Forum

Author Topic: image stabilisation - yes or no  (Read 569 times)

JJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
image stabilisation - yes or no
« on: June 07, 2021, 05:54:46 PM »
seems to be a lot of conflicting information on this with some saying it's a big no no, and others saying it's a must have.

is there an official view on this?

i'll be scanning a garden this week using a painters pole to get some height.  Should I use IS?

Olympus (micro 4/3) system with FE lens

wojtek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2021, 08:18:26 PM »
Yeah if it's not on a tripod there is no reason to not use IS.

JJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2021, 11:05:58 PM »
thanks for confirming

JMR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2021, 03:15:46 AM »
I'm open to learn, but to my understanding, IS means lots of changing conditions in calibration parameters between shots. This is mainly in terms of principal point, but also, with modern 5 axis IBIS, I guess also more parameters are involved. Do you, Wojtek, mean this is nothing one should be worried about at all
Or... is there something to be added to your "why not IS?" like "however, you would need to un-group cameras in calibration". Thanks

cbnewham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2021, 10:45:32 AM »
Yeah if it's not on a tripod there is no reason to not use IS.

IS shifts the image. I would have thought this would be detrimental because the parameters of the lens would change shot to shot.

3create

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
    • 3create
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2021, 11:03:58 PM »
As mentioned, IS changes the camera model (intrinsic parameters) in a non-reproducible fashion.
HOWEVER, despite this obvious error introduction, what are the "real world" implications?

I'm sometimes confronted with projects, where there is little chance to optimize the image capture process (i.e. using a long monopod without the possibility for additional artificial lighting).
Images with motion blur in such a situation almost certainly introduce more reconstruction errors than IS-images?!

Does anyone know of any scientifically evaluated comparisons (i.e. controlled setup) between IS v.s. non-IS?
My guess is, that IS-images will introduce more noise (assuming oblique image-cature scenarios with solid  projection angles).

Otherwise, this "IS-subject" remains foggy...

cbnewham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2021, 12:38:39 AM »


I'm sometimes confronted with projects, where there is little chance to optimize the image capture process (i.e. using a long monopod without the possibility for additional artificial lighting).
Images with motion blur in such a situation almost certainly introduce more reconstruction errors than IS-images?!


What about increasing the ISO?  I have mine very high and most of the noise is removed when I process the raw files to jpg.

As to IS, it would be an interesting experiment, but probably hard to do because you can't really replicate the exact camera positions IS/non-IS if hand-holding the camera. So any models will not really be directly comparable for accuracy.


3create

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
    • 3create
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2021, 01:07:53 AM »
Good points!
But 400 ISO is the max for my APSC-cameras (and weight + depth-of-field are constraints for higher mounted cameras).

Yes indeed, maybe someone could come up with a cool concept for IS-comparisons:
i.e. a reproducible robotic motion rig ;)

cbnewham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2021, 11:53:42 AM »
Good points!
But 400 ISO is the max for my APSC-cameras (and weight + depth-of-field are constraints for higher mounted cameras).

Yes indeed, maybe someone could come up with a cool concept for IS-comparisons:
i.e. a reproducible robotic motion rig ;)

I was thinking along those lines. The rig would have to jiggle the camera like a human would. Not beyond possibilities - but it would be expensive. There must surely be a better way to test this.

Possibly determine how many pixels shift there is and then crop a series of images with random offsets by up to that number of pixels to make sets of pictures to use to make the models. One would need to strip the Exif Metadata from the images - but that's no big deal. I usually strip it from mine and find MetaShape works just as well.