How come they invent it so you can choose pretty much whatever shutter speed you want, going from 1/30 to 1/4000, for video.... But when it comes to framerate, you only get 3? 24, 30, and 60. Sometimes I would like 18 fps or lower for fast motion, or 300 for ultra slow. If Canon or a DSLR company put that in one of those, those ones would probably sell higher since you got more options to shoot it right on set, instead of having to fiddle with it, in post. And it just seems logical since they give you so many shutter speed options, why not more framerate options to go with it? Who's idea was it, to just have 3? No one really cares to shoot as high as 1/4000, but some really care to have 300 fps.
It would be awesome if they invented a DSLR where you have more framerate options.
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
Oh boy...
To keep it short and sweet, theres a few reasons for this. One is that companies like Canon and Nikon hold back and dont give us all the crap we should have by now. Gotta save some easy goodies for later releases, right? Two, it takes a damn fast SD card to store 300 fps of 1080p HD, and alot of optimization of the buffers to hold the data while its being written. That takes time and money, and they arent willing to put that in their DSLRs when they could be focusing on the things that 99% of the people are going to be using. Undercranking... well its useful at times, but there are ways around it. Should be an option though, I agree.
To keep it short and sweet, theres a few reasons for this. One is that companies like Canon and Nikon hold back and dont give us all the crap we should have by now. Gotta save some easy goodies for later releases, right? Two, it takes a damn fast SD card to store 300 fps of 1080p HD, and alot of optimization of the buffers to hold the data while its being written. That takes time and money, and they arent willing to put that in their DSLRs when they could be focusing on the things that 99% of the people are going to be using. Undercranking... well its useful at times, but there are ways around it. Should be an option though, I agree.
Ted Ramasola
Veteran
The Magic lantern on the canons have allowed me to go to very low framerates giving me cleaner low light shots and for those night street shots with streaking car lights.
This is one of my early tests when the lowest fps was still at 3P. I believe now it can go as low as to around 1P.
This is one of my early tests when the lowest fps was still at 3P. I believe now it can go as low as to around 1P.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
No need to invent anything, just design.
If a camera can do 1080p30, the hardware could also do any framerate lower than that, including fractions and very slow framerates (such as "one frame per day", if you manage to keep the camera running somehow). It's just a matter of writing the software to allow for that. DSLR makers obviously think there's not a big market for such a feature in their cameras.
If a camera can do 1080p30, the hardware could also do any framerate lower than that, including fractions and very slow framerates (such as "one frame per day", if you manage to keep the camera running somehow). It's just a matter of writing the software to allow for that. DSLR makers obviously think there's not a big market for such a feature in their cameras.
Ted Ramasola
Veteran
I currently have the latest unified release which is stable and not the beta releases. Its v 2.3 . I just checked it before I'm off to a shoot and yes, it can go to as low as 1 and a step increment in between including 18 fps.
Note that sound will not be recorded in FPS override and when you play in back in camera its sped up to either 24 or 30 depending on your setting. I'm using the mk II by the way.
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Well, first of all shutter speed and frame rate are completely different things - just because a camera can record a frame at 1/300th of a seconds duration, does not mean it can do that repeatedly 300 times in a second. It might take a whole different set of hardware to achieve that, which comes at extra expense and with other issues (ie heat, size, media size/speed). It's not as though they necessarily have the hardware which is capable of it, and then decided to limit it artificially.
Perhaps they do have such hardware ready, but as others have said, they will release it when they feel it is most strategic (ie when someone else releases one first!) and profitable.
The Canon DSLR's are actually very versatile compared to most camcorders when comparing frame rates. Many camcorders are locked to a single frame rate, many do not include 24p, many still have only 60i (I can't believe interlaced is still a common format!) and most are locked to a single region (PAL or NTSC). The Canon DSLR's, on the other hand, are one of the few options that offer 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p and 60p all in the same camera.
Plus Magic Lantern lets you lower (or slightly raise) the frame rate for special purposes, giving you even more options!
Hopefully we will start to see 720p120 and 1080p60 start to become pretty common, and after that perhaps the super-slow-motion bug will catch on amongst consumers and fps will be the new megapixel race, but until then I think high frame rate camera will be limited to expensive professional cameras such as the RED Epic, or the comparitively cheap Sony FS700.
David W. Jones
Veteran
And of course there are already a number of cameras available to shoot with now which offer multiple frame rate options. You just need to pull off your DSLR blinders to expand your options, as not all toolsets are available in a DSLR body.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Darren Levine
Veteran
Again, stop asking photo cameras to be real video cameras. They do more than they should as it is.
want video features, buy a video camera.
yes one day maybe the two will merge into one thing but it ain't now and it ain't soon, two different markets and there is zero point in wondering why camera companies aren't catering to your specific desires.
want video features, buy a video camera.
yes one day maybe the two will merge into one thing but it ain't now and it ain't soon, two different markets and there is zero point in wondering why camera companies aren't catering to your specific desires.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
By the same token, why buy a device that is conceptually tied to a vidicon tube, 60 or 50 Hz power lines, and color schemes, and 'frame safe zones', that are directed to the least common denominator of consumer TV's of 50 years ago (for color) or almost 75 years ago for B&W.... and only converted to 'film' orientation in the recent few years.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Point one, other than setting a lower limit on the shutter speed, the frame rate has nothing to do with the shutter speed. I don't know 'your' camera, but for many DSLR's for a given frame rate, one can adjust the shutter speed into the 1/100th's if not 1/1000th's.
The 'high frame rate' cameras, cost mega bux because the data rate at 1000 frames per second is 400 times greater than at 24 fps. It is as simple as that.
Another not so obvious fact for those who don't want to investigate the details... is that higher shutter speed or higher frame rates will require much higher light wattage. If one was hard pressed to get a decent exposure at 24 fps, with a 1000 W light... running at 1000 fps will require about 5 stops more, or about 32K W of light (I just ate lunch so my math quick estimates may be off... but the basic idea is there, just arithmetic to get the right values...).
So, if you can't rent a 1K W lamp... you're definitely never going to see a 'big' light... unless of course you rent a searchlight... which may not be a bad idea... but is expensive...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Most DSLRs allow 1/4000s shutter speed. I don't think they shoot 4000 fps, though...
... The ARRI Alexa, which I'm using as a 'benchmark' camera for the pro level... here's the specs...
----
0.75 – 120 fps
60 fps max when recording 2K ProRes or ProRes 4444.
40 fps max when recording ProRes 4444 onto 32 GB SxS PRO cards.
All speeds adjustable with 1/1000 fps precision. To record above 60 fps in any format, the camera needs to be switched to high speed mode (optional license).
Shutter Electronic rolling shutter, 5.0º - 358.0º up to 60 fps; 5.0° to 356° above 60 fps. Shutter angle adjustable with 1/10 degree precision.
---
So, as you can see, there are some 'limitations' or 'conditions' when shooting above 40 fps. One needs a special capture device to keep up with the data rate.
Further, given they speak of 'shutter angle'(Note the mention of 'electronic rolling shutter'... for a given frame rate the max shutter speed is 5 deg. So that is limited as well. And needless to say the Industry standard is 180 or adjusted from there depending on the artificial lighting characteristics. or 1/48 for 24 fps, and 1/240 for 120 fps...
So why do DSLR's sometimes do WAY more than videocameras? Why - for example - is it so difficult to change gain/ISO on the FS700 compared to how easy it is to change on the 5dmarkIII? Why is the FS700 an ergonomic nightmare? Shouldn't it be easier? Why is it so hard to switch from PAL to NTSC with the FS700 compared to DSLR's? Why is changing the white balance harder?
Why is the XF100 really bad compared to a DSLR even when the price is the same? Only thing the XF100 does better is sound.
Why are these so called videocameras so bad when it comes to certain simple things?
Ian-T
Veteran
Good points.
My thought….I think it’s difficult for some to grasp the fact that the lines have been blurred when it comes to these two once very different technologies. It’s as if the camera companies can’t make up their minds which direction they want to go. The end result is the consumers on both ends are starting to expect/demand more. TODAY (or in the future) I don’t think it’s a stretch for one to expect certain things from a camera/DSLR/(whatever you call a GH-2 type camera) vs a purpose built camcorder.
Because all of our current video display standards are still tied to the old analog broadcast standards for timing and to 8 bit digital display standards for color gamut and dynamic range, which by the way are inferior to analog CRT standards. Until very recently with the advent of efficient high quality digital delivery codecs like AVC, bandwidth restrictions limited what could be transmitted.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Of course... and the point is, that people who are into 'digital film' may want a camera that is more like a 'film camera' than a 'video studio', which of course is why only recently with the Alexa and cameras that are 'designed' for theatrical productions, has 'digital' truly invaded the inner sanctum of 'film'... sure there were film makers using digital before... but this is a 'watershed' moment, as far as I'm concerned.