If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
10 fps versus 5 fps
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma. | Little Green Eyed Dragon | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 07 08:04 PM |
5D versus 20D | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | October 29th 05 02:14 AM |
4:3 versus 3:2 | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | October 28th 05 03:46 AM |
Expected versus Taken | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 30 | March 30th 05 01:09 PM |
17-40 L versus 17-85 EFS | Don | Digital Photography | 5 | January 6th 05 04:58 AM |