High speed video help

zstevek wrote on 1/11/2007, 6:34 PM
Has anyone ever shot high speed video with standard high-end cameras? I have a Canon GL2 & a Sony Vx2100. I have tried filming high speed footage on the Canon with my shutter speed set to 15000 and am not happy with the results.

Basically I am trying to videotape a high speed vibration on an engineering shaker table and slow the video down so I can see how the vibration is affecting the device during the test. I have tried the velocity envelope in Vegas to slow the video down and it appears to be showing double images. Is there something I am doing wrong or do I just not have enough camera to perform this task?

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Comments

jrazz wrote on 1/11/2007, 6:48 PM
*Disclaimer: Not sure that this will work or is even a great option*

But, I read your post and this came to mind: Why not take the footage and convert it to images frame by frame (I believe there is a script that will do this) and then set your still clip length to a time that suites you so that it shows each frame for the duration you are wanting.

I think what the velocity envelope does is just double the frames up (I could be wrong on this). What I describe above might give you the same exact results but then again, it may not. I would just test it out on a short section of 3 seconds or so worth of footage.

j razz
rs170a wrote on 1/11/2007, 7:08 PM
...do I just not have enough camera to perform this task?

That's correct. Standard (NTSC) video is fixed at 30 frames per second (29.97 but I won't go there now). Even if you shoot at a higher shutter speed, you're still only shooting at 30 fps. Higher shutter speeds come in handy when shooting things like a hummingbird or a golf swing (both outdoors with lots of light). The individual frames will be much cleaner when frozen but you'll still only get 30 fps which, for your application, is not even close to being fast enough.

If you're serious about this, google "high speed video " and you'll get something like this. Look at their gallery for some pretty impressive examples.
I have no idea what this gear costs but an email or a phone call would answer your questions. They may even have a rentals department.

Mike
imaginACTION wrote on 1/11/2007, 7:22 PM
The real problem is that, unlike a cinecamera, a video camera operates at a fixed frame rate. So even if you have an extremely high shutter speed, you're still only getting 25 frames (50 fields) per second. Each frame will be sharp, but you just need lots more of them.

Film cameras can operate at up to 500 frames per second or more but only a few video cameras have the capability to vary framerate. The Panasonic AGHVX202/P2 can operate at frame rates from 12 to 50 fps, ie up to 2x normal. Faster frame rates require very expensive high end HD cameras.

The best suggestion is to rent a 16mm film camera like an Arriflex SRII High Speed and try that. You may need help loading etc if you're not experienced with film.

Hope this helps!

David

farss wrote on 1/11/2007, 9:43 PM
You can rent high speed video cameras, easily do upto 1000fps.

However I've done vibration testing and there's a much simpler way to see what's happening, I'm kind of surprised your test rig doesn't have this already.

All you need is a strobe light synced to the shaker drive system, that freezes the motion and you get to watch things slowly fall apart.

The system I used decades ago was made by Ling Altec. Pretty much a 1KW audio amp driving a solenoid. Strobe light was a standard part of the system.
rs170a wrote on 1/12/2007, 11:23 AM
Or buy one of the new Sony DCR-SR300 hard drive cameras.

"The Smooth Slow recording feature increases the record rate from 60 fields per second to 240 fps for three seconds, so you can capture fast movements like a golf swing. The three-second video is played back over 12 seconds for a better look at the action. Users can also record an audio track to narrate the content of the video."

Mike
Chienworks wrote on 1/12/2007, 3:10 PM
Only for 3 seconds? Good grief. Kinda hard to always make sure what you want to capture happens within that time frame. I'd say that limitation is a marketing decision rather than a technical limitation, perhaps so they can charge more for a camera that records longer. It just sounds very unreasonable.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/12/2007, 4:14 PM
I think I read that the resolution was also lower, more like 360x240, so it's probably an imager readout speed problem, not a marketing problem.
DrLumen wrote on 1/12/2007, 6:19 PM
You will want to turn off the motion blur. This may be part of what is causing the 'double' frames.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

farss wrote on 1/12/2007, 7:00 PM
I think the 'double' images are because it's interlaced and the preview window at Best shows both fields.
My original strobe light suggestion will still be the best way to proceed. You can even video tape this with a normal camera.
Set the camera to a slow shutter speed and turn off all the other light source.
Now while the shutter is open hopefully the object under test will get hit by more than one stobe flash. You get some flickering due to beats between the shutter rate and the strobe rate although you can fine tune the frequency of the shaker table to minimise this.

The trick here is that although the object being videoed is moving very fast it's repetitive motion. The synced stobe light means you can capture frames when the object is in the same position. Strobe lights produce very flashes of light, around 1/10,000 of a second so motion is frozen.
Jim H wrote on 1/12/2007, 7:14 PM
Granted we can't get anymore than 30 frames per second..and at a high shutter speed the SHOULD be crisp. But I also found in my experiments that the individual frames have double images as though I was seeing two fields of an interlaced frame. However attempts to deinterlace them in Vegas or Photoshop failed... the images still looked doubled.

I've had other interlaced images and have been able to spit them into two clean frames for slo motion, but not with these high shutter speed frames...something strange here.