I've read a bit on both 'technologies' but have yet to experience the digital option hands-on. Yet, it is tempting to list the Pros/Cons of each approach and get a consensus from the Community.
Mechanical Stabilization - With Gimbals (as in DJI), where rotations (pitch/roll/yaw) of the aircraft are measured with an IMU, and servos controlling the gimbal's 3-axes compensate for such motions.
Digital Stabilization - WIth a wide-angle lens, as in the Parrot BeBop drone. Here again, an IMU is used to capture motion of the aircraft, and those readings shift/rotate the image digitally.
While the Mechanical option is rather 'intuitive' and impressive in the way it works, it nonetheless has some 'weaknesses'
1. Gimbal suspension can compensate only rotations of the aircraft, NOT translations
2. Gimbal suspension is very 'fragile' and can break easily (during a crash)
In contrast, the Digital Stabilization offers:
3. Very robust construction, no moving/mechanical parts
4. Can correct both translations and rotations of the vehicle
However, one of the main 'weaknesses' of the digital option is that the picture/video is NOT native, it is computed from neighboring pixels. Also, the distortion of the wide-angle lens introduces non-constant image resolutions across the field-of-view.
Also, the digital stabilization would require a more 'powerful' CPU for the intensive image processing.
Now, all above is based on my understanding of the technologies. The proof however relies in having the two methods tested side-by-side and compared via some objective 'metrics'.
Anyone can correct/add to this discussion and possibly point to some interesting articles?
Mechanical Stabilization - With Gimbals (as in DJI), where rotations (pitch/roll/yaw) of the aircraft are measured with an IMU, and servos controlling the gimbal's 3-axes compensate for such motions.
Digital Stabilization - WIth a wide-angle lens, as in the Parrot BeBop drone. Here again, an IMU is used to capture motion of the aircraft, and those readings shift/rotate the image digitally.
While the Mechanical option is rather 'intuitive' and impressive in the way it works, it nonetheless has some 'weaknesses'
1. Gimbal suspension can compensate only rotations of the aircraft, NOT translations
2. Gimbal suspension is very 'fragile' and can break easily (during a crash)
In contrast, the Digital Stabilization offers:
3. Very robust construction, no moving/mechanical parts
4. Can correct both translations and rotations of the vehicle
However, one of the main 'weaknesses' of the digital option is that the picture/video is NOT native, it is computed from neighboring pixels. Also, the distortion of the wide-angle lens introduces non-constant image resolutions across the field-of-view.
Also, the digital stabilization would require a more 'powerful' CPU for the intensive image processing.
Now, all above is based on my understanding of the technologies. The proof however relies in having the two methods tested side-by-side and compared via some objective 'metrics'.
Anyone can correct/add to this discussion and possibly point to some interesting articles?
