how to take 20 snaps in 1 sec

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15071737
Thats what video is for. You know you nailed it when the single shot says everything thats needed

I'm not sure if that comment is highly ignorant, or just overly elitist. There is a massive difference between common 'video', and detailed high speed sequence photography. For starters, properly done high speed still photography will have higher resolutions and far sharper/cleaner frames than a common video system will provide you. And there is a whole host of technical imagery where this becomes important.

There is more to photography than just capturing 'pretty' pictures.


That said, depending on what one is attempting to photograph in sequence, it may be possible to do a dark room multiple exposure shot in a single long frame, using a high powered short burst strobe. This is really only useful if the motion of the sequence is enough that each 'frame' falls in a completely different location, and you have an area that can be configured with suitable lighting.

Lol at "snaps".....

Luckless wrote in post #15073837
I'm not sure if that comment is highly ignorant, or just overly elitist. There is a massive difference between common 'video', and detailed high speed sequence photography. For starters, properly done high speed still photography will have higher resolutions and far sharper/cleaner frames than a common video system will provide you. And there is a whole host of technical imagery where this becomes important.

There is more to photography than just capturing 'pretty' pictures.


That said, depending on what one is attempting to photograph in sequence, it may be possible to do a dark room multiple exposure shot in a single long frame, using a high powered short burst strobe. This is really only useful if the motion of the sequence is enough that each 'frame' falls in a completely different location, and you have an area that can be configured with suitable lighting.

Its true and 20 FPS is video and it will be a reality soon when you just point your camera at something in the video mode and pick the moments in post. Elitist, yeah I guess Bresson was an elitist.

Pretty pictures? LoL yeah because I don't think 20 snaps per second is good idea I am an ignorant elitist. Video that is finally good enough to make a good still from is just right around the corner. I will always take one well placed frame over 20 pray and spray any day. And thats not ignorant or elitist.

The fact that you describe it as "Spray and Pray" suggests that you missed my point completely.

Ever work in engineering or sciences? We often don't care about getting "one perfect picture" that will show us all we need to know. Take one photo of a ball, and now tell me how fast that ball was moving. The direction of travel of that ball. The amount of spin the ball has, etc, etc. If you can manage that, then guess what? You have possibly won yourself a Nobel Prize in Physics.

The problem with using "Video" is that video is about capturing motion, moving pictures. These are often long exposures when compared to high speed series photography where the goal is to capture a series of still images. The difference? Motion blur. We may be taking only 20 frames per second, but often those frames can be 1/8000th of a second or even faster in some cases, vs the 1/30-1/200 you can find in 'video'.

You choose to laugh and dismiss entire subfields because you have zero desire to care about them or what their requirements or goals might be. So, bravo for taking no time to consider why someone might want to do something, and instead simply laughing at them.

Its just a matter of time and if ya can't get with 10 FPS you ain't gett'n it with 20. There will be a video that you will be able to use soon so its on its way and its the future of FPS.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15075200
Its just a matter of time and if ya can't get with 10 FPS you ain't gett'n it with 20. There will be a video that you will be able to use soon so its on its way and its the future of FPS.

In the mean time it's not here now. Luckless' point being that there are applications where it would be desirable.

Airforgusmc, what is the goal that someone is trying to achieve with their 20 stills per second they desire? What are they trying to get?

I have personally worked on projects where we had access to a camera that could do around 5000fps, and we were begging as we tried to get one that could work faster. Yes, at those speeds video vs photo is a tad blurry, but we were still mostly interested in select frames for study. (The camera was controllable for frame rate, so we could have been shooting 1 frame an hour, or the full 5000 fps for something like 50 shots. Not exactly typical of a 'video' camera system.)

You seem to be going out of your way to ignore what it actually being said, and assuming whole fields where these issues are critical don't exist.

Then set up several cameras in sequence like some of the sports guys are now doing. That type of photography has always been specialized and its nothing new.
See Muybridge
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Eadweard_Muybri​dge

http://iconicphotos.fi​les.wordpress.com …se-de-vue.jpg?w=700&h=535

If someone could figure it out in the late 1800s then if you really want it I'm sure you can figure it out today. But it will be here soon and its video that you will be able to get high res single frame captures from.

But until its still capture from video I doubt you will see 20FPS on a DSLR.

You're opinions are moot here.. a question was asked, and answered. Whether you agree with it or not, is beside the point. I'm gonna have to agree with Luckless here, you're sounding more and more elitist, Allen. I've seen some of your work, and have heard..many times about your schooling and experience.. and yes, you're a great photog. That doesn't make our opinion's or preferences any less valid, or yours any more right.

1Tanker wrote in post #15075400
You're opinions are moot here.. a question was asked, and answered. Whether you agree with it or not, is beside the point. I'm gonna have to agree with Luckless here, you're sounding more and more elitist, Allen. I've seen some of your work, and have heard..many times about your schooling and experience.. and yes, you're a great photog. That doesn't make our opinion's or preferences any less valid, or yours any more right.

I'm saying its going to be video capture soon. The big two are moving in that direction right now. Watch as it happens. In a few years you can come back and see this post. And all the name calling in the world wont change that.

So, these videos will be 20+ megapixel frames with shutter speeds easily configured between 1/4000 and 1/8000th of a second to eliminate motion blur, thereby making them awkward for viewing as a video?

You seem to be completely ignoring all the technical aspects of a field of photography you appear to know nothing about, and then continuing to ignore the key points when they have been presented to you.

And yes, I'm well aware of the methods that can be used for high speed photography, and have helped build cameras for projects. It is specialized, and a highly unique field, but the point still stands that there are many very valid reasons why one would want 20 frame per second from a quality still camera shooting through a single lens. Instead of attempting to find out those reasons, you simply dismissed them and instead simply declared "You know you nailed it when the single shot says everything thats needed".

Well done.

Luckless wrote in post #15075670
So, these videos will be 20+ megapixel frames with shutter speeds easily configured between 1/4000 and 1/8000th of a second to eliminate motion blur, thereby making them awkward for viewing as a video?

You seem to be completely ignoring all the technical aspects of a field of photography you appear to know nothing about, and then continuing to ignore the key points when they have been presented to you.

And yes, I'm well aware of the methods that can be used for high speed photography, and have helped build cameras for projects. It is specialized, and a highly unique field, but the point still stands that there are many very valid reasons why one would want 20 frame per second from a quality still camera shooting through a single lens. Instead of attempting to find out those reasons, you simply dismissed them and instead simply declared "You know you nailed it when the single shot says everything thats needed".

Well done.

Yes I'm very ignorant and I'm an elitist but I happen to know that this is something that Canon is working hard on and it will be a reality but for now and I doubt in the future there will be a 20 FPS camera but you can certainly figure something out as you've already stated and if I think that there is validity to seeing and finding the moment instead of trying t oblast your way through it and if that makes me elitist then so be it. But for specialized scientific photography there are and have been ways as I've clearly shown there have been ways to do that for a very long time. So no need for name calling because I see thing differently than the masses. Actually doing things that have gone against the grain have worked out pretty well for me.