[interested_observer]

It turns out the only thing standing between Olympus and even better image stabilization than the E-M1 Mark II‘s already insane 6.5 stops… is the rotation of the Earth.

• Olympus Says Earth's Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max

[FozzFoster]

I don't know anything about anything.. but it seems to me that the known constant that is the rotation of the earth would be something that could be compensated for...?
Interesting to read and to think about - thanks for posting!

[BigMackCam]

Earth's rotation or not, I'd like to see them get 6.5 stops of image stabilisation with my unsteadiness...

[WillWeaverRVA]

Oh please, that sounds like just an excuse.

[biz-engineer]

Olympus Says Earth’s Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max

I haven't noticed that SR is more effective when earth stops spinning.

[zapp]

6.5 stops is fine. Earth accelerates the camera if you compensate for this acceleration, you overcompensate. Others talk about panning mode, Olympus talks about earth rotation...

[biz-engineer]

6.5 stops is fine. Earth accelerates the camera if you compensate for this acceleration, you overcompensate. Others talk about panning mode, Olympus talks about earth rotation...

I don't understand, we all spin at the same speed on the surface of earth, the camera spins at the same speed as its owner and the subject in front of the lens, if that wasn't the case we'd be in big trouble.

[ismaelg]

Wait! Isn't the Earth flat?

[BigDave]

I haven't noticed that SR is more effective when earth stops spinning.

Neither have I! Though it seems to spin more after three or four scotches!

I don't understand, we all spin at the same speed on the surface of earth, the camera spins at the same speed as its owner and the subject in front of the lens, if that wasn't the case we'd be in big trouble.

If you are working out ballistics for a bullet traveling out a mile, yea, I can see the issue. But working with the speed of light... Not a good rational from my sense.

[photoptimist]

The reason this is a problem is that to correct for the effects of motion of the planet, the camera must know the pointing direction of the camera. Even if both the camera and subject are rotating together once per 24 hours, the camera still needs to know pointing direction of the camera to properly subtract that once-per-day spin from the data camera's gyroscope sensor. The correction for a North-facing camera is the opposite of the correction for a South-facing camera.

Knowing the camera's pointing direction requires an accurate magnetic compass reading and that requires frequent calibration to correct for changes in the magnetic signature of both the location and the camera (such as after a lens change). People's challenges with getting astrotracer to work well show how hard this can be. The Earth's magnetic field is really very weak so it's signal is easily distorted by nearby metals and magnets.

[RGlasel]

I don't know anything about anything.. but it seems to me that the known constant that is the rotation of the earth would be something that could be compensated for...?

You and I are probably products of the same educational system, so same caveat from me.

I do happen to know that the earth's rotation speed is not constant (I played with algorithims for calculating sunrise and moonrise to do some calendrical calculations). The earth's acceleration is very small and is negative at the moment (the earth's rotation is slowing down a bit) but the speed that objects on the surface of the earth are moving is high enough that the amount of inertia those objects have (which need to be moved in a hurry for image stabilization) will be a limiting factor. Bigger sensors have more mass, so they require more force to be stabilized and the physical dimensions and energy supply of a particular camera model might also be a limiting factor. There might be some measurement limitations of the MEMS (microelectromechanical system) gyros used for image stabilization in cameras, but when the Olympus spokesman is talking about the rotation of the earth limiting their IBIS to 6.5 stops, he is probably refering to the effect of inertia on their sensor. A smaller sensor witjh the same IS system might be capable of even greater stabilization, but who wants a Q that is the same size as an OM-D E-M1?

[DWS1]

I don't understand, we all spin at the same speed on the surface of earth, the camera spins at the same speed as its owner and the subject in front of the lens, if that wasn't the case we'd be in big trouble.

Exactly my thought as well.

Here's a new idea. Learn proper technique for holding a camera stable, like has been done for the 100 years before digital, then one does not need 6.5 or more stops of image stabilization. Maybe I'm too old school and cynical, but to me this is really all about marketing to people who want to capture that gallery worthy image and not put in the effort required to learn the skills it takes to get it. Basically an upgrade from a phone to a better camera that's used like a phone to capture images.

[luftfluss]

• Olympus Says Earth's Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max

You posted this same thing 3 years ago Olympus: Earth

[photoptimist]

You and I are probably products of the same educational system, so same caveat from me.

I do happen to know that the earth's rotation speed is not constant (I played with algorithims for calculating sunrise and moonrise to do some calendrical calculations). The earth's acceleration is very small and is negative at the moment (the earth's rotation is slowing down a bit) but the speed that objects on the surface of the earth are moving is high enough that the amount of inertia those objects have (which need to be moved in a hurry for image stabilization) will be a limiting factor. Bigger sensors have more mass, so they require more force to be stabilized and the physical dimensions and energy supply of a particular camera model might also be a limiting factor. There might be some measurement limitations of the MEMS (microelectromechanical system) gyros used for image stabilization in cameras, but when the Olympus spokesman is talking about the rotation of the earth limiting their IBIS to 6.5 stops, he is probably refering to the effect of inertia on their sensor. A smaller sensor witjh the same IS system might be capable of even greater stabilization, but who wants a Q that is the same size as an OM-D E-M1?

It's actually because the MEMS gyros are so good that this is a problem. The modern chips are now accurate down to almost 1 degree per hour so they readily sense the 15° per hour rotation of the Earth and camera.

If you put the camera on a solid tripod and read the signal from the gyro, the gyro would tell you that the camera is actually spinning once per day about an axis pointed at the North Star. And if the camera's software knew it was on a perfectly solid tripod (which don't exist in real life), the software could easily know to ignore the measurable spin of the Earth, camera, and subject.

But, in real life, the data from the gyros of a handheld camera would show all sorts of random rotations in random axis directions. Unless the camera can be confident about whether it is pointing North, East, South, or West, it doesn't know how to subtract the Earth's rotation from the gyro data to accurately estimate the rotation of the camera relative to the Earth.

The limitation is actually the flip-side of the astrophotographer's problem with star trails. On a K-1 with a 100 mm lens fixed on a tripod, the Earth's rotation means the stars move as much as 1 pixel every 1.5 seconds (depending on the pointing direction). Using the raw gyro signal for motion correction can remove the Earth's rotation but now all the Earthly subjects in the scene start moving up to 1 pixel every 1.5 seconds. That implies that shutter speeds slower than 150/F will show Earth rotation effects at the pixel peeping level. That's 7.2 stops slower than the 1/F rule of thumb for safe shutter speeds.

[jddwoods]

Earth's rotation or not, I'd like to see them get 6.5 stops of image stabilisation with my unsteadiness...

My unsteadiness also, I will get very interested if they can cure, or compensate for Parkinsons disease