On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 22:14:03 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 23:36:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:01:16 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:56:55 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:21:12 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

That's a different situation, everything the camera
can see is all moving in the same way all the time.

So the camera could just ignore the centre.

Nope, because if it makes the background stable the center
would move around just as much as the background currently
does

It should make them both move around half what they currently do.

Not possible for the reason I spelt out later and you have now deleted.

I never delete the last five levels,

You did that time.

No, I never do.

You did that time.

No. I only delete if it's getting very big, then I make sure to keep at least 5.

try to make your point quicker.

I did, you deleted it.

It's very easy to move the whole image electronically so the background
moves half of what it currently is, and that movement is passed onto the
person's head.

Yes, but like I said in the bit you deleted, not possible
to fill in the background in the area the persons head
has moved away from because it isnt even available
in the image because it was obscured by the head.

No, I mean to move the WHOLE image to semi-compensate for the moving
background.

Useless way to do things. Then you cant see what you're sposed to see.

Better than leaving it as it is, still head and wildly moving background.

You now have half the movement in the head and half in the background,
which might not look so weird.

But what you are looking at isnt centered
anymore so would look even weirder.

Less movement, less weird.

The way the movies do it is to film the background
with a different camera and film the stuff that is
going on in the foreground in front of a colored
screen and then superimpose the two lots of footage
in post processing. Not even possible to do in real
time with head mounted cameras that can never
see what is obscured by what is in the foreground.

Why is all that even necessary if you don't have the camera attached to
the guy's head?

It has to be attached to the person with very active stuff like that.

Movies don't do that.

You have the camera steady in the first place.

Useless when what you want to see moves around a lot.

If it moves, it should move on the film to be realistic.

and would be even worse to watch because what you want to watch is
whats in the center.

No you don't. For example in the video we just watched, it's the
animal
we're interested in.

Yes, but when that moves around more
than it currently does, that's worse.

Its never going to be feasible to eliminate the problem
with optical stablisation, it has to be physical.

That wouldn't be any different to what you objected to above.

Yes it is, because there would be no background movement with
that approach. You only get background movement when the
camera moves.

With a perfect physical stabiliser, the background would be
stationary,

Yes.

and the person would move around.

Not when it tracks the person and lion.

Not possible if the person is moving relative to the lion.

Corse it is, you track so both are still in the field of view.

One has to wobble.

Nope, not with massive great shoulder mounted gyro stabilised camera.

If the person and the lion are moving at different speeds, one has to be un-stationary in the film.

--
Seen in a lift:
"Please do not allow excessive obnoxious gaseous substances to be released from your anal orifice as the ventilation system is limited".