep, nothing works better than in-camera stabilization

    In article <45790504$0$34574$>,
    "Little Juice Coupe" <> 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.
     
    Justin C, Dec 9, 2006
  17. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Re: Yep, nothing works better than in-camera stabilization

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

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.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,967
  2. Bill
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    756
  3. silvio

    DIGITAL LENS VS REGULAR LENS

    silvio, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    748
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 16, 2004
  4. Norm
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    749
    David J Taylor
    Sep 20, 2004
  5. zxcvar
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    436
    Chuck
    Sep 25, 2004
  6. PretzelX
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,209
    Jim Handy
    Oct 4, 2004
  7. jpc

    Image Stabilization vs Noise

    jpc, Dec 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,297
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    771
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...