Talk:Image stabilization

Effectiveness

Can we get some information about the effectiveness of optical/mechanical stabilization (and maybe even digital stabilization)? Right now I can't really tell if this technology is just there to sell more cameras or if it markedly improves the quality of the pictures. Mazin07^C₪_T 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have personal experience with stabilization technology, as my camera is a bit of an oldie, but according to this 2004 Shutterbug article [1], it is very real and makes a marked difference. Eikonografos 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal experience is that if it is available (Slow shutter speeds and/or no flash makes it unavailable), you can literally swing the camera like a sword and take a picture, and it will come out perfectly fine. 69.59.108.79 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete over-exageration. Swinging the camera 'like a sword' will create a blurry image at all but the fastest shutter speeds. If the lens isn't pointed at all in the same direction during the shutter release, IS can't magically move the ENTIRE lens back. Ctrlfreak13 05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal experience is that it does work effectively. A 2001 comparison of Nikon and Canon IS lenses here http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/255/canon-image-stabilization-vs-nikon-vibration-reduction-page1.html concludes "Both dramatically improved our chances of getting acceptably sharp handheld pictures at slower shutter speeds" Chrisjohnson 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The number "3-4 stops" seems to come from manufacturers marketing materials, not from actual benchmarks/tests. Independent tests usually show something between 1.5-3 stops. --Hkultala (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Stabilization drawbacks

Are there any drawbacks to using the image stabilization feature of a camera?

Some(many/most/all?)digital cameras require you turn off IS when the camera is static, such as when using a tripod. Otherwise, it can blur the image.

IS uses more power, so you may experience shorter battery life when IS is turned on. Ctrlfreak13 13:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Optical image stabilization as Canon-specific term

Optical image stabilization is certainly not specific to Canon; nor is the use of OIS as an abbreviation. I don't know if the precise description recently added applies to other manufacturers, though, so I've tried to rewrite in a way that preserves the information without being misleading. --Steve Pucci | talk 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Vibration Reduction into this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Any opposed to this merger please state argument below and sign name. Suggestions as to how this merger should be executed are also welcome, again, please sign your name. (Ctrlfreak13 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

VR is truly just a Nikon brand name for a type of image stabilization, so I don't see why it should not be merged with the image stabilazation page. We should create a sub-catergory for it within the image stabilization page, though. The Nature Guy 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support merging. VR is specifically optical image stabilization as we've defined it here, so it should go into that section (in fact there is already a reference to it there). If there are differences between Nikon's and Canon's implementation that are significant I suggest we call those out in the sentence that mentions VR; otherwise I think the more general info in Vibration Reduction should just get merged into the OIS section. --Steve Pucci | talk 04:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As of 15 May 2007 (EST), Vibration Reduction (VR) redirects to Image stabilization. The previous content of the VR page shold still be accessible by accessing the page by overriding the redirect. Ctrlfreak13 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How is that done? The redirect seems to take place automatically, without means for interruption. The carefully crafted VR text has effectively disappeared. This doesn't look like a merger so much as a mass deletion of content. Correction, please? Hertz1888 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ctrlfreak13 meant that the text is available to editors who want to refine the merge. One way to override the redirect is to click on a link like Vibration Reduction. When it redirects to this page, there will be a phrase at the top of the article that says

(Redirected from Vibration Reduction)

Click on the Vibration Reduction link in the phrase, which goes to the original page here. Once you are on that page, you can either edit it (the text won't be visible on the page but you can still see it if you edit the page), to recover the raw text for merging, or use the history tab, to go back before the redirect was done. --Steve Pucci | talk 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for the guidance, but... what you are telling me amounts to saying the job of redirecting/merging has been left less than half done. In fact, no merging has been performed at all. Until such time as someone gets around to incorporating ALL the information on the VR page -- which I and others worked hard to develop and polish -- into the IS page, this information is lost to the reader. Wouldn't it make sense to immediately move this information in its entirety to the IS page? Wouldn't it make even MORE sense to undo the redirect and simply link from VR, where the topic is treated in detail, to the IS page, and vice-versa? Hertz1888 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I appreciate that it's not very nice to see your work evaporate. I confess I didn't really look to see what had been merged already; I did note that there were a couple of edits to this article from Ctrlfreak13 so I assumed he/she had done the merge to their satisfaction. I agree that if the merge is not complete, the redirect should not be there yet, and I would support restoring the original VR article until we have consensus that the merge is complete. --Steve Pucci | talk 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just migrated some more information from the old VR page to the IS page, I hope this helps and of course feel free to migrate more and do a general clean-up of the IS article. A lot of the information on the VR page, however, was already present on the IS page as the technologies are the same, just under different names. I am working on adding more references to some of the content here. Ctrlfreak13 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ctrlfreak13. I will gladly work on the migration and cleanup, but am unable to tackle it immediately. I hope no one will mind very much if we put the redirect on hold in the meantime, so that the existing material stays available to the Wiki user. With that in mind I have temporarily reverted the VR page to the status quo ante. Hertz1888 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hertz1888, I feel like now we may be ready to reinstate the redirect, I have read through the VR page and believe that all the information there is now well represented in the IS page; I do agree that my initial actions were taken too soon and appreciate your assistance in merging content over. Just wondering where you think the merger's status currently stands. Ctrlfreak13 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Ctrlfreak13. I see only one small issue remaining. I believe Nikon's more vigorous "Active Mode" may be in addition to, instead of identical to, the vertical-only mode that comes into play in panning. This question can be dealt with later, subsequent to a merger. As far as I am concerned, you may proceed to push the button (or shutter release). Thank you for the collaboration. In the end, the teamwork looks to have been a big success. Hertz1888 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now put the redirect back and will look more into Nikon's Active Mode. Thank you again for your help with the merger. Ctrlfreak13 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. We should be all set, at least w/r/t Nikon. Does Canon offer a similar capability, perhaps under a different name? Hertz1888

Yea I saw, I edited a couple of things, you made too much of an emphasis on auto-panning detection, which Canon does not offer and instead is done by flipping a switch on the lens (Canon dubs this as 'IS Mode 2'). Canon doesn't offer a mode similar to Nikon's Active Mode, although they could very well have their IS auto-detect larger movements and act accordingly instead, as they do when tripod-mounted (except kinda the opposite purpose). If you can't tell I'm a photo-buff :) Ctrlfreak13 21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How could I ever have guessed? Yes, and a knowledgeable one who's able to maintain his focus. The article has just about doubled in size in a month, and become strong, informative, and notably less dry. I enjoyed working on it with you. All the best. Hertz1888 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Final result was the merge of Vibration Reduction into Image stabilization. -- Ctrlfreak13 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Engineering choices: In body versus in-lens

Hi: There's a bit in the article but I'm not certain the performance benefits are addressed. This may require a bit of research to answer as it's probably an abstruse design philosophy difference but Leica, Nikon and Canon all put vibration elimination in the lenses while a company like Pentax has opted to put it into the camera body.

What are the advantages and disadvantages from an engineering point of view? Weight is covered in the article but what about performance and longevity of the mechanism? The article also says that in-lens vibration eliminators are fine-tuned for the lens but how much of a difference in performance and reliability is there? How about in their zoom lenses?

On the other hand, Pentax aims for consumer rather than pro SLRs and may sell image stabilization as being on all the time even when it doesn't need to be (ie below 100 mm); or for hand-held flashless night photography but these are marketing rather than technical reasons.

I don't know the answers but I am curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.172.251 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also guess that A) VR is more or less useless unless you are over 85mm at least and B) in lens may be faster and more mechanically robust than accelerating and decelerating the FF sensor of pro cameras. How it VR plays out in macro photography I can't guess since I never do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.179.37 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In lens versus in body

We'd have to hear from engineers working on the problem but full frame sensors aren't massless and the frame of electromagnets used to jiggle the sensor about may have acceptable performance in mid-sized and small photo sensors but not have the responsiveness needed in full frame.

In Lens versus In Camera

• In Lens works with film backs. No support for film/alternative backs with In Camera
• In Lens gives three to four stops while In Camera gives two stops at regular focal length and not Macro/Microscopic photography.
• What you see is what you get: In lens can be seen through the viewfinder. Live Preview (the gimmick of the season) is needed for In Camera.
• Image correction is accomplished at the natural magnification of the lens while In Camera, the IS compensates for a magnified vibration. Additional artifacts may be added. I say may because I don't know for sure as the sensor movement algorithm is unknown to me
• I don't know about scientific/engineering photography but how well infra red/UV photography works with image movement correction. Most sensors have UV filters built in, which means you can't do certain kinds of spectral analysis photography with In Camera image stabilization.

Maybe someone can write this up for the article?