Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:09:47 -0800
In article <2fvoh4t660jglbsmj4nv2eovord805p7m2@xxxxxxx>, Brad Wentworth
<bradwentworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(For those of you that depend on optical IS systems, it might enlighten
you to
go back over your bevy of photos and pixel-peep to see how many of them
have a
few pixels-wide green/magenta fringes on one side of your image and
blue/yellow
fringe on the other side. That is "Optical-IS Chromatic-Aberration".
Apparent
in
many photos taken with any optical IS camera/lens. More apparent when using
long
focal-lengths where it attempted to compensate for a large amount of camera
shake.)
many lenses have chromatic aberration, and it has nothing to do with
stabilization. it's also easy to fix. and high quality lenses have
very little chromatic aberration, if any, stabilization or not.
I describe a unique type of CA, not imparted by any other well-aligned optical
assembly.
the invisible kind.
The only other time that you will find this type of CA is if a main
optical element is badly tilted in its housing (exactly how optical IS works)
no, not exactly. there's a big difference between a decentered optic
and moving a couple of elements in a precise manner based on detected
motion.
due to impact or poor manufacturing. If that be the case then every one of
your
photos will contain this type of CA defect. You will also find that it can
happen in only one frame from a burst sequence and in no others. The only
possible explanation is due to optical IS.
it's not chromatic aberration.
This particular type of CA is NOT easy to fix. As the color shift is different
for different sides of the image. Apparently you've also never done CA
corrections in post-processing to understand the difficulty and difference.
actually i have, and it's quite easy with the proper tools.
Unless you are nothing but a virtual-photographer resident-troll (which is
what
appears to be the case so far), then trying to contradict me with things that
you obviously know nothing about are serving nobody, except yourself.
Attempting
to correct your blatant misinformation and speculation based on ignorance is
tedious and boring.
ad hominem attacks. no actual substance.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: Brad Wentworth
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- References:
- image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: H.S.
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: Brad Wentworth
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: nospam
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: Brad Wentworth
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: nospam
- Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- From: Brad Wentworth
- image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- Prev by Date: to retain group's value, don't reply to trolls [was: Re: rec.photo.digital]
- Next by Date: Re: to retain group's value, don't reply to trolls [was: Re: rec.photo.digital]
- Previous by thread: Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- Next by thread: Re: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|