On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:54:47 +0800, ABC wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2002 15:19:53 -0800, btud1@yahoo.com (Bogdan Tudorancea)
>wrote:

[...]
>>Talking about Sony PC9, it has a feature named SuperSteadyShot - the
>>electronic stabilization system. This system uses all the 800K pixels,
>>in order to compensate for camera movement. This is not just a
>>"gimmick", but a very useful feature.
[...some of the deleted post is incorrect - see my post,
above it - the extra pixel-count is interpolated down
to the normal pixel count, improving resolution in the
process...]

>Will this be better than optical stabilization? I've always thought
>optical is the best but I have not followed the developement for a
>while.

There are different implementations of both optical
stabilization and EIS. In the former, some mfgrs go
for the loose "swimming" approach; Sony goes for
a "tighter" stabilization. Both have their advantages
and disadvantages... For EIS, if the stabilized area
is cut out of the normally-seen image area, resolution
is reduced (it looks like digital zoom); if area outside
the viewed area is reserved for stabilization, this does
not happen - but pixel size is reduced for a given CCD
size, hurting low-light ability (unless offset with
a more sensitive CCD type, as with Sony), and, in the
case of Sony, at least, the shutter speed is increased
when the stabilizer is engaged, reducing low-light picture
quality. In good light, with a good EIS system, the results
are excellent, and better/worse for some things than
good OIS. In other words, under good conditions, good OIS
looks about the same on tape as good EIS much of the time,
but particulars of the shooting conditions and
implementation may lead you to prefer one or the
other - but neither is better/worse overall than the
other under the conditions above...