30 FPS still camera? at DVinfo.net

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 02:01 PM

Is there any still digital camera in existence that can record still frames at a constant 30FPS at around 1MP or more? Of course the higher the resolution, the better. That would solve a lot of problems for me. If there isn't one, then why not? Seems like that would be great for a photographer to pick the exact right shot out of a sequence of shots. I would love to have such a camera to create high quality short video sequences out of the still sequence.
I have a Sony Z1, but the single frame quality does not seem to come near that of a cheap still camera. The Z1 frames seem dull and lack sharpness. This may be due to the amount of compression and the fact that the Z1 sensors are not that high resolution.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · May 24th, 2006, 02:08 PM

If there were, then what would be the point of any of the low cost HD cams? No, there is nothing in the low-cost still image camera offerings with enough processor horsepower to record 30 frames per second at high resolutions.

As far as the Z1 or any other HDV camera, I know (and have seen) many 5 x7's printed from these cams, and they look stunning, much like what you'd see from any 2-4 megapixel cam. Compression is definitely high with the low-cost HD cameras, but compression does not have to refer to poor image quality.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 02:34 PM

I would not even mind a relatively high priced digital camera if could do the job ;) I need to post some examples of Z1 verses Still Camera. I don't know exactly what it is about the Z1 stills grabs that bother me so much. They do seem to lack a lot of color compared to a still camera. If I auto balance the Z1 frame image in Photoshop it improves greatly, but still not quite as nice to me. This is a time consuming step I want to avoid.
For what I want to do, I need to convert the video into stills as a first step regardless, so it would be nice to have a sequence of stills from the start.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 02:38 PM

Also one thing that is very noticeable on a Z1 frame is that in any lower light situation the noise is much more visible on a frame of video then on a still camera.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · May 24th, 2006, 02:56 PM

I'd suggest one of two things:
1. Be sure you know exactly how to operate your camera
or
2. Send your camera in for a check up.

We've been shooting all week with a Z1 and a Canon G5 mounted on a Bonehead Carbon Fibre. While the G5 pix definitely are nicer to a degree, I'd certainly not consider the Z1 images being "poor" or lacking in color, sharpness, etc. When comparing a 6megapixel image to a 1.8megapixel image, you'd expect differences in detail. In some ways, the Z1 is actually preferable. Shooting images at 130 mph (head down flying) means that both cam and subject are presenting a lot of motion. The Z1 on some frames adds a very nice, smoothing blur to the overall image.
Measuring all things equal, see what you get when aperture, shutter, lighting, etc are all the same, and compare a 2 megapixel cam to the Z1. I think you'll find them more similar than dissimilar.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 03:10 PM

Here is an example of the type of results I get in poor lighting. Too bad I could not find a better test, but this shows what I am talking about.

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/z1C.JPG
http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/stillC.JPG

The Z1 shot has a ton of grain, low in color, and looks like it has a haze about it. The still shot has more color, looks richer, and looks to have more resolution to me. I have done no processing on either shot. I cropped and resized the still shot to be the same size as the Z1 frame.

I will post a good light Z1 shot next.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Here is a frame from the Z1 in good light:

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/original.png

And here is the same frame color corrected in Photoshop.

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/corrected.png

The original looks good, but when you flip back and forth between the two you can see that the original has a haze or fog about it that is fixed the the corrected shot.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · May 24th, 2006, 03:22 PM

What I'm seeing in those images isn't comparable in size, lighting, or shot.
Second, what I'm seeing in those images doesn't demonstrate good camera setup in either image.
Third, My experience, and experience of others is significantly different from what you're posting.

Resizing a still that started out much larger than the Z1 is only shrinking the image, thereby also shrinking the noise apparency.

In identical light, on occasion even my A1 will look as good as my G5. On other occasions, my A1 stinks compared to my G5. But no matter how you slice it, there are 4MP difference in the two. Which accounts for something. Slicing out a 1920 x 1080 (not shrinking) section of the G5 image isn't significantly if at all better than what the A1 or Z1 are shooting.
there are indeed some significant processes happening in a still cam that a video cam can't present. Very few still cams, and on a linear curve related to price NO still cam, can present the speed and resolution of shooting that the low cost HD cams can offer. Another solution for you is to buy 30 still cams, line em' up to fire 30 times a second, and sequence them. then you've got your image. This is often done, it was a significant part of how "The Matrix" was shot. Or, buy 3 Canon E20's, and sync em' to shoot every fourth frame. You'll get the same result, just from 3 cams. And it will still cost you a tiny fraction of what an HDCAM SR would shoot.

Kevin Shaw · May 24th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Aurili

I have a Sony Z1, but the single frame quality does not seem to come near that of a cheap still camera. The Z1 frames seem dull and lack sharpness. This may be due to the amount of compression and the fact that the Z1 sensors are not that high resolution.

The three Z1U sensors have a resolution of 960x1080 each, which is then interpolated to 1440x1080 pixles per frame -- not bad compared to my first digital still camera at 640x480 pixels. The interlaced recording means that a simple deinterlaced image has an effective resolution of 1440x540 pixels or 0.78 megapixels, which as DSE noted makes respectable 5x7 prints. To me the prints look "videoish" upon close inspection but not bad to a casual observer.

Rumor has it that in England there are more inquiries about HDV cameras from photographers than from videographers. Let's not give photographers in the U.S. any ideas...

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 03:41 PM

I have pondered the use of multiple cameras many times, not only for frame rate, but to overlap the images to get over-sampling, and to create wider fields of view. The problem is each camera will have a different angle, thus the image will not match.

I believe the captures I posted combine both 1/60th of a second fields to a 1/30th of a second slice of time, so I should be getting the full resolution of the frame. Unless the shutter was below 1/60th of a second on the Z1

Ken Hodson · May 24th, 2006, 03:50 PM

I would suggest a progressive cam. 30 progressive frames per second is the closest your going to get to a still cam shooting 30fps.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 03:58 PM

Ken, I agree progressive would be better. I had a JVC HD10u, but the color was no good in lower light. My reasoning behind the Z1 this that I would be shooting on a tripod with mostly static scenes, so I should get more effect resolution in stills from 1080i. I got the Sanyo HD1 720p a little while back, but the video quality is a bit lacking.

Glenn Chan · May 24th, 2006, 06:44 PM

How are you converting the video into still images? That could explain why the colors look washed out.

Sometimes, the video decompressor will decompress into the 16-235 range (black at 16, white at 235). This seems to be the case will your still shots.
*Many video cameras will record information above white, so that's why there are values above 235. This is sometimes called "superwhites".

Other decompressors will use the 0-255 range. This may not be as preferable since you lose the superwhite information.

Anyways, in Photoshop you'd just make sure you use the levels or auto color filter to fix for this problem. If you want to use the superwhite information, then you may want to bump saturation up a notch to compensate.
As an alternative, you could use a s-shaped curve in Photoshop to bump contrast and saturation at the same time. Some people like that look.

Joseph Aurili · May 24th, 2006, 10:46 PM

That is a good point Glenn. I am using Vegas to export the still frames. I can try some other programs and compare the results. The video looks great when viewed on my HD TV.

Glenn Chan · May 24th, 2006, 10:52 PM

actually you probably should use vegas to export the frames... just keep in mind the levels are a little different.

You oculd use the levels filter in the video preview FX to adjust the levels, and the color corrector to change saturation. Or just one instead of color corrector.

Offset = -16
Gain = 255 / (255 - 16) *that's what I think it should be. check the hsitogram to see that the levels peg 255.

May 24th, 2006, 02:01 PM	#1
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	30 FPS still camera? Is there any still digital camera in existence that can record still frames at a constant 30FPS at around 1MP or more? Of course the higher the resolution, the better. That would solve a lot of problems for me. If there isn't one, then why not? Seems like that would be great for a photographer to pick the exact right shot out of a sequence of shots. I would love to have such a camera to create high quality short video sequences out of the still sequence. I have a Sony Z1, but the single frame quality does not seem to come near that of a cheap still camera. The Z1 frames seem dull and lack sharpness. This may be due to the amount of compression and the fact that the Z1 sensors are not that high resolution.

May 24th, 2006, 02:08 PM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	If there were, then what would be the point of any of the low cost HD cams? No, there is nothing in the low-cost still image camera offerings with enough processor horsepower to record 30 frames per second at high resolutions. As far as the Z1 or any other HDV camera, I know (and have seen) many 5 x7's printed from these cams, and they look stunning, much like what you'd see from any 2-4 megapixel cam. Compression is definitely high with the low-cost HD cameras, but compression does not have to refer to poor image quality. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

May 24th, 2006, 02:56 PM	#5
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	I'd suggest one of two things: 1. Be sure you know exactly how to operate your camera or 2. Send your camera in for a check up. We've been shooting all week with a Z1 and a Canon G5 mounted on a Bonehead Carbon Fibre. While the G5 pix definitely are nicer to a degree, I'd certainly not consider the Z1 images being "poor" or lacking in color, sharpness, etc. When comparing a 6megapixel image to a 1.8megapixel image, you'd expect differences in detail. In some ways, the Z1 is actually preferable. Shooting images at 130 mph (head down flying) means that both cam and subject are presenting a lot of motion. The Z1 on some frames adds a very nice, smoothing blur to the overall image. Measuring all things equal, see what you get when aperture, shutter, lighting, etc are all the same, and compare a 2 megapixel cam to the Z1. I think you'll find them more similar than dissimilar. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

May 24th, 2006, 03:22 PM	#8
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	What I'm seeing in those images isn't comparable in size, lighting, or shot. Second, what I'm seeing in those images doesn't demonstrate good camera setup in either image. Third, My experience, and experience of others is significantly different from what you're posting. Resizing a still that started out much larger than the Z1 is only shrinking the image, thereby also shrinking the noise apparency. In identical light, on occasion even my A1 will look as good as my G5. On other occasions, my A1 stinks compared to my G5. But no matter how you slice it, there are 4MP difference in the two. Which accounts for something. Slicing out a 1920 x 1080 (not shrinking) section of the G5 image isn't significantly if at all better than what the A1 or Z1 are shooting. there are indeed some significant processes happening in a still cam that a video cam can't present. Very few still cams, and on a linear curve related to price NO still cam, can present the speed and resolution of shooting that the low cost HD cams can offer. Another solution for you is to buy 30 still cams, line em' up to fire 30 times a second, and sequence them. then you've got your image. This is often done, it was a significant part of how "The Matrix" was shot. Or, buy 3 Canon E20's, and sync em' to shoot every fourth frame. You'll get the same result, just from 3 cams. And it will still cost you a tiny fraction of what an HDCAM SR would shoot. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

May 24th, 2006, 03:50 PM	#11
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	I would suggest a progressive cam. 30 progressive frames per second is the closest your going to get to a still cam shooting 30fps. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

May 24th, 2006, 02:34 PM	#3
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	I would not even mind a relatively high priced digital camera if could do the job ;) I need to post some examples of Z1 verses Still Camera. I don't know exactly what it is about the Z1 stills grabs that bother me so much. They do seem to lack a lot of color compared to a still camera. If I auto balance the Z1 frame image in Photoshop it improves greatly, but still not quite as nice to me. This is a time consuming step I want to avoid. For what I want to do, I need to convert the video into stills as a first step regardless, so it would be nice to have a sequence of stills from the start.

May 24th, 2006, 02:38 PM	#4
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Also one thing that is very noticeable on a Z1 frame is that in any lower light situation the noise is much more visible on a frame of video then on a still camera.

May 24th, 2006, 03:10 PM	#6
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Here is an example of the type of results I get in poor lighting. Too bad I could not find a better test, but this shows what I am talking about. http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/z1C.JPG http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/stillC.JPG The Z1 shot has a ton of grain, low in color, and looks like it has a haze about it. The still shot has more color, looks richer, and looks to have more resolution to me. I have done no processing on either shot. I cropped and resized the still shot to be the same size as the Z1 frame. I will post a good light Z1 shot next.

May 24th, 2006, 03:20 PM	#7
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Here is a frame from the Z1 in good light: http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/original.png And here is the same frame color corrected in Photoshop. http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/corrected.png The original looks good, but when you flip back and forth between the two you can see that the original has a haze or fog about it that is fixed the the corrected shot.

May 24th, 2006, 03:41 PM	#10
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	I have pondered the use of multiple cameras many times, not only for frame rate, but to overlap the images to get over-sampling, and to create wider fields of view. The problem is each camera will have a different angle, thus the image will not match. I believe the captures I posted combine both 1/60th of a second fields to a 1/30th of a second slice of time, so I should be getting the full resolution of the frame. Unless the shutter was below 1/60th of a second on the Z1

May 24th, 2006, 03:58 PM	#12
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Ken, I agree progressive would be better. I had a JVC HD10u, but the color was no good in lower light. My reasoning behind the Z1 this that I would be shooting on a tripod with mostly static scenes, so I should get more effect resolution in stills from 1080i. I got the Sanyo HD1 720p a little while back, but the video quality is a bit lacking.

May 24th, 2006, 06:44 PM	#13
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	How are you converting the video into still images? That could explain why the colors look washed out. Sometimes, the video decompressor will decompress into the 16-235 range (black at 16, white at 235). This seems to be the case will your still shots. *Many video cameras will record information above white, so that's why there are values above 235. This is sometimes called "superwhites". Other decompressors will use the 0-255 range. This may not be as preferable since you lose the superwhite information. Anyways, in Photoshop you'd just make sure you use the levels or auto color filter to fix for this problem. If you want to use the superwhite information, then you may want to bump saturation up a notch to compensate. As an alternative, you could use a s-shaped curve in Photoshop to bump contrast and saturation at the same time. Some people like that look.

May 24th, 2006, 10:46 PM	#14
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	That is a good point Glenn. I am using Vegas to export the still frames. I can try some other programs and compare the results. The video looks great when viewed on my HD TV.

May 24th, 2006, 10:52 PM	#15
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	actually you probably should use vegas to export the frames... just keep in mind the levels are a little different. You oculd use the levels filter in the video preview FX to adjust the levels, and the color corrector to change saturation. Or just one instead of color corrector. Offset = -16 Gain = 255 / (255 - 16) *that's what I think it should be. check the hsitogram to see that the levels peg 255.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search