3 ms·

Curious if this will find support with the media industry. The first thing that jumps out is that it doesn't use the standard TV and film resolutions 1080/720/4

by adam-a 13y ago

Curious if this will find support with the media industry. The first thing that jumps out is that it doesn't use the standard TV and film resolutions 1080/720/480. From talking to film makers I know about digital photography I think they would find that list of resolutions quite alienating and possibly assume it wasn't suitable for their needs. The quality of the images and the price look very good however. [edit] I see it does have 720 and 480, but not the important 1080, which would make it "HD". Having had a brief look at some of the competitors though, most of them seem to operate on weird resolutions like 1024x1024[0], so I guess it must be expected from a slo-mo camera. [0] http://www.photron.com/?cmd=comparison http://www.photron.com/?cmd=comparison

wmf 13y ago
Phantom has HD, 2K, and 4K high-speed cameras; they're crazy expensive compared to this. I don't see any evidence that it's possible to provide high-speed full HD cheap.
samwillis 13y ago
It does do 1280×720 which is 720p, most people would call that HD. True its not 1080P but at 700 frames/s at 720p you are going to get incredible pictures.
- tankbot 13y ago
  Minor note, but the p (or i) is not important here, so it would just be HD720 or HD1080. The p/i denotes a method of displaying the image, either through interlacing[0] or progressive scan[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan
- triplesec 13y ago
  However, its highest (17k fps) speeds are at much smaller resolutions, and it's more like 1000fps and under at the higher ones, which isn't quite as impressive, although still fast.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Indie movie guy here. It will be fine. Existing pro and semi pro cameras that offer slo-mo functionality as a fringe benefit typically do so with compromised resolution (eg with a RED Scarlet you have o drop drom 4k to 2k to shhot at 60FPS and down to 1k for 120FPS, IIRC). It's a fact of life and editors are used to dealing with it, you just have to be selective about how much you use, your composition and so on. There are also ways to address shortcomings in post-processing with super-resolution plugins and so forth. 700fps at 720k is more than acceptable for many purposes (especially when you lay a breathless narrator saying 'shot with a special camera...', because this will get used more in documentary and newsgathering than in narrative. The more advanced frame rates will only be useful in science labs due to the increasingly poor resolution, but they'll still be useful - there was a consumer camera from Casio that did something similar at much lower resolutions but it had a fixed lens which severely limited its application. However, it became quite popular with amateur filmmakers and in high-school science labs. I like that this is just a head that goes out to a computer. I don't think every director of photography will have one, but that some people will specialize in setting up and shooting this and then rent themselves and their gear out to productions for special effects shots etc. They'll make their target comfortably.

by adam-a 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

Phantom has HD, 2K, and 4K high-speed cameras; they're crazy expensive compared to this. I don't see any evidence that it's possible to provide high-speed full HD cheap.

samwillis 13y ago

It does do 1280×720 which is 720p, most people would call that HD. True its not 1080P but at 700 frames/s at 720p you are going to get incredible pictures.

tankbot 13y ago
Minor note, but the p (or i) is not important here, so it would just be HD720 or HD1080. The p/i denotes a method of displaying the image, either through interlacing[0] or progressive scan[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan
triplesec 13y ago
However, its highest (17k fps) speeds are at much smaller resolutions, and it's more like 1000fps and under at the higher ones, which isn't quite as impressive, although still fast.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Indie movie guy here. It will be fine. Existing pro and semi pro cameras that offer slo-mo functionality as a fringe benefit typically do so with compromised resolution (eg with a RED Scarlet you have o drop drom 4k to 2k to shhot at 60FPS and down to 1k for 120FPS, IIRC). It's a fact of life and editors are used to dealing with it, you just have to be selective about how much you use, your composition and so on. There are also ways to address shortcomings in post-processing with super-resolution plugins and so forth. 700fps at 720k is more than acceptable for many purposes (especially when you lay a breathless narrator saying 'shot with a special camera...', because this will get used more in documentary and newsgathering than in narrative. The more advanced frame rates will only be useful in science labs due to the increasingly poor resolution, but they'll still be useful - there was a consumer camera from Casio that did something similar at much lower resolutions but it had a fixed lens which severely limited its application. However, it became quite popular with amateur filmmakers and in high-school science labs. I like that this is just a head that goes out to a computer. I don't think every director of photography will have one, but that some people will specialize in setting up and shooting this and then rent themselves and their gear out to productions for special effects shots etc. They'll make their target comfortably.