Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/1/2006 9:18:14 PM EDT
I have a Sony HDR-FX1 HD camcorder but would rather have a DSLR that can shoot at 24fps or 30fps. The cool thing about DSLRs is the DOF (depth of field) that you cant get from a camcorder.

So, is there a Digital SLR that can shoot 24 or 30fps?
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 3:04:02 AM EDT
Not to my knowledge. The fastest DSLR around is the Canon 1DMKIIN, used by reporters the world over, and it only shoots 8fps.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 9:50:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 7:47:15 PM EDT by ProfessorEvil]

Originally Posted By gaspain:
So, is there a Digital SLR that can shoot 24 or 30fps?



That's called a high-end video camera.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:02:04 PM EDT
Depends how much you want to spend, but 8fps is the benchmark right now
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:38:48 AM EDT
George Lucas has one, only cost a few million.

The DOF is a function of the format size and max aperture & focal length of the lens. Look for a high end camcorder with a large image sensor and fast long lens and you can control your DOF better.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:38:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:
George Lucas has one, only cost a few million.

The DOF is a function of the format size and max aperture & focal length of the lens. Look for a high end camcorder with a large image sensor and fast long lens and you can control your DOF better.



yea, thanks. I am a member of dvinfo.net and those guys are building homemade HD cameras. Its pretty crazy stuff with budgets in the thousands. They also make adapters called mini35's. I made one so that I could adapt a 50mm lens to a Panasonic mini-dv camcorder, the project cost about a hundred bucks not counting the lens and camcorder, but the images have amazing potential. There are some things to overcome such as too much grain.

It would just be alot simpler if they made a SLR that could shoot 24fps, I would pay good money for that. I would sell my FX1 and get it as long as it cost under $4k. I dont understand why the SLRs dont do it, for crists sake the little pocket digital-ELF does 24fps!...the resolution isnt high enough to be considered HD though and the DOF is non-existant, but the electronics can do it.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 6:06:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 7:00:10 AM EDT by DukeSnookems]

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:
George Lucas has one, only cost a few million.

The DOF is a function of the format size and max aperture & focal length of the lens. Look for a high end camcorder with a large image sensor and fast long lens and you can control your DOF better.



yea, thanks. I am a member of dvinfo.net and those guys are building homemade HD cameras. Its pretty crazy stuff with budgets in the thousands. They also make adapters called mini35's. I made one so that I could adapt a 50mm lens to a Panasonic mini-dv camcorder, the project cost about a hundred bucks not counting the lens and camcorder, but the images have amazing potential. There are some things to overcome such as too much grain.

It would just be alot simpler if they made a SLR that could shoot 24fps, I would pay good money for that. I would sell my FX1 and get it as long as it cost under $4k. I dont understand why the SLRs dont do it, for crists sake the little pocket digital-ELF does 24fps!...the resolution isnt high enough to be considered HD though and the DOF is non-existant, but the electronics can do it.



You're comparing totally different things. pocket digicams have shift registers (electronic shutters) which allow them to do video. SLRs can't do 24fps for the same reason their film counterparts can't and that's the limitation of the mechanical shutter/mirror that makes it an SLR. Even if you could up the frame rate on the mechanical end, then you have the problem of handling the massive influx of data. Several megapixels at 24fps requires a massive amount of image processing capablity and a means to store it, even if you down res it to HD.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 10:56:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:
George Lucas has one, only cost a few million.

The DOF is a function of the format size and max aperture & focal length of the lens. Look for a high end camcorder with a large image sensor and fast long lens and you can control your DOF better.



yea, thanks. I am a member of dvinfo.net and those guys are building homemade HD cameras. Its pretty crazy stuff with budgets in the thousands. They also make adapters called mini35's. I made one so that I could adapt a 50mm lens to a Panasonic mini-dv camcorder, the project cost about a hundred bucks not counting the lens and camcorder, but the images have amazing potential. There are some things to overcome such as too much grain.

It would just be alot simpler if they made a SLR that could shoot 24fps, I would pay good money for that. I would sell my FX1 and get it as long as it cost under $4k. I dont understand why the SLRs dont do it, for crists sake the little pocket digital-ELF does 24fps!...the resolution isnt high enough to be considered HD though and the DOF is non-existant, but the electronics can do it.



There is no point to do it. Who would need that?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:09:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:36:52 PM EDT by gaspain]

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
There is no point to do it. Who would need that?



...people who want high rez and DOF and people who dont want to spend $50,000 bucks on a HD camera with deep lenses. Depth of field is a really big deal on camcorders, they have small ccd's and because of that they have low DOF. Digital SLR's do have the large CCD's and good DOF, but lack the high speed capacitor charge rate that 24 or 30 fps requires.


here is an example:

Shallow DOF. everything is pretty much in focus. This takes attention away from the character.



here is deep DOF. The character is in focus and the background isnt. The character now has the floor and your attention is directed at it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:12:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:20:02 PM EDT by gaspain]
here is good DOF. You cant get this shot with a pocket camera or digital camcorder as easily as an SLR system.



Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:17:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:17:42 PM EDT by gaspain]
this is "deep" DOF. Notice that everything is in focus. This is what common digital camcorders do...it looks good in most situations yes. But it takes the attention off the characters.


here is "shallow" DOF. The background isnt part of the scene now. The flower has the scene.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:35:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:36:59 PM EDT by DukeSnookems]

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
There is no point to do it. Who would need that?



...people who want high rez and DOF and people who dont want to spend $50,000 bucks on a HD camera with deep lenses. Depth of field is a really big deal on camcorders, they have small ccd's and because of that they have low DOF. Digital SLR's do have the large CCD's and good DOF, but lack the high speed capacitor charge rate that 24 or 30 fps requires.


here is an example:

Almost no DOF. everything is pretty much in focus. This takes attention away from the character.
www.luminous-landscape.com/images/gremlin-17.jpg


here is Good DOF. The character is in focus and the background isnt. The character now has the floor and your attention is directed at it.
www.luminous-landscape.com/images/gremlin-100.jpg



FYI, "no DOF" means shallow.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:36:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:37:36 PM EDT by gaspain]

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

FYI, "no DOF" means shallow.




I goofed.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:37:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:53:10 PM EDT by ProfessorEvil]
Ah, the ol' i want it all for nothing problem.

You really want a high-end video camera.

SLR's are not designed to be able to do that kind of work. Considering that most have shutters rated for 100,000 flips, that's....about 27 hours of shooting time. So that might be the wrong tree to be barking up.

As for the sensors, part of the problem there is transferring data in a reliable and speedy manner. The canon 20d does about 5fps in jpg mode, for 4 seconds...and then the buffer will be full until it can move the data off to the media, and stop shooting. An old d30 sensor with 20d media interface might work better (3mp? vs. 8) but you're still stuck with the shutter rate topping out at 5fps.

So perhaps multiple camera bodies would be the way to go. But then there's the syncing issue.

So, then, what to do...I suppose on something like a canon Xl1 you could add extension tubes behind a w/a lens to try and get a closer shot, though it will be slightly magnified. But that will drop the dof to just about nothing.

Do let us know what you come up with.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:28:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil:
Ah, the ol' i want it all for nothing problem.

You really want a high-end video camera.

SLR's are not designed to be able to do that kind of work. Considering that most have shutters rated for 100,000 flips, that's....about 27 hours of shooting time. So that might be the wrong tree to be barking up.

As for the sensors, part of the problem there is transferring data in a reliable and speedy manner. The canon 20d does about 5fps in jpg mode, for 4 seconds...and then the buffer will be full until it can move the data off to the media, and stop shooting. An old d30 sensor with 20d media interface might work better (3mp? vs. 8) but you're still stuck with the shutter rate topping out at 5fps.

So perhaps multiple camera bodies would be the way to go. But then there's the syncing issue.

So, then, what to do...I suppose on something like a canon Xl1 you could add extension tubes behind a tele lens to try and get a closer shot, though it will be slightly magnified. But that will drop the dof to just about nothing.

Do let us know what you come up with.



dude, I have a bad ass video camera that cost me over $3600, its about as high-end'ish as you can get, its just the damn ccd's are too compact...nevermind
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:40:14 PM EDT
You could get 8 Nikon D2Hs or Canon EOS-1Ds shooting at 8 fps each. Then set them up on a bar and synch them together so they fire one after another. You'll get 64 fps out of that rig! (Of coures you would be out rouchly $40-$60 thousand dollars for that).
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:51:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:55:29 PM EDT by ProfessorEvil]

Originally Posted By gaspain:
...nevermind



...Right, thought so. You were inquiring, if you didn't want input then next time don't post. and $3600 ain't much in high-end video equipment.

one minor edit to previous post for you.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:03:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
There is no point to do it. Who would need that?



...people who want high rez and DOF and people who dont want to spend $50,000 bucks on a HD camera with deep lenses. Depth of field is a really big deal on camcorders, they have small ccd's and because of that they have low DOF. Digital SLR's do have the large CCD's and good DOF, but lack the high speed capacitor charge rate that 24 or 30 fps requires.


here is an example:

Shallow DOF. everything is pretty much in focus. This takes attention away from the character.
www.luminous-landscape.com/images/gremlin-17.jpg


here is deep DOF. The character is in focus and the background isnt. The character now has the floor and your attention is directed at it.
www.luminous-landscape.com/images/gremlin-100.jpg



I understand all of the DOF and everything, but why do you need 30 fps from a slr?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:07:05 PM EDT
PAL, any reason for this other than better film video transfer?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:11:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By twonami:
PAL, any reason for this other than better film video transfer?



thats the only reason to go PAL
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 8:52:20 PM EDT
It would be possible to get 30+ fps from a DSLR, but it would cease to be a DSLR. The sensor (CCD/CMOS) gets hot - not hot enough to burn you or anything, but each individual pixel gives off radiated heat to the pixels around it, resulting in "noise" - the digital equivalent of grain. This is most apparent in long exposure times.

Transfer from sensor to storage media is a 3 step processing. capture->processing->storage. The image is processed in the "buffer", then sent to the media card. Some memory cards are better than others - 80x is about the standard now, that allows continuous 2-3fps from a 6MP Nikon D70. I don't knwo for sure if, at 80x, the restraining factor is the bandwidth to the card, or the camera processing the image.

From my understaing, if you set a 12MP camera to shoot at 1MP, it actually takes a 12MP image, converts it to 1MP, then sends it to the card. SO the best way to do this would be to take a modern camera body, fit it with a low-resolution sensor, and program it so that the shutter can stay in the up position and the electronics turn on and off the data flow from the sensor. This would result in a low resolution, high-speed camera. In other words, a very expensive, very crappy video camera :).

IF you want DoF, the best way about it rigth now seems to be the Canon XL series cameras. The XL2 has an adapter to use EF series Canon lenses, which are what the current line of Canon SLR film and digital cameras use. This should get you the DoF you want (with the proper lenses). You're looking at about a $10k setup by the time you buy the XL2, XL->EF adapter, and appropriate EF lenses.

O yeah, and with EF lenses, you can get "IS" - Image stabilization. That would be rather nice on a video camera - kind of liek a low-budget steadycam.
Top Top