patrick j wrote in post #18773825
So here's a possibly dumb question - if you can grab such a sharp image from a video clip, couldn't this camera be used to shoot sports or wildlife with video and then have the images extracted from the video? I mean, it can shoot sports and wildlife, but the complaint was a slow frame rate (3 fps) in Servo mode, and you need more than that for sports. I can think of a problem or two, namely, you are going to eat up memory like crazy if you are shooting video of an entire sporting event in small bursts.
In addition to some of the other replies, Astrophotography can appear to be a bit of a black art, but amateur astronomers today have a wonderful array of software, equipment and techniques that can reveal astonishing details in the Moon and Planets, but these techniques don’t really lend themselves well to more earthly subjects.
The technique of recording movie files in astrophotography for the Moon and Planets is based on a technique called “Lucky Seeing”.
For the Moon and Planets, you are shooting through the Earth’s turbulent atmosphere and for fleeting moments, you may encounter stable conditions where the fine detail on the Moon or Planets are sharp, whereas the default condition is that they tend to be soft or smeared by the air currents.
By recording a movie with say 3,000 frames, you hope that maybe 200 or 300 frames were recorded during those fleeting moments of good seeing conditions in various segments of the movie file. Specialised processing software can analyse the 3,000 frames and grade them on Image Quality, so you can reject the smeared ones and only select the better frames for Aligning and Stacking based on a Quality Level Setting.
This technique works where the subject is relatively still and stable in the frame, with no movement against a fixed background.
So, I guess the reasons you might not use this approach for moving wildlife or sports might be:
- The astrophotography SW that grades the IQ of each frame and then Aligns and Stacks them will not work where the subject both changes shape and changes position against a potentially moving background.
- Compared to a single Raw stills frame, a single frame grabbed from a movie file is already processed and does not contain the same rich data.
- From a workflow perspective, it is impractical to manually scrub through the timeline of a movie and attempt to pick the best shots(s) by eye. For me at least!
- Arguably, an experienced photographer will likely be able to predict the “best” moment of capture and shoot at say 10 fps to get the shot rather than try to find the best frame in a reduced quality movie file.
Apologies for the somewhat lengthy reply, it is a big topic.