Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (
More info?)
I forgot to tell: IS function does prevent from quick movements, but not
from severe ones. You must still hold your camera as still as you can. It's
just without IS you just CAN'T hold it totally still. It's best if you see
sample movie link i gave (below again):
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-review/is.mov
as you see, slow movements are ignored and only quick ones are compensated.
I didn't see any image degradation (yet).
Old Nick typed:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:19:26 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>> Gymmy Bob typed:
>>
>>> One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after
>>> the fact.
>>
>> I strongly doubt that. When a picture is taken then this is it. It's
>> done digitally, sure. But remember, that a camera has 3.3 M pixels,
>> while only
>> 3.2 are used.
>
> I would be very interested to see how many pixels _are_ used when
> antishake is operational. I believe AS can stop quite severe movement.
> That would take a lot of pixels, if it works at all as I imagine (not
> understand, imagine) it to work.
>
> But then I did some searching, and found:
>
>
http://konicaminolta.jp/english/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dima
ge-a2/02.html
>
> "What makes it so effective is its unique CCD-shift mechanism. The CCD
> sensor rests on a movable mount, which shifts according to the amount
> of camera shake detected by the camera's motion detectors. Shifting
> occurs along the x, y-axes to cancel out the effects of camera shake.
> Unlike optical or electronic-based stabilization systems, Anti-Shake
> does not degrade image quality, so you can make the most of 8.0
> megapixel resolution."
>
> So I was right, in that most would use some sort of variation on
> autofocus to stop shake, electronically. But this one actually dodges
> the sensor about!
>> And you can correct a picture before it's taken into the chip.
>> Once you have a blurred bitmap, you're finished. Maybe you can
>> correct a bit, but result won't be nearly as good as with IS.
>>
>>>
>>> Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks
>>> like it is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still
>>> blurred somewhat as if somebody used a blur filter on the frames
>>> and displayed the same image many times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
>>>>> Steve typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>>>>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a
>>>>>>> Canon (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now
)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience
>>>>>> been so far?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
>>>>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
>>>>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing.
>>>>> But i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
>>>>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
>>>>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
>>>>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
>>>>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
>>>>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
>>>>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
>>>>> object in that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>>>>>
>>>>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
>>>>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
>>>>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
>>>>> mAh NiMH battery).
>>>>>
>>>>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you
>>>>> ever shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or
>>>>> any other one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be
>>>>> able to shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally
>>>>> freezes picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which
>>>>> is totally 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any
>>>>> problem. You can see demo movie at this link:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-review/is.mov
>>>>> (this site has whole review of it)
>>>>>
>>>>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
>>>>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
>>>>> does have slow speed, too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
>>>>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
>>>>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
>>>>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF
>>>>> card, not normal (=cheapest) one.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls
>>>>> if you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
>>>>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite
>>>> like the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe,
>>>> continuous shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports
>>>> pictures.) Maybe the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a
>>>> longer telephoto. But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno.
>>>> Decisions, decisions... --
>>>> Steve
>>
>>
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram