OT: I think I could get used to 120 fps

Coursedesign wrote on 9/5/2008, 9:14 AM
This skateboard video was shot at 120 fps with a RED camera.

It's easy to see that this produced just the right pace, and it allowed us to see what was going on in a way that would not have been possible at normal frame rates.

Now we have one more reason to save up for a RED...

60 fps is available in a number of cameras, but 120 fps seems to be more difficult.

Is there any other reasonably affordable camera that can do 120 fps?

Comments

johnmeyer wrote on 9/5/2008, 9:25 AM
If that was shot at 120 fps, I am surprised. The result looks very jerky, although perhaps that is just the way Vimeo plays on my PC. So, I am not that impressed with this, even though when I read your post I was expecting to finally see some slo-mo like those sports super slo-mo shots we sometimes see during instant replay.

As for the 60 fps available in many cameras, it is my understanding -- although I could be wrong on this -- that most of them do this by going to half field capture, thus reducing resolution, and that many of them only do this for a relatively short period of time, usually under ten seconds. The reason for this is that most of them record the higher framerate to an internal RAM memory and when that fills up they have to stop until they unload to their main storage.

I too would love to find an under $3,000 camera that could record either SD or HD resolution continuously and without any half-field tricks. I would prefer one that recorded in HDV, since I still have yet to see a single post in this forum that makes editing AVCHD sound like something I ever want to do.

I'll be interested in other people's reaction to this clip and also whether they have answers to your question about whether other cameras can provide good slo-mo.
John_Cline wrote on 9/5/2008, 10:22 AM
No jerky playback here, very fluid slo-mo. Now all I need is a RED.
Terry Esslinger wrote on 9/5/2008, 10:42 AM
No jerky playback on my old single core loaded down P4. Loooks great.

OOpps wasn't watching the HD version.
NOW it is very jerky.
CorTed wrote on 9/5/2008, 12:24 PM
John wrote: "I too would love to find an under $3,000 camera that could record either SD or HD resolution continuously and without any half-field tricks. "

Pretty soon you can buy a Red Scarlet. It shoots 1 to 120FPS and will sell under $3000.
Looks like a pretty decent camera.
See here:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/14/red-unveils-scarlet-mini-camcorder/

Ted
farss wrote on 9/5/2008, 1:19 PM
The question will be at what resolution.
Our SI-2K can manage 150fps at 720p. The RED also doesn't scan the full sensor when overcranked. There's multiple problems capturing images at higher fps. Writing that amount of data somewhere is one issue, keeping the imager from cooking is a harder problem, even if it doesn't melt the noise level goes up as it warms up. I haven't tried this myself but I'm told with a DSC shooting in burst you'll notice the noise increase over the sequence.

The sweet spot for sports slomo seems to be 150fps, Sony make a rather expensive HD camera that's good for 150fps. Beyond that the Phantom cameras rule the roost, for the moment.

Bob.

Seth wrote on 9/10/2008, 11:18 AM
That footage is killer. Nothing will deter me from getting a dual-Scarlet setup once it is released.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/10/2008, 11:54 AM
Butter smooth in full screen HD on my HP xw8600 with Quadro FX3700.

Just thought you'd like to know.

:O) :O) :O).
Seth wrote on 9/10/2008, 12:09 PM
http://mbsdirect.com/redone/ SCS needs to answer this.