Equally clearly, using the whole width. You claim: "It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image." Just how do you think this works?!!? You think Digital stabilization never needs to move picture side to side?
I’m not the one who claimed video uses the whole sensor, that was you...and you were wrong. I also addressed the fact that while the full width can be used for non-4K / non-crop video capture, with digital IS enabled the full sensor width is not used. Either you didn’t bother to read what I wrote (you selectively omitted the relevant bit from your quoted text), you failed to understand what I wrote, or didn’t bother to read more carefully in the Advanced User Guide which you seem to enjoy liberally quoting. If you had done one of those, you would have seen (pasting from my post above):
But even if using the full width, for electronic IS Canon states, “Recording with Movie digital IS (p.220) further crops the image around the center of the screen.” Further crops...in other words, not using the full width. I’m not sure why you cannot grasp the basic, underlying concept here – for digital IS to work, the output must be smaller in size than the sensor area used for capture. The full sensor width is sub-sampled to generate the video output, so for any given frame of the video the full width is not being used. Since the output video is being downsampled anyway (to 1080p or 720p), you don’t really notice the cropping. But it’s there. For the fifth or sixth time, the full sensor is not being used for the resulting output, with digital IS enabled.
You're saying Canon thinks users wouldn't understand 6720 pixels being cut a bit in still photos, in exchange for in-camera stabilization? Canon already cuts some pixels off stills if you use Digital Lens Optimization. Why would users shrug that off yet not even want the OPTION of digital image stabilization that likewise reduced some pixels? You're apparently aware digital image stabilization likewise costs a few more pixels, yet Canon's clearly offering that as an option to video users: trade off some width for stabilization.
No, I’m not saying that at all. Please read more carefully. I’m saying Canon is choosing not to provide digital IS applied to still images for their users.
So for the fifth or sixth time, now, why not give the user the option? They can turn on digital stabilization in movies IF THEY CHOOSE. They can turn on distortion correction and the rest of the Digital Lens Optimization suite, IF THEY CHOOSE. There must be some reason Canon doesn't offer digital in-camera stabilization for stills. What could that reason be? Patent? Built-in limitation to protect IS lens sales? Or what? It's absolutely not because they wouldn't gleefully settle for 6600 pixels width in return for in-body stabilization, digital or not.
Obviously they have reasons for choosing not to implement dgital IS for still images, and just as obviously those reasons do
not include lack of technical capability to implement it. I speculated on some of those reasons above, as did you, but ultimately our speculation is irrelevant – Canon makes the cameras, they get to decide on the feature sets. If you don’t like the lack of a feature, telling CR Forums for the seventh or eight time...or a few hundred more times, is useless. Tell Canon. Or don’t buy any Canon camera that doesn’t offer digital IS for stills. Or both.
Given that your explanations about why digital image stabilization isn't offered are so mistaken, I can't really take your word for this. You could be right but I don't trust you right now.
LOL.
There’s a clear distinction between optical image stabilization methods (which include both lens-based IS and IBIS) and digital image stabilization methods. Those familiar with the concepts understand that distinction, although it’s apparent that you do not. You might try starting with the
Wikipedia entry on image stabilization. It’s a bit long although not technically complex, but given the evident lack of reading comprehensiveness and/or comprehension you displayed above, maybe it would help if I excerpt the most relevant bits for you:
Optical image stabilization
An optical image stabilizer, often abbreviated OIS, IS, or OS, is a mechanism used in a still camera or video camera that stabilizes the recorded image by varying the optical path to the sensor. This technology is implemented in the lens itself, as distinct from in-body image stabilization, which operates by moving the sensor as the final element in the optical path. The key element of all optical stabilization systems is that they stabilize the image projected on the sensor before the sensor converts the image into digital information.
Different companies have different names for the OIS technology, for example:
- Image Stabilizer (IS) - Canon introduced the EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM) in 1995. In 2009, they introduced their first lens (the EF100mm F2.8 Macro L) to use a four-axis Hybrid IS.)
- IBIS - In Body Image Stabilisation - Olympus
- SteadyShot (SS), Super SteadyShot (SSS), SteadyShot INSIDE (SSI) - Sony (based on Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake originally, Sony introduced a 2-axis full-frame variant for the DSLR-A900 in 2008 and a 5-axis stabilizer for the full-frame ILCE-7M2 in 2014)
Digital image stabilization
Real-time digital image stabilization, also called electronic image stabilization (EIS), is used in some video cameras. This technique shifts the electronic image from frame to frame of video, enough to counteract the motion.[23] It uses pixels outside the border of the visible frame to provide a buffer for the motion.
Hopefully that clarifies matters for you.