No announcement yet.

Image stabiization

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Image stabiization

    The anonymous author of the article on image stabilization takes issue with claim in the R5 instruction manual that: "image stabilisation by the camera reduces camera shake in still photo shooting" because the stabilizer doesn't stop the camera from shaking, but moves components to compensate for movement of the camera.

    Like the author I'm very much in favour of precise use of language when discussing technical matters, but their objection is only valid if "camera shake" is interpreted literally to mean "the shaking of the camera when held by an operator". I would argue that the term has passed into use as jargon to mean "the detrimental effect on the sharpness of the final image caused by the inability of the operator to hold the camera steady".

    Perhaps this would be considered imprecise use of language by the author. I don't have particular strong feelings about that, but it seems strange to carp at that particular misuse but to let the phrase "image stabilization" itself pass without comment. The image that forms on the sensor will move just as much whether the mechanisms-that-are-popularly-called-image-stabilizers are switched on or off. We use the term "image stabilization" to refer to the effect the devices have on the final image. If we don't allow our language use some flexibility we won't be able to discuss these topics at all. (I certainly wouldn't be able to say "the image that forms on the sensor", because no image does form on an imaging sensor, but people reading this will know what I mean, and hopefully make allowances for the difficulty of expressing what I want to say more accurately in so few words.)

    The author also says that "EOS magazine, published in the UK, uses the British dictionary option of 'stabilisation'. Canon, being a global company, prefers 'stabilization'".

    There are many verbs that end in "-ize" that can be spelled either way. It is a widespread but erroneous belief that "-ise" is the exclusive British form, and "-ize" the American. While it is true that "-ize" is the only ending allowed by American dictionaries, British dictionaries either give both on an equal footing but with "-ize" first (Chambers and Collins) or show a clear preference for "-ize" (SOED). I know that the author carefully refers to "-ise" as an "option", implying that both are correct, but there's no reason for British writers to prefer "-ise" over "-ize". Fowler (British to his core) makes a strong case for "-ize" on grounds of etymology and pronunciation, and I suspect it's only a general bias against American practice that stops everyone from switching to z.

    Think I'll have a cup of tea -- good win by England!

    Equipment - According to the wife more than a Camera Shop got



      Originally posted by Trev B View Post
      Think I'll have a cup of tea -- good win by England!


        I think the article is correct. If you consider that a blurred image is caused by shaking the camera then the mechanism is designed to effect a stable image...thus stabilization...and thus the mechanism to be referred to as a stabilizer is fine. In practice Canon can't stop you shaking but they do a very good job of compensating.
        I think in terms of processes which are preceded by inputs and result in this case shaking the camera is part of the input, the process is stabilization and the output is a sharp image.

        Whatever the correct English (if there is such a its ever changing in the interests of understanding) ....the stabilizer is Amazing!!!

        I do sympathize as sloppy language that we hear on TV/Radio etc is annoying.

        i.e. 'The police have named the victim...'.......No!.....I think the mother named the victim, the police just released the name. Know what I mean....?

        My choice is alcohol....tea wont do it for me sorry.
        Brian Vickers LRPS