Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
thecentercolumn.com
Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#26.3 stops is a lot, though. That's basically the fully usable aperture range of a kit zoom lens.
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#3I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#4I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
Let's do a small though experiment: Assume you have fixed your camera and the duck on a surface. Then while taking the photo, you rotate the surface. The motion sensor in the camera tries to cancel out this motion, which is suitable for taking a photo of something that's not fixed on the surface, which means it does not work well for the duck that's moving with the camera.
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#5I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
It's explained here:
> Your camera, which is using its IBIS system to attempt to keep everything as still as possible, may not realize that you are rotating with your subject and will instead try to zero out any rotation of the camera, including that of the Earth
The problem is that the stabilization system tries to compensate for the rotation of Earth (because it can't make the difference between the rotation of Earth, which shouldn't be compensated for, and the movement of the holder which should be).
So it would work if you were taking a photo of a subject not rotating together with the Earth. Like the stars.
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#6I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
[deleted]
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#7I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
[deleted]
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#8I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
The opposite: Earth rotation is measured by the camera and can't be easily distinguished from camera rotation relative to earth. So image stabilization will also correct for earth rotation, which is undesirable.
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#9Would it be possible to correct for the rotation by counter rotating if the orientation of the camera is known (or determined by GPS + compass)?
Re: Earth rotation limits in-body image stabilization to 6.3 stops (2020)
#10I still don't quite follow the explanation. The duck and I are on the surface of the same body and are rotating together, maintaining a constant distance... why does Earth rotation need to be corrected for?
It's about actual gyroscopes (motion sensors), not optical stabilisation. Gyroscopes in cameras are now so good they can pick up earth rotation. Perfect for stabilising image of stars, not so good for stabilising imae of duck translating over those stars. For that you would need optical stabilisation. In-body stabilisation is inertial, not optical.