60FPS Camera - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/01/2007 10:16:55 AM · #29

Pretty wild stuff. I think the key thing to remember is that most people don't have the kinds of things they WANT to photograph that fast.

I'd probably get one though just for fun! heh.

Also interesting is the fact that 6MP at 300 FPS is going to give you just a few seconds of data recording even with a 4GB card. Going to be interesting to see how they can implement writing 4GB in a few seconds...

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

09/01/2007 10:17:08 AM · #30

[

Originally posted by delta_viking:

That's funny because I think I read somewhere that the human eye cannot discern anything above 24fps.

Old Film Movies and Mechanical Television Outputs are recorded/played at 24 frames per second. There is a very slight and defined choppyness about them. A program/process called vidfire is used to bring them up to 30 fps. Standard video is played back at 30 fps or just over 29 in some specs. It might be a little more then our eyes need but ive seen 24 fps and it doesnt look right.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/01/2007 10:37:37 AM · #31

Originally posted by eschelar:

Yeah right. Some time soon, a Digital Video Challenge site is going to get bombarded wtih slow motion water droplet movies.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/01/2007 10:42:59 AM · #32

Originally posted by eschelar:

Also interesting is the fact that 6MP at 300 FPS is going to give you just a few seconds of data recording even with a 4GB card. Going to be interesting to see how they can implement writing 4GB in a few seconds...

True, but it doesn't do 6Mp at 300FPS, it does 640x480 at 300FPS, or 6MP at 60fps

magnus

Canon EOS-30D

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

09/01/2007 10:45:20 AM · #33

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

[
Originally posted by delta_viking:
That's funny because I think I read somewhere that the human eye cannot discern anything above 24fps.

Old Film Movies and Mechanical Television Outputs are recorded/played at 24 frames per second. There is a very slight and defined choppyness about them. A program/process called vidfire is used to bring them up to 30 fps. Standard video is played back at 30 fps or just over 29 in some specs. It might be a little more then our eyes need but ive seen 24 fps and it doesnt look right.

All movies are still recorded at 24 fps, but what you see in the theater is either 2 or 3 times faster because each frame is flashed on the screen 2 or 3 times. At least that's what the source of infinite wisdom says...

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

09/01/2007 11:02:41 AM · #34

From what it says they do it on commercial films only to save on film stock. The way the projector makes up for it allows for this i guess?

They still say Television material is typically at 30 (+ ?) fps. DVD is 29.6 or 30 i believe) Ofcourse i can imagine digital films are shot (or atleast could be) at 30 since there is no expensive film to be saved?

Message edited by author 2007-09-01 11:04:41.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/01/2007 11:45:43 AM · #35

I have noticed that recently many of the sweeeeeeping landscape shots in movies such as Happy Feet, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and others that there is a visible and uncomfortable jerkiness. It feels to me like the camera was not keeping up properly. A lot of action scenes seem to my eye to be missing a lot of information. I think that it's more that the brain can process information at 30 ish FPS as if it were moving. I'd say it's more of a stretch to say that that's all that we are capable of though...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/01/2007 12:44:46 PM · #36

Originally posted by eschelar:

At least in those examples you cite, it's probably because there was no camera being used.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/01/2007 10:22:08 PM · #37

I believe that the Lord of the Rings used quite a number of very real cameras for very real locations in New Zealand...

Probably more to do with too much movement for the framerate or possibly too much movement for 'moving pictures'. (see the wikipedia article)

What's interesting is that while my eyes don't generally have this problem 'sweeping' over a landscape, a camera will focus to infinity to just get a long series of sequential landscape shots. my eyes will jump and dart around looking for places to focus, so don't really have that smooth sweep at any time...

Still with movie projectors, I still get the feeling of jerkiness when viewing movies at these framerates. Not flicker though....

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

09/02/2007 01:57:46 AM · #38

I don't usually like 60fps footage, it looks too smooth. Sweeping shots do look better with a little more than 24, though.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

09/02/2007 11:08:23 AM · #39

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

I don't usually like 60fps footage, it looks too smooth.

Is that even possible? Too smooth?

MAK

Leica CL

09/02/2007 11:23:06 AM · #40

Hell for $400 I'll buy one anyway just for the sheer excitement.

It's a gimmick BUT it's a GOOD gimmick I think, a big boys toy that will be put next to the 8mm fisheye lens for use on 'special' occasions.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

09/02/2007 11:27:37 AM · #41

Originally posted by MAK:

...for use on 'special' occasions.

Why does that scare me? :)

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

09/02/2007 02:57:11 PM · #42

Originally posted by _eug:

Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I don't usually like 60fps footage, it looks too smooth.

Is that even possible? Too smooth?

Just my opinion, it seems too much like a video game for some stuff. I don't like the way people walking look at 60, 24 is more natural.

It does look good for rolling fisheye shots, though, I must say.

Besides, you can drop some frames to get the framerate you want, better to have it and not need it...

Message edited by author 2007-09-02 14:58:03.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/02/2007 03:23:37 PM · #43

but will my new 500mm L lens work on it? : )

it would be great for wildlife I think, wonder how much it is going to cost

edit--oops 400.00 that is reasonable

Message edited by author 2007-09-02 15:24:19.

david_c

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/02/2007 03:50:16 PM · #44

Originally posted by _eug:

Originally posted by MAK:
...for use on 'special' occasions.

Why does that scare me? :)

Because....the homemade money shot will never...be...the same.

09/02/2007 07:24:28 PM · #45

Originally posted by ellamay:

but will my new 500mm L lens work on it? : )

it would be great for wildlife I think, wonder how much it is going to cost

And in Kenya we made fun of

doctornick's machine gunning with the 500mm? Shame on you. ;)