Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 28, 2006, 9:52 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Hi,

Anybody knows if there is another maker other than Canon that makes a camera that supports 60 fps in movie mode. Or anything higher that 30 fps for that matter. I don't want to have a movie camera but I'd like to be able to make movies and put them on TV once in a while, hence the 60fps. I know TV is only 29.97fps but if you want fluid motion, you need interlacing which requires 60 fps (or 59.94fps). Canon makes a lot of really good cameras (In my opinion) but I just want to find out if anybody else is tapping the 60fps market. Actually if you know of any maker that does interlaced videos, that would interest as well.

Thanks a lot!

Nic
teknix1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 28, 2006, 11:52 AM   #2
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

Wrong, any kind source you can connect to TV gives out only 30 frames per second max.
60fps is only for half pictures.


PS. Good luck for finding camcorder which has 60fps capability.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 12:30 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Well yes, I get that, but todays digital cameras (not camcorders) are only creating progressive videos. I want to create an interlaced one to get proper fluidity on TV. The only way to achieve this is with a camera that does 60 fps (or 59.94 fps) and then convert it myself. If there is one that does interlacing right out of the box, that would be perfect.

Nic
teknix1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 2:39 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Why bother? You don't plan on upgrading to an HDTV in the near future? Everything is going progressive, interlacing was just a way to improve picture quality without increasing analog bandwidth.

Although 1080i is interlaced, there is no digital camera that has a resolution that goes up that high anyway. Plus I prefer progessive as opposed to interlaced at higher resolutions. Especially on static text. 1080i is HORRIBLE for static text.

Also, to answer your question. I cannot find another digital camera that does 60 FPS.
supraman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 2:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

i agree with both posts. i believe that progressive signal is far superior to interlacing signal. i dont see y u need such a hi fps. i mean dvd native ffps is only 24 and tht is very smooth.

i have converted a drag meet i recoreded on my fz30 at 30fps in vga res and it came out very well. i didnt have any vertical syncing issues.

ken


kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 3:49 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks for the reply, I guess I'll follow Canon's line of cameras until I find one I like.

Yes, I agree, progressive has it's advantages over interlaced video. I will probably not go to HD in the near future for many reasons I will not go into right now. Although it is a very nice standard, I just wished there was a bit less compression on those channels in my area. Anyways....

About the HDTV comment. Video feeds on HDTV, in the case of progressive, is 60 fps as far as I know. Movies or television shows are probably not shot at 60 though. To help the image look better, they shoot videos with a lot of motion blur, which is why it's acceptable as a movie. Or else it would look like a very "steppy" movie, just like the movies you can take with the current digital cameras. Is there one that you can capture with motion blur? Shutter speed or something??? I've not super knowledgable with cameras...

To respond to Kens comment,I just find really cool to be able to capture at faster frame rates, I can then slow the video down, and still get an acceptable frame rate. As for DVDs, as far as I know, you can easily do 29.97 interlaced, the only reason why we see 24 frames everywhere is because mostly movies are on DVDs and that's what they're shot at. I agree with you, progressive is better than interlaced (if it's at full frame rate(60)) because otherwise it's almost the same thing, well in pixel numbers anyways. That would be the same debate as between NTSC and PAL, which is better? They're pretty much the same thing, it's just a matter of fluidity vs resolution of image.

Thanks I appreciate the comments!

Nic
teknix1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 4:00 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

i think ur dvds aare close to 30fps bcse ur in ntsc mode. here is nz we run pal which runs native at 24 fps here.

Also i have a few hi def movies and they too are in 24.9fps progressive. Terminator 2 wmv Hi def for example. Runs in 1280*720 prog at 24.9fps

I have the King Kong trailer which is in 1280*720 prgressive 24.9fps in h264 hidef encoding. stunning aswell.

I also have the magic of flight which is hd, also 1280*720 at 24.9 fps in progressive. IMHO progressive is much better. But ofcourse i have the benefit of owning a hd display so i can easily see the annoying interlacing tht i hate so much. progressive is noticably sharper, clearer and more composed thn interlacing signal.

Now on the same note im not saying tht interlaced 1080i looks ugly, it still looks fantastic but imho i stil find 720p for me.

see here for my 720P results
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=23

in referenceto you wanting to slow motion i now understand y u want the higher frame rate. i think you will be more in the market for a camcorder thana digicam. the amount of bancwidth to and from the mem card and buffer would have to be huge to hinder the application of such a frame rate at a decent res. Furthermore i dont think this sort of feature would add any real merit to a cam making it any more desirable to a pro photographer bcse of course it would have to be in the pro price bracket of cams to achieve this. Well at this point in time anyways


kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 4:28 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks,

I didn't really want to compare to DVDs becauseof the blurring thing I was explaining. I'm sure thatif you take a video at 25fps and move the camera around, you will get that stepping motion I was talking about. That's why I'm looking at either interlaced video or progressive at 50fps (pal) which would be the same framerate. I haven't looked at any of the high definition DVDs, didn't even know that was out... I'll have to look into that, sounds really cool.

Digital video cameras are quite more expensive than digital photo cameras, especially if you get one that does over 60 fps. When I saw the canon line of products I thought it was really cool.

Anyways thanks again!

Nic
teknix1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:39 PM.