From: mullen@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Preston Mullen)
Subject: Re: TR200 == TR81?
Reply-To: mullen@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Information Technology Division, Naval Research Laboratory
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:55:27 GMT

In article A4B@taligent.com, Jay_Tobias@taligent.com (Jay Tobias) writes:
> Sounds good, but the stabilizer is the most totally cool feature to come along
> short of the camcorder itself.
> ...
> How do others feel about stabilization?  I've heard people say you can get used
> to the "shakes" or learn how to overcome them, but shakey footage is just not
> that viewable, right?

Right, although it might add a certain sense of presence to shots of
natural disasters, amusement park rides, combat, etc.  Jittery images
seem to contribute to tension.  Watch a tape in which stabilization was
switched on partway through a scene, and see if you do not feel calmer
when the jitters smooth out.

If you're always going to use a tripod or Steadicam Jr., or even just
brace yourself properly, then you probably don't need stabilization in
the camcorder.

On the other hand, if you are going to try to hand-hold the camera and
keep up with moving kids (especially infants on the floor), or shoot
from waist level, or if you just can't hold it steady, then it makes a
tremendous difference.  Try it where you can watch the playback on a
monitor, since, as others have pointed out, you can't always appreciate
the effect through the viewfinder, especially while you are recording.

For family shots, tourism, etc., stabilization also makes it easier to
hand the camera to someone else, who might not be familiar with proper
technique for holding the camera steady, and get presentable video.
Tourists please note:  despite this technical advantage, don't hand
your camcorder to just anyone!  Maybe that warning applies to parents
too....

The TR101's optical stabilization works very well.  I've also briefly
tried a Panasonic VHS-C model with digital stabilization; when you
switch the feature on, it does a little jump zoom and the resolution
suffers slightly, because it is then getting the picture from a
slightly smaller area of the CCD.  The optical stabilizer in the TR101
doesn't do this.  What remains to be seen is how the mechanical parts
in the TR101 hold up over the long term.  The optical stabilizer also
uses up the battery somewhat faster; presumably digital stabilization
would not drain the battery as much.

The other difference is that the TR101's shake sensors detect actual
camera motion, whereas most (but not all) digital stabilizers detect
motion by scene analysis; this would seem to be independent of how the
image is stabilized after motion is sensed, although there are obvious
economies in combining scene-referenced sensing with digital
stabilization.  Also, a processor that does digital stabilization
can also perform various effects like mirror and reverse imaging, which
is what the Panasonic models do, and anamorphic 16:9 recording, which
is what a new Hitachi model pictured in the Nov. 92 Video magazine does.

What I find interesting, though probably not surprising, is that
Sony/Canon (who jointly developed the TR101's stabilizer) found it
better/cheaper to build a mechanical device than to simply add pixels
to the CCD and do the stabilization digitally without losing camera
resolution.

	Preston Mullen
	Naval Research Laboratory

Newsgroups: rec.video