30fps Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Grentz wrote in post #4175881
Amazing, you would think it would be easier to just capture it with a high end HD camera and split the video into frames

But what would the fun in that? hehehe

CIDER wrote in post #4175598
lol so much money, looks like they have no issues

are they 400 2.8s or 600s ?

600s. The two on the left are older non-IS models, the one on the right is a newer 600/4 IS.

For that much money they would have simply picked up a high speed camera and attached it to a long lens. Ya know... whats better than 30fps? 1000fps!!!! Its not like anyone is actually ever going to view a 10Mp 30fps animation... 3-4 seconds would be a gig size file!

Grentz wrote in post #4175881
Amazing, you would think it would be easier to just capture it with a high end HD camera and split the video into frames

exactly.
They even say it's for a flash viewer, so what's the point of 10mp? Movie cameras were made for this very reason, USE THEM!...

Grentz wrote in post #4175881
Amazing, you would think it would be easier to just capture it with a high end HD camera and split the video into frames

Exactly... high def progressive would be much easier to pan and zoom, thus resulting more flexibility of what they can shoot, thus more great shots for near the same cost...

but it's still a cool idea

Eh . . . I want to see the 22 MP 30 fps version . . .

:{)#

It looks like this was the final product. Kind of unexciting for 5 days work?

http://www.usatoday.co​m …phics/bonds-756/flash.htm

timnosenzo wrote in post #4176863
It looks like this was the final product. Kind of unexciting for 5 days work?

http://www.usatoday.co​m …phics/bonds-756/flash.htm

All that work just for that

timnosenzo wrote in post #4176863
It looks like this was the final product. Kind of unexciting for 5 days work?

http://www.usatoday.co​m …phics/bonds-756/flash.htm

and they still missed the contact frame?!

Get a highspeed HD (or normal video/film even) camera. Costs less and was designed to do just that. Plus you'd think they could at least spend the time to line the frames up a bit better...

This is a case of the newspaper have 3 bodies and lenses that are all identical so it cost them nothing. The photographer thought it would be a neat idea so they tried it. No one actually ponied up the ~$30k to buy the cameras and lenses, that's why they're not using a video camera as that would actually cost them money. This setup was essentially "free"...

Grentz wrote in post #4175881
Amazing, you would think it would be easier to just capture it with a high end HD camera and split the video into frames

haha that would be. I know the Sacramento Bee Newspaper is giving their photogs HD cams now and splicing pictures out of the footage, i wouldnt be surprised if other places are doing that too

also ? aren't some shots slightly out of focus ?

i think they need an EXTRA mK III also make shure they focus properly.

also would nikon do it with 33 fps

jacobsen1 wrote in post #4177182
This is a case of the newspaper have 3 bodies and lenses that are all identical so it cost them nothing. The photographer thought it would be a neat idea so they tried it. No one actually ponied up the ~$30k to buy the cameras and lenses, that's why they're not using a video camera as that would actually cost them money. This setup was essentially "free"...

exactly

WOW

I'd use this instead:
http://www.red.com/cam​eras/tech_specs

They would probably get $100,000 for the right shot, that would easily cover the time and cost of the gear

Aha! Now I understand what was going on - I (being a Giants fan) was watching several games leading up to this one and I'd see strange lashups (with big white lenses) as the TV camera panned past them.

I wondered why there were three cameras with remotes all pointed in the same direction.

Entertaining exercise.

-js