It's basically like comparing optical zoom to digital zoom.
Digital stabilization will inevitably lose resolution because it needs to crop some data to even out the shake, and also because there is varying motion blur in the images that needs to be cleaned up somehow.
Like with zoom, optical is always a better solution because it fixes the problem before light hits the sensor, but of course it comes with its own tradeoffs involving physical size and production cost.
Luma's cinematic stabilization performs much better than Nokia's optical stabilizer in daylight. As sensors get better (more light sensitive, higher resolution), the advantages of optical stabilizers will diminish even further and eventually disappear. (Disclosure: I cofounded Luma).
Comments
How does this compare to the optical image stabilization on Nokia Lumia 920?
It's basically like comparing optical zoom to digital zoom.
Digital stabilization will inevitably lose resolution because it needs to crop some data to even out the shake, and also because there is varying motion blur in the images that needs to be cleaned up somehow.
Like with zoom, optical is always a better solution because it fixes the problem before light hits the sensor, but of course it comes with its own tradeoffs involving physical size and production cost.
Luma's cinematic stabilization performs much better than Nokia's optical stabilizer in daylight. As sensors get better (more light sensitive, higher resolution), the advantages of optical stabilizers will diminish even further and eventually disappear. (Disclosure: I cofounded Luma).