Slashdot Mirror


Google Photos Can Now Stabilize All Your Shaky Phone Camera Videos (theverge.com)

In early August, Google announced a feature for the Google Photos mobile app that would automatically stabilize videos in your camera roll. That feature is now rolling out via Photos v2.13 on Android. The Verge reports: A lot of flagship smartphones offer optical image stabilization when shooting video, a hardware feature that helps keep footage smooth. Others, like Google's Pixel, use software to try and stabilize jerky movements. Putting stabilization inside the Google Photos app could enhance results further if you're already working with hardware OIS, or improve recordings significantly if your phone lacks any means of steadying things out of the box. The stabilized video is cropped in a bit, as you might expect, and the original clip remains in your Photos library; there's no overwriting. Here's a side-by-side demo someone else made of the app's latest trick.

14 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. So tired by ve3oat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    God, I am so tired of TV news programs that show jiggly, bouncy, shaky video clips from some "witness's" cell phone. These clips rarely contain any useful or even relevant information and whatever might have been learned from them is totally obscured by all the camera motion. And the TV producers think it is news! More often than not, I have been quite happy to wait until next morning to read all about the event, whatever it was, in the newspaper.

    1. Re:So tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      God, I am so tired of jiggly, bouncy,

      I'm not!!!!

    2. Re:So tired by pjbgravely · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I can't stand is when news programs play vertical videos instead of telling the submitter that they were holding their camera wrong.

      If Google could find a way to stop people from making vertical videos the world would be a better place.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
  2. Good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me know when it can convert the video to landscape mode and then punch the person who recorded it.

  3. Stabilize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll be impressed when it stabilizes the middle east, and my meth lab

  4. ffmpeg vid.stab repackaged by at10u8 · · Score: 2

    ffmpeg has had the vid.stab filter for several years. The only news here seems to be another cloud service.

  5. You Tube has done this for years by turp182 · · Score: 2

    I've used the stabilization feature a few times in the past 3-4 years. It works very well in my opinion.

    Surprised it took them so long to apply it to other services.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  6. It is using parallax by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Informative
    Looks like it is using parallax to determine the depth and the pixels at "infinity". Surprised it took this long to develop parallax based image stabilization.

    One possible bug: If a moving object approaches the camera at the same bearing, parts of it would be marked as "inifinity" and create weird effects.

    Parallax based depth determination is one of the reasons for birds striking aircraft. Aircraft might escape with minor damage or a major disaster, but the bird almost always dies! It is in its interest to avoid hitting the plane. But birds have eyes on the side, not overlapping stereoscopic field of vision. The determine depth by parallax, they are constantly moving, and unchanging parts of the image on the retina are at infinity and changing parts are closer. That is why birds sitting on branches constantly cock their heads back and forth to get depth perception. When a bird approaches a plane such that the plane is at constant bearing, it things the plane is far way at inifinity.

    Would very much like to test this "app" by approaching the camera at a constant bearing to see what it does.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Demo by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    The demo is interesting, but the results look bad to me. Cropped for sure, but also looks blurry and lots of parallax. I'd rather watch the original, but it is interesting.

    1. Re:Demo by dj245 · · Score: 2

      The demo is interesting, but the results look bad to me. Cropped for sure, but also looks blurry and lots of parallax. I'd rather watch the original, but it is interesting.

      Youtube has had image stabilization for some time, and I always prefer the original video. The added blurriness is too much to justify it. You could argue that removing the shakes alters the artistic character of the film as well (for better or worse). In the article's example (following a skier), removing the shakes makes the video feel like it was shot from a drone. The original video is more realistic representation of a first-person view.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Demo by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      The added blurriness is too much to justify it.

      Motion in photography creates blur. The blur was always there, you just didn't notice it while the video was shaky. Your brain expects it to be there. Once all of the motion is gone, your brain will notice the blur.

      Basically, it's all in your head.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    3. Re:Demo by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      What I'm interested in is some post processing that will clean up the blur. In video, there should be some way to compare the frames before and after to clean it up.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  8. Aliens, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Finally, I'll be able to see clear professional photos of Aliens Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster once Google takes away the shakes and blurs.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. Re:Throwback news consumption by ve3oat · · Score: 2

    The rest of us just found out about it on the internet a few minutes after it happened.

    What you get a few minutes after the event is less that 5% of the story and is based mostly on rumours and speculation. What I get the next day in my newspaper is almost 90% of the story and the journalists (if they are any good, depends on the newspaper) have already eliminated most of the speculation and rumours. Anachronistic a newspaper might be, but depending on the paper it can certainly deliver a more accurate, balanced and realistic view of the world.