Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 31 Oct 2014 (Friday) 20:26
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sony DSLR with 8k video

 
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Neilyb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Munich
Nov 04, 2014 02:31 |  #31

Shadowblade wrote in post #17250659external link
This was in response to a query about the inability to use flash when shooting at 25fps and how that would make a 25fps camera useless.

I pointed out that flash is not used in many kinds of photography, including both fast action at long distances and landscapes. Not that i would shoot landscapes using an action camera at 60fps, or vice versa.

I know, hence the smiley ;)


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.comexternal link

http://www.natureimmor​tal.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Nov 04, 2014 09:05 |  #32

Shadowblade wrote in post #17249986external link
It doesn't matter how skilled you are, human reflexes aren't that fast.

You would normally start shooting as a footballer kicks or as a lion leaps on its target. If you only press the button as soon as you register the foot striking the ball or the lion's teeth sinks into the gazelle, you've already missed the shot.

If you're trying to get the exact moment a foot strikes a ball mid-kick, or the exact moment a lion's teeth sinks into a gazelle after leaping on it, hitting it is pure luck. More fps improves your chances.

If you know anything about the sport you are shooting you should be able to time it. For example, soccer. On a corner kick or a cross from the side I know that someone will probably try to head it in so when they kick it, I will start a 3 second burst when it is getting close to the middle and I should hopefully have one good one in there.

For the lion on a gazelle - you should be able to tell when the lion is close enough to the gazelle that he is about to pounce - once he is close start your burst and you should get a usable photo.

Just look at some of the photos from the Olympics - clearly good photographers can time their bursts.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 04, 2014 09:34 |  #33

benji25 wrote in post #17251434external link
If you know anything about the sport you are shooting you should be able to time it. For example, soccer. On a corner kick or a cross from the side I know that someone will probably try to head it in so when they kick it, I will start a 3 second burst when it is getting close to the middle and I should hopefully have one good one in there.

For the lion on a gazelle - you should be able to tell when the lion is close enough to the gazelle that he is about to pounce - once he is close start your burst and you should get a usable photo.

Just look at some of the photos from the Olympics - clearly good photographers can time their bursts.

I'm not talking about timing the *burst*. That's a given - you start your burst just as the action is about to happen (1-2 seconds or shorter).

But what you don't know, or what your reflexes aren't fast enough for, is timing the exact millisecond the foot strikes the ball or the lion's teeth sink into the gazelle. If human reflexes were that fast, we wouldn't need burst mode and would be able to rely on single shots. But we're not that fast. We're fast enough to time a burst (e.g. To start shooting as the lion makes its final leap at its prey) but not fast enough to catch the exact moment the key action happens. We rely on fps for that. And the more fps you have, the better your chance of catching the key moment in one of the frames, rather than having it fall between frames. It's all too easy to fire a burst just as someone kicks a ball (as in, when they start the actual kicking action, not as they run in), only to have one frame just before impact and the next frame with the ball already flying out the edge of the frame.

The presence of good photos from the Olympics doesn't tell you very much. It certainly doesn't tell you how many shots were missed by any given photographer due to the key moment landing between frames in a burst. After all, only the good shots get published - the failures are deleted before anyone else sees them.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 04, 2014 09:43 |  #34

benji25 wrote in post #17251434external link
If you know anything about the sport you are shooting you should be able to time it. For example, soccer. On a corner kick or a cross from the side I know that someone will probably try to head it in so when they kick it, I will start a 3 second burst when it is getting close to the middle and I should hopefully have one good one in there.

The key word is 'hopefully'.

If youre shooting a burst, whether it's half a second or three seconds, it means you don't know if you can catch the exact moment the key action is going to happen. That's why you're shooting at 10fps or faster, in the hope of catching the key moment in one of the frames. Naturally, more fps gives you a better chance of catching the key moment, whose duration may only be a few tens of milliseconds. That's why 14fps gives you a better success rate than 10fps, and that's why 25fps would be even better.

You're not recording video - you're not recording every moment of the entire event and sifting through hundreds of thousands of frames in the hope of having a few good ones in there. Rather, you'd use it just like a regular action camera - in short bursts at key moments - albeit one that shoots at 25-30fps rather than 10-14fps and, consequently, gives you a better chance of capturing the exact moment than a slower-shooting camera.




LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Nov 04, 2014 09:48 |  #35

Shadowblade wrote in post #17251497external link
The key word is 'hopefully'.

If youre shooting a burst, whether it's half a second or three seconds, it means you don't know if you can catch the exact moment the key action is going to happen. That's why you're shooting at 10fps or faster, in the hope of catching the key moment in one of the frames. Naturally, more fps gives you a better chance of catching the key moment, whose duration may only be a few tens of milliseconds. That's why 14fps gives you a better success rate than 10fps, and that's why 25fps would be even better.

You're not recording video - you're not recording every moment of the entire event and sifting through hundreds of thousands of frames in the hope of having a few good ones in there. Rather, you'd use it just like a regular action camera - in short bursts at key moments - albeit one that shoots at 25-30fps rather than 10-14fps and, consequently, gives you a better chance of capturing the exact moment than a slower-shooting camera.

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that personally I would rather try and time it like people are clearly doing with success right now than sort through twice as many images to maybe get a slightly better shot. I am not sure of many things I would shoot where split millisecond timing is that important. I would be happy with a lion on a gazelle about to munch down on it with its jaw open as opposed to maybe right when it bit in. And in fact I would probably get both of those at 14 frames per second. I imagine most human and animal motion does not move much faster than 14 frames per second.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 04, 2014 10:22 |  #36

benji25 wrote in post #17251511external link
I understand what you are saying. I am saying that personally I would rather try and time it like people are clearly doing with success right now than sort through twice as many images to maybe get a slightly better shot. I am not sure of many things I would shoot where split millisecond timing is that important. I would be happy with a lion on a gazelle about to munch down on it with its jaw open as opposed to maybe right when it bit in. And in fact I would probably get both of those at 14 frames per second. I imagine most human and animal motion does not move much faster than 14 frames per second.

So, why would you need a separate camera for that?

If there is a mainstream, reasonably-priced 8k DSLR or mirrorless camera available (as there probably will be within a few years) capable of shooting 32MP at 25fps, why would you need or want a second model that shoots 32MP at 14fps, when the one camera can cover both bases? Unless you particularly want a 50MP, 14fps camera for a similar data throughput, trading resolution for frame rate, as a kind of middle ground between 8k cameras and ultra-high-resolution, non-action stills bodies.




LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Nov 04, 2014 12:42 |  #37

Shadowblade wrote in post #17251590external link
So, why would you need a separate camera for that?

If there is a mainstream, reasonably-priced 8k DSLR or mirrorless camera available (as there probably will be within a few years) capable of shooting 32MP at 25fps, why would you need or want a second model that shoots 32MP at 14fps, when the one camera can cover both bases? Unless you particularly want a 50MP, 14fps camera for a similar data throughput, trading resolution for frame rate, as a kind of middle ground between 8k cameras and ultra-high-resolution, non-action stills bodies.

For the same reason I don't buy a Porsche because it can go only as fast as my Honda if I want it to.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,044 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Nov 04, 2014 13:32 |  #38

Shadowblade wrote in post #17251590external link
So, why would you need a separate camera for that?

If there is a mainstream, reasonably-priced 8k DSLR or mirrorless camera available (as there probably will be within a few years) capable of shooting 32MP at 25fps, why would you need or want a second model that shoots 32MP at 14fps, when the one camera can cover both bases?

Auto focus and other features. EVFs aren't anywhere near as functional in some ways as a standard optical system is (I've yet to find one that I generally prefer over my 7D's optical system. Sure there are some neat features that I like, but not enough to give up a direct optical path), and can eat batteries for breakfast. I can shoot entire weekend log events and not drop both batteries in my grip below 50%, because I can set my camera up to draw so little power.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 04, 2014 15:14 |  #39

benji25 wrote in post #17252006external link
For the same reason I don't buy a Porsche because it can go only as fast as my Honda if I want it to.

But when 8k video becomes as common as 1080p, or even 4k is now? When many cameras are capable of 32MP at 25fps?

The only reason action stills cameras exist at the moment is because 4k (8MP) isn't nearly enough for action stills and 6k (18MP) bodies are few and expensive at present.




LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Nov 04, 2014 15:38 |  #40

Shadowblade wrote in post #17252235external link
But when 8k video becomes as common as 1080p, or even 4k is now? When many cameras are capable of 32MP at 25fps?

The only reason action stills cameras exist at the moment is because 4k (8MP) isn't nearly enough for action stills and 6k (18MP) bodies are few and expensive at present.

When the subjects I am shooting are not captured the way I want because of my camera I will look to upgrade cameras.

Right now the 6 frames per second I have are enough for the activities I shoot so I will not be spending money for 8,10,14,25,100 FPS until I am missing so many images it is driving me mad.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,566 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Utah, USA
Nov 04, 2014 21:13 |  #41

Shadowblade wrote in post #17252235external link
But when 8k video becomes as common as 1080p, or even 4k is now? When many cameras are capable of 32MP at 25fps?

The only reason action stills cameras exist at the moment is because 4k (8MP) isn't nearly enough for action stills and 6k (18MP) bodies are few and expensive at present.

I would argue the main reason is the ability to track action well.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 05, 2014 06:37 |  #42

tkbslc wrote in post #17252846external link
I would argue the main reason is the ability to track action well.

That's what on-sensor phase detection is for. Which gives you all the advantages of phase detection, while also allowing for contrast detection fine-tuning at the same time, as well as useful features like real-time exposure and white balance preview.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Nov 05, 2014 06:59 |  #43

benji25 wrote in post #17252265external link
When the subjects I am shooting are not captured the way I want because of my camera I will look to upgrade cameras.

Right now the 6 frames per second I have are enough for the activities I shoot so I will not be spending money for 8,10,14,25,100 FPS until I am missing so many images it is driving me mad.

At the moment, 1080p is the baseline standard for any video-capable device, e.g. GoPro (anything less and you may as well go home) and 4k is needed to be 'good'.

It won't be long before 4k is the baseline and 8k is needed to be 'good'. Then, a few years after that, 8k will be the new baseline.

When even an entry-level video device can shoot 32MP at 25fps, what reason would there be for a camera company to bring out a dedicated stills camera shooting 32MP at 15fps, possibly using a mechanical rather than electronic shutter? At that stage, even a basic 8k video device with the same sensor size would outshoot the dedicated stills camera for action. It would be like someone releasing an 8MP, 14fps action camera now - pointless. Sure, they could up the resolution to 60MP and 14fps, but how much spatial resolution do you need for action and sports?




LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,179 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2011
West Yorkshire, UK
Nov 05, 2014 09:17 |  #44

Shadowblade wrote in post #17245141external link
When you see a lion leaping on a gazelle, you want an image of a split-second event. Trouble is, it takes time to go from seeing the event to pressing the camera button. Average reaction time is 0.3-0.5 seconds. By the time your finger has actually pressed the button, the event is long over. That's why action cameras can currently shoot at 14fps. And that's why 25fps would be even better - there's less chance of the key moment being caught between two frames.

Sounds like the technology that's on some security and dash cams would be useful - always churning frames through an internal circular buffer, but when you trigger an event you get both the frames on/after the event and a small amount before. With that you'd get away with being a little late on the shutter button. Even with portrait shooting (kids) I've missed the crucial expression by a fraction of a second, so a 1s burst at 20-30fps that starts 0.5s before I actually pressed the button would be helpful.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17246481external link
Depends if you save it as RAW video, or if you save it as a series of individual RAW stills. There's no reason not to implement both, since the camera is both a video camera and a high-speed stills camera.

Even from a video file, you can still adjust the RAW settings on the video file before exporting individual frames as TIFF files.

That mostly comes down to how you define "video" and "still" formats. The Motion JPEG (MJPEG) video format is essentially just a sequence of JPEG files (with no interframe compression - i.e. each frame is completely separate from others).

Given the nature of a RAW image, I suspect it's unlikely that interframe compression would be particularly practical. As such, a RAW video sequence would also likely just be a set of images, so the distinction between a RAW video and a series of individual stills is basically just how it's packed into a file on a memory card. I suspect that's what's being done by Magic Lantern's RAW video logic anyway.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Nov 05, 2014 10:26 |  #45

Shadowblade wrote in post #17253381external link
At the moment, 1080p is the baseline standard for any video-capable device, e.g. GoPro (anything less and you may as well go home) and 4k is needed to be 'good'.

It won't be long before 4k is the baseline and 8k is needed to be 'good'. Then, a few years after that, 8k will be the new baseline.

When even an entry-level video device can shoot 32MP at 25fps, what reason would there be for a camera company to bring out a dedicated stills camera shooting 32MP at 15fps, possibly using a mechanical rather than electronic shutter? At that stage, even a basic 8k video device with the same sensor size would outshoot the dedicated stills camera for action. It would be like someone releasing an 8MP, 14fps action camera now - pointless. Sure, they could up the resolution to 60MP and 14fps, but how much spatial resolution do you need for action and sports?

Not everyone is concerned with FPS. Portrait shooters want image sharpness and good skin tone rendering. Wedding photogs want good low light performance.

Sure if you are shooting super fast subjects it would be beneficial to have 30 frames per second. I am just saying that I don't I don't shoot anything currently that out paces my 6 frames per second. Would 40 FPS be helpful in some cases? Yes. But for most people it is over kill. Kind of like when you ask why people pay for medium format if they just post to facebook. Yes the technology is better, but 99% of people don't use it in a way that needs that extra technology.

In fact just 6 months ago I bought a 5d Classic. I literally paid for 10 year old technology because that is all I need. I love the images I get from it.

I don't get why people think there is one "right" or end all be all solution that everyone wants. There simply isn't. You keep your pray and spray 40 FPS camera and sort through the images and pay for super fast (and lots of) memory. I will keep my 6 FPS camera and continue getting the shots I want. Yours works for you. Mine works for me. Win - win.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7,171 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sony DSLR with 8k video
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00354 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is radislavi4
943 guests, 461 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017