Timeline for Why does Image Stabilization have a Limit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2018 at 20:59 | comment | added | hobbs | @PaulUszak because that one goes to the trouble of being correct and addressing the question that what asked while this one doesn't. | |
| Sep 28, 2016 at 11:52 | comment | added | Paul Uszak | To the dear readers. Why is my answer being down voted whilst essentially the same answer (with the astronomical images) is being up voted? | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 9:41 | comment | added | Paul Uszak | @DavidRicherby Again I refer you to multi hour exposures by large astronomical telescopes / Hubble. It works for them. A stunning example of Adobe After Effects image stabilisation coupled with a GoPro. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 17:12 | comment | added | Caleb | @DavidRicherby I see no evidence for your last statement. I'm sure I could keep a camera pointing in the same direction ±2° in any axis for a pretty long time. The thing that increases over time is not divergence from the original target, but error that accumulates while attempting to compensate for small momentary movements. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 14:39 | comment | added | David Richerby | OK, and this means that there are always going to be circumstances in which the camera has to say, "I'm sorry, stabilization failed because the camera moved too far." That, in turn, means that image stabilization can't possibly produce arbitrarily long exposures. Obviously, I chose an extreme example (indeed, ludicrously so) but it illustrates the point that the longer you try to hold a camera pointing in a particular direction, the greater its divergence from its original direction will become. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | Paul Uszak | @DavidRicherby Err, yes you're totally correct. If I point a camera behind me, it probably won't be able to take a picture of what's in front of me... | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | David Richerby | Among other things, you're forgetting that one of the things that limits stabilization is how far the camera moves. If the camera was initially pointing north and slowly rotates to face east, no amount of stabilization is going to be able to keep the same image projected onto the sensor. | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 21:32 | comment | added | null | "A digital signal processor should be able to lock onto an image target (we have basic face tracking after all)" this wrongly assumes that to perform the stabilisation sensor readout is performed during an exposure, which is not the case. I also dislike how this answer appears to be theorising about how things should be, with the justification that "nothing [it] outlined seems physically impossible". The question did not ask about some theoretically possible way, but the limits of current technology. -1 | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 20:50 | history | answered | Paul Uszak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |