![]() ![]() I have gone full circle, I used to shoot everything from a tripod, gimbal, or monopod mainly because I started out shooting real estate photography and video. I also find it amazing that people have adjusted to 4K being cinematic, when even now many cinemas are 2K, and every movie (apart from those on 70mm) basically had 2K resolution by the time you saw it in a theatre. This forum used to be full of people talking about motion cadence, which despite never really getting a good definition was a pretty subtle effect at the best of times, and yet now people seem to be comfortable with the blur not matching the cameras movement, which I would imagine would be an effect at least one or two orders of magnitude more significant than motion cadence. I've actually gone the other way in my work - I used to shoot quite dynamic shots and stabilise in post a lot, whereas now my shots are much more static and I basically don't stabilise in-post at all. Your comment about compression from online platforms is an interesting one, as, YT in 4K has more resolving power than basically any affordable camera had a decade ago, so that's actually gone through the roof, but peoples perception has dulled more than enough to compensate. I also have a theory that this threshold is getting higher over time as people slowly get used to cameras that expose with SS. Yeah, I suspect that it's often under the threshold of what is perceptible. I think at the end of the day nothing beats true stabilization equipment, IBIS, Digital IS, and Post stabilization are all just tools to get you "close enough" when "close enough" is acceptable. ![]() In real estate videos though you nearly always use sliders or gimbals for that very reason.too many sharp straight edges that would make any camera shake, post stabilization, or horizon tilt very apparent. ![]() The one place where I think this phenomenon would be perceptible nearly always would be shooting detail shots for real estate. When using it to smooth out a start or stop in motion it is quite effective but sometimes I have to try all 3 options in DR before finding one that looks natural. For me, I am more trying to smooth a too sudden motion more so than actual camera shake. The biggest problem I have with post stabilization is trying to balance the warping effect that post stabilization adds to certain scenes especially when shooting with wide angle lenses or the motion you are trying to fix. Your test scene had a lot of sharp edges and detail combined with a lot of shake and post stabilization in a typical shooting scenario the camera is farther away from the subject, there's few if any sharp edges, and the camera is typically also moving in some visible direction combine that with compression from online platforms and I don't think it would be discernable at all. That is a very interesting phenomenon, and makes perfect sense when you think about it.but I think in the real world it is nearly impossible to see in a typical scene. This "blur doesn't match shake" also happens in all action and 360 cameras when they shoot in low-light and their auto-SS adjusts to have shutter speeds that include blur (which is why I bought an action camera with OIS rather than EIS). The issue here is that people using IBIS or OIS often have all the stabilisation they need from that, so the gyro stabilisation is aimed at people who have neither. The IBIS + Digital Stabilisation combo was much better and is essentially the same as OIS + Digital Stabilisation. The shot at 25s on the right "Digital Stabilisation Only" shows this motion blur without the associated camera shake. This is a test I did some time ago comparing OIS / IBIS vs EIS (stabilisation in post is a form of EIS). If you stabilised in post completely so that the shot had no shake then it would look like a tripod shot because the camera movement would be gone, but all the blur would remain, so a stationary shot would blur in random directions at random times for no conceivable reason. If you stabilise in post, you remove the shake but not the blur. This will look normal because the blur will match the shake - if you shake / move left the blur will be horizontal and the size of the blur will match the shake / motion in the shot. If you have 180 shutter and shake the camera then your images will have shake and motion blur. I almost always shoot at 180 degrees with most of my cameras except with my drones and I frequently have to stabilize in post (especially since the C70 has no IBIS) but it looks fine to me. ![]() I guess I don't understand how the 180 degree shutter angle relates to post stab. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |