Digital Shake Reduction?

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article .net:
heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out inertia,
one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object try to stay
stationary, and which force increases with mass.

??? My hand has practically no tremor without load. Under load, a
visible tremor appears. AFAICS, the same happens with most other
people.

So the problem reduces to finding where

Muscle_Tremor(load) / (Mass_of_Hand + load)

takes a minimum.

(Probably it is wrong more often than not? Any hard statistic would
require a real statistical study...)

And the overthrow of some of physics.

Sure. If you make errors in your assumptions, then feel free to
interpret your failure as a failure of physics.

Yours,
Ilya

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:17:26 -0700, Blinky the Shark
wrote:

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article
.net:
Plus, your 20+ year old Ricoh has one of the best shake reduction
features, and nothing can ever go wrong with it: mass.

Nowadays, this old myth is, finally, debanked.

Many people on this newsgroup who use dSLRs and dP&S with similar MP
count report that in their experience, the (smaller) dP&S handle
better than (heavier) dSLR. My experience is the same. (The usual
conjecture is that this is due to mirror slap; myself, I *always* knew
that my hands shake more with heavier load.)

And mine shake less. The world is a very big place.

Sure. Each minute more and more people become younger than us. ;-)

Most of them are younger than I am. Dammit! That wasn't supposed to
happen.

This is why I formulated what I wrote the way I did. ;-) We *know* that

So "debanked" was a pun on "debunked"?

heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out inertia,
one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object try to stay
stationary, and which force increases with mass.

(Probably it is wrong more often than not? Any hard statistic would
require a real statistical study...)

And the overthrow of some of physics.

The *inertia* principle seems to become a bit wobbly when you're
trying to hold up a battleship with two hands. At some point, MASS
becomes the deciding factor, one to be considered especially if you
are standing _under_ said battleship.

Lg

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article
.net:
heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out
inertia, one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object
try to stay stationary, and which force increases with mass.

??? My hand has practically no tremor without load. Under load, a
visible tremor appears. AFAICS, the same happens with most other people.

So the problem reduces to finding where

Muscle_Tremor(load) / (Mass_of_Hand + load)

takes a minimum.

Guess I'm stronger. That's good to learn.

(Probably it is wrong more often than not? Any hard statistic would
require a real statistical study...)

And the overthrow of some of physics.

Sure. If you make errors in your assumptions, then feel free to interpret
your failure as a failure of physics.

Whatever.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article .net:
heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out inertia,
one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object try to stay
stationary, and which force increases with mass.

??? My hand has practically no tremor without load. Under load, a
visible tremor appears. AFAICS, the same happens with most other
people.

But not all. For example, many people who are beginning to lose fine
stability control with age have a mild tremor when lightly loaded that
disappears when the load is increased. It's also the case that once you
get practised enough at hand holding very steadily that heartbeat
becomes a source of wobble that adding extra mass will reduce it.

So the problem reduces to finding where

Muscle_Tremor(load) / (Mass_of_Hand + load)

takes a minimum.

Adding mass on the end of long lever arm can increase rotational
inertia very helpfully without increasing total mass to the point of
adding muscle control problems. For example you can do that by adding
a monopod to the camera, and just using it folded up without putting
the foot on anything. That helps to reduce the rotational wobble about
a horizontal axis which the rotational intertia of a long hand held
telephoto produces.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article
.net:
heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out
inertia, one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object
try to stay stationary, and which force increases with mass.

??? My hand has practically no tremor without load. Under load, a
visible tremor appears. AFAICS, the same happens with most other
people.

But not all. For example, many people who are beginning to lose fine
stability control with age have a mild tremor when lightly loaded that
disappears when the load is increased. It's also the case that once you
get practised enough at hand holding very steadily that heartbeat becomes
a source of wobble that adding extra mass will reduce it.

So the problem reduces to finding where

Muscle_Tremor(load) / (Mass_of_Hand + load)

takes a minimum.

Adding mass on the end of long lever arm can increase rotational inertia
very helpfully without increasing total mass to the point of adding muscle
control problems. For example you can do that by adding a monopod to the
camera, and just using it folded up without putting the foot on anything.
That helps to reduce the rotational wobble about a horizontal axis which
the rotational intertia of a long hand held telephoto produces.

I've thought about doing just that, but haven't acted on it as yet. For work
(TV camera operator: video, but have done some 35mm Panavision/Panaflex in
the past) I carry (gear bag or trunk g) a five-pound/2.2kg disk
freeweight which I sometimes apply to my camera for a little extra resting
inertia. I'm talking cameras on pedestals, here -- the traditional studio
configuration. This is a response to the phasing out of those nice big
very heavy studio cameras and the virtual takeover even in the studio of
the lightweight-"minicam"-on-pedestal configuration. Naturally, in this
context I'm not having to hold the hardware against gravity, so while it's
an other illustration of the relationship of mass and inertia, it's
admittedly not quite analagous to handholding a camera.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"Blinky the Shark" wrote in message
news
Chris Malcolm wrote:

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Blinky the Shark
], who wrote in article
.net:
heavier-is-more-stable is extremely far from being a universal truth.

I personally don't know how the other half manages to cancel out
inertia, one aspect of which /in lay terms/ makes a stationary object
try to stay stationary, and which force increases with mass.

??? My hand has practically no tremor without load. Under load, a
visible tremor appears. AFAICS, the same happens with most other
people.

But not all. For example, many people who are beginning to lose fine
stability control with age have a mild tremor when lightly loaded that
disappears when the load is increased. It's also the case that once you
get practised enough at hand holding very steadily that heartbeat becomes
a source of wobble that adding extra mass will reduce it.

So the problem reduces to finding where

Muscle_Tremor(load) / (Mass_of_Hand + load)

takes a minimum.

Adding mass on the end of long lever arm can increase rotational inertia
very helpfully without increasing total mass to the point of adding
muscle
control problems. For example you can do that by adding a monopod to the
camera, and just using it folded up without putting the foot on anything.
That helps to reduce the rotational wobble about a horizontal axis which
the rotational intertia of a long hand held telephoto produces.

I've thought about doing just that, but haven't acted on it as yet. For
work
(TV camera operator: video, but have done some 35mm Panavision/Panaflex in
the past) I carry (gear bag or trunk g) a five-pound/2.2kg disk
freeweight which I sometimes apply to my camera for a little extra resting
inertia. I'm talking cameras on pedestals, here -- the traditional studio
configuration. This is a response to the phasing out of those nice big
very heavy studio cameras and the virtual takeover even in the studio of
the lightweight-"minicam"-on-pedestal configuration. Naturally, in this
context I'm not having to hold the hardware against gravity, so while it's
an other illustration of the relationship of mass and inertia, it's
admittedly not quite analagous to handholding a camera.


--
Blinky


The discussion of handholding a heavy camera vs a light camera tends to look
at everyone who holds the camera as if there is one universal method in use,
and that everyone's physical prowess is the same. Unfortunately, this is
not true.

At 6' 4" and weighing in around 250 lbs, I've got more mass in my arms than
a lot of guys have in their legs, and one of my hands has about as much mass
as two or three petite little feminine paws. Couple my own mass with that
of a heavy camera, and adding in good form, I've tended to be able to
handhold most heavy SLR cameras with heavy lenses quite efficiently at low
shutter speeds.

I'd like to point out that I mentioned good form because form can really
impact camera shake. If one holds a heavy camera out at arms length,
whether to look at a LCD panel, or simply because the user doesn't know
enough to keep their arms close to their body for stability reasons doesn't
change the fact that holding ones arms out increases the leverage force of
the camera that the muscles of the arms has to counteract.

If the user keeps their arms close to the body and holds the weight of the
camera with the palm of a flat hand, the geometry of the body tends to
naturally provide a fairly stable platform from which to operate a camera.
And, when done properly, tends to add credibility to the mass is better
argument.
at least, it does in my opinion.

Take Care,
Dudley