In camera image stabilization or Mercalli?

[burnandreturn]

How do the two technigues differ? On one of my video cameras panasonic HC X900 it offers image stabilization.

I have used Mercalli on some footage shot with a Sony T3. Amazing how it will help the footage shot from this tiny handheld camera.

By comparison I don't see much difference in the end result.

Just wondering what you all would do or think.

[THoff]

Mercalli can compensate for far more severe vibration than the camera can, but it will always result in image quality degradation by zooming and/or cropping. I would always use in-camera stabilization if appropriate, and only if that is not enough would I apply Mercalli.

[dpalomaki]

In-camera optical image stabilization is generally the best. Many of the better camcorders have it now.

In-camera (non-optical) vs. Mercalli would depend on the technology used in the camera. If the camera relies on an over-sized CCD/CMOS and compensates by adjusting the captured portion of the sensor then in camera should be better. If the camcorder uses a scale and crop method, then Mercalli may be better in that it may allow you a bit more control.

Some cameras (e.g., Pentax DSLR) actually move the sensor for stabilization.

[David Clarke]

The in camera will generally sort out small movements. Mercalli will do bigger ones. I always have the camera stabilse on, and then use Mercalli afterwards if needed.

[col lamb]

Just videoed the Liverpool Sea Oddessey this weekend (giant marrionettes walking the streets (60 foot diver, a 30 foot girl and a 6 foot dog) in a Titanic homage.

Used my Panasonic TM900 with image stalilisation on, with it on a monopod and often held high above the crowd for a better view, excellent results