|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 25th, 2006, 01:48 AM | #16 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 1,315
|
Quote:
My only advice is light correctly. Use a tri-pod. And use a high shutter speed. If you do so you should have incredable 1MP 30fps shots from your HD1/10. I do. Unless your cam's broke you should kick ass. Use a HD100 ande you should be laughing!
__________________
Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech. |
|
May 25th, 2006, 07:00 AM | #17 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
Thanks Glenn, I will try that out.
|
May 25th, 2006, 07:14 AM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
The reason I selected the interlaced Z1 is that I want resolution. In a static scene, both the fields can be used to create a higher resolution frame that can be created with a 720P camera.
I still stick to the idea that a still digital camera will produce better results in lower light then any of the video cameras I have tried. I just need to prove it some day ;) It is probably due to the fact that the Camera CCD is larger then the Camcorder CCD and allows more light in the first place. I want to use natural indoor lighting, but I guess with a 1/3 sensor, it's not going to happen... |
May 25th, 2006, 12:24 PM | #19 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 1,315
|
Quote:
__________________
Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech. |
|
May 25th, 2006, 01:00 PM | #20 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
That is a great read. I got the Z1 a year ago, and did not have the resolution details I have now. I was going under the assumption that a 1920x1080 frame will have more detail then a 1280x720 frame. Its really should, but that is not always the case depending on the camera...
|
May 25th, 2006, 01:04 PM | #21 |
New Boot
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: boynton beach, florida
Posts: 12
|
Progressive scan foe extracting video still
the JVC 10U has been mentioned a few times on this thread - asking if the JVC-GR hd 1 could be used for the same quality ?? thanks
|
May 25th, 2006, 01:10 PM | #22 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
The JVC HD1 sould be pretty close to the 10U, but the HD1 has more edge-enhancement.
|
June 1st, 2006, 06:45 PM | #23 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico
Posts: 644
|
canon s80 - 4 bills - records xga@30fps.Kurth
|
June 2nd, 2006, 09:55 AM | #24 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
Looks like XGA (1024x768) records at 15 FPS. VGA (640x480) records at 30 fps.
|
June 2nd, 2006, 10:19 AM | #25 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,314
|
Quote:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../canon_s80.asp I'm confused why we are even having this conversation, besides being nerds. It doesn't matter how much resolution a still cam gives you at what frame rate, they are completely lacking the controls needed to produce good video. For starters, does anyone care about what kind of audio they deliver? Wanna lobby Canon to include XLR inputs on the S90? How about a smooth zoom you can use while shooting? Manual focus while shooting? Manual iris control while shooting? I've taken a good look at video clips from most of the high end still cameras that shoot video. Even the best of them looks like ass compared to my old miniDV Canon ZR40. Stuttery, choppy, poorly exposed and overly compressed. These aren't even in the same world. Sure, I like the movie mode on my SD500, I use it a lot when my video camera isn't around, but never would I consider it a viable alternative. If I really wanted to shoot good video off a still camera, I would buy a Canon 1d Mk2 that shoots 8fps, and put a fast prime lens on it. Granted you'll never get any usable audio, but I'd have bragging rights like you've never seen. That's my $0.02
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com |
|
June 2nd, 2006, 09:40 PM | #26 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
June 2nd, 2006, 10:54 PM | #27 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico
Posts: 644
|
Joseph - you're right - it had been a while since I read the review , but the dpreview clip looks pretty good at 15fps. The 1dmk11 only shoots 40 frames at 8.5fps. Maybe they're not quite there for some uses but they'll get better and better. We can expect 16x9 hd soon , maybe from panasonic with the replacement for the lx1. Still cameras w/video will probably put consumer just-video cameras out of business in the next 3 years. I personally can see alot of uses for these cameras. Kurth
|
June 3rd, 2006, 12:11 AM | #28 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 326
|
Sure it is not a replacement for a real video camera, but it would be perfect for a project I need to do, if it existed ;). The video modes from still cameras will most likely be too compressed compared to single shots. I was hoping some camera out there could capture 30 still pictures a second for at least a few seconds, but that does not seem to be the case yet. Perhaps the RED camera will solve this problem for me soon...
|
June 3rd, 2006, 10:42 AM | #29 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,314
|
Quote:
The debate of "could a still camera replace a video camera, or vice versa" for the average consumer is pretty interesting. And, FWIW, I'm buying a Panasonic FX01 for it's 16:9 video recording mode, but still keeping my video camera. :)
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com |
|
June 3rd, 2006, 07:49 PM | #30 |
New Boot
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: boynton beach, florida
Posts: 12
|
30 fps - printable video frames in HD
for dylan or all - in order to get clean HD frame by frame video graps for printing - should the camera be progressive scan ? thanks
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|