10 fps versus 5 fps

I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
fps that shot would have been missed.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pnxqu

which takes you he

http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/s...ndex.htm#launc
h

Mardon wrote:
I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
fps that shot would have been missed.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pnxqu

which takes you he

http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/s...ndex.htm#launc
h


I think it would be more satisfying to watch a video sequence of the
stunt, even if it were 640x480x24fps.

timeOday wrote:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pnxqu

I think it would be more satisfying to watch a video sequence of the
stunt, even if it were 640x480x24fps.

Not a problem. There are two videos of this same "stunt" that people have
posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_OmKfvPwjA

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB9YN2SxEGs

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:35:20 +0200, Mardon wrote:

I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as
good as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5
fps claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other
frame were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the
driver's head is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be
argued that at 5 fps that shot would have been missed.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pnxqu

which takes you he

http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/s...dale/20080810/
index.htm#launc
h

If you're a good still photographer, 3 to 4 frames per second is all you
really need to get great action sequences. However, if all you really
want is "peak action," great photographers have been doing that for 60
years and without motor drives.

Stef

Stefan Patric wrote:

If you're a good still photographer, 3 to 4 frames per second is all you
really need to get great action sequences. However, if all you really
want is "peak action," great photographers have been doing that for 60
years and without motor drives.

The least useful specs that get people to fork over cash:

* fps
* start up time
* high number of focus points

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Stefan Patric wrote:

If you're a good still photographer, 3 to 4 frames per second is all you
really need to get great action sequences. However, if all you really
want is "peak action," great photographers have been doing that for 60
years and without motor drives.

The least useful specs that get people to fork over cash:

* fps
* start up time
* high number of focus points

That totally depends on what you shoot. If you are a sports shooter high
burst rates are critical. You will not find a single pro at the Olympics
shooting with a camera that does under 8 fps. And most photojournalists I
know here in Asia shoot bracketed bursts of three shots for every frame.
Getting one good shot pays for the body, and more.

Of course if you don't do this kind of stuff you can live with a couple of
fps and never miss it.

Toby

Mardon wrote:
I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
fps that shot would have been missed.

Poor Ansel Adams. Imagine what he could have done if he'd had a 10fps
camera instead of a 2fph camera.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:36 -0700, Matt Ion
wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Mardon wrote:
I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
fps that shot would have been missed.

Poor Ansel Adams. Imagine what he could have done if he'd had a 10fps
camera instead of a 2fph camera.

Ansel didn't shoot sports.

Maybe if he had 10fps he would have.

Steve

Steve wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:36 -0700, Matt Ion
wrote:
Ansel didn't shoot sports.

Maybe if he had 10fps he would have.

No more than Avedon or Leibovitz would shoot sports specifically.

These arguments are silly to the point of laughing gas.

Ask: "What would AA do with Photoshop?" and then you could imagine him
doing great things ... indeed suggesting improvements to PS...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Matt Ion wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mardon wrote:
I noticed another thread where it was suggested that 5 fps is just as good
as 10 fps. The URL below points to a 10 fps sequence of "The Crazy
Canuck" that could probably be used to either support or dispute the 5 fps
claim. The sequence wouldn't look a lot different if every other frame
were omitted. Then again, there's only one frame where the driver's head
is clearly visible inside the rotating car, so it could be argued that at 5
fps that shot would have been missed.

Poor Ansel Adams. Imagine what he could have done if he'd had a 10fps
camera instead of a 2fph camera.

Ansel didn't shoot sports.

What?!? You mean that a camera should be suited for its intended
purpose??? That there really isn't such a thing as a perfect camera?

Heresy!

--
Ray Fischer