4 ms·

I wonder how this compares to purely vision-based systems which use nothing but the images themselves for stabilization. Here are some quite old results of stab

by hdersch 5mo ago

I wonder how this compares to purely vision-based systems which use nothing but the images themselves for stabilization. Here are some quite old results of stabilization using image-based 3d-reconstruction of the scene which I wrote more than 10years ago, compared with other stabilization programs of that time (Deshaker, Adobe After Effects, Youtube). With todays improved hardware and progress in 3d-algorithms you may not need any additional gyroscopic data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m3fwhx3Z5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m3fwhx3Z5g

_flux 5mo ago
I think gyroscopic data still can have the edge if it has higher sampling rate than the video: then it could be used for removing blur from individual frames. I also expect purely gyroscopic approach to be much lighter compute-wise.
- 7e 5mo ago
  I expect you can recover most if not all of the gyroscopic data even from a blurred image, possibly at higher accuracy.
  - _flux 5mo ago
    I actually don't think that's possible, if you assume the objects in the video can also shake and the intent is to eliminate only the camera shaking.
UltraSane 5mo ago
gyroscope data is much higher time resolution and is the ground truth vs guessing motion from pixel.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- Mars008 5mo ago
  [dead]
mikae1 5mo ago
In my experience, what you call vision-based systems don't even come close to Gyroflow. After I started using Gyroflow I haven't touched the Ronin gimbal many times.
- 7e 5mo ago
  A physical stabilizer like the Ronin is not what they mean. They mean vision based approaches which should be more accurate.
  - Gigachad 5mo ago
    It doesn’t seem obvious that vision based stabilisation would be more accurate than a high accuracy gyroscope of the actual motion. At any rate if gyroflow obsoletes an actual gimbal it’s pretty close to perfect.

4 ms·

I wonder how this compares to purely vision-based systems which use nothing but the images themselves for stabilization. Here are some quite old results of stab

by hdersch 5mo ago

_flux 5mo ago
I think gyroscopic data still can have the edge if it has higher sampling rate than the video: then it could be used for removing blur from individual frames. I also expect purely gyroscopic approach to be much lighter compute-wise.
- 7e 5mo ago
  I expect you can recover most if not all of the gyroscopic data even from a blurred image, possibly at higher accuracy.
  - _flux 5mo ago
    I actually don't think that's possible, if you assume the objects in the video can also shake and the intent is to eliminate only the camera shaking.
UltraSane 5mo ago
gyroscope data is much higher time resolution and is the ground truth vs guessing motion from pixel.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- Mars008 5mo ago
  [dead]
mikae1 5mo ago
In my experience, what you call vision-based systems don't even come close to Gyroflow. After I started using Gyroflow I haven't touched the Ronin gimbal many times.
- 7e 5mo ago
  A physical stabilizer like the Ronin is not what they mean. They mean vision based approaches which should be more accurate.
  - Gigachad 5mo ago
    It doesn’t seem obvious that vision based stabilisation would be more accurate than a high accuracy gyroscope of the actual motion. At any rate if gyroflow obsoletes an actual gimbal it’s pretty close to perfect.