Hi Bob, >I dug around a bit and found out that he used Sony DSR PD100A and DSR >PD150 cameras, which appear to be top-of-the-range professional DV >cameras.
[snip] > I wonder why anybody would >use a stills camera if they have a DV camera like this? It seems to me >that this turns on the issue of the quality of the output. Does >anybody know how the quality of these things compares with high-end >digital stills cameras? Any other issues to consider? Interesting. One issue to consider is that of shutter speed. Normally, video is shot so that the image, if examined frame by frame, will appear blurry if movement is involved. This helps the moving image retain a sense of er, movement. Hi spec video cameras have an electronic shutter that is able to switch in and operate just like a normal shutter, with various shutter speeds etc. On the Betacam SX camera I use for work, these speeds are 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000. Normally, the shutter speed is 1/60th (standard setting), and this aids movement in an image, giving the sense that a car, say, moving at speed past the stationary camera, is actually moving (follow this ? ;-) - whereas, if you select a higher shutter speed, say 1/2000th, and shoot the same scene, even though the car is whizzing past the camera, the image is changed. The car still moves at speed, but the crispness of the car is overemphasised. The detail on the car - even at speed - is heightened, making the car look a bit unnatural. However - examine those two scenes, frame by frame, and this is what you find: stop the car in the frame as it is just passing the camera. At 1/60th the car is blurred, as you would expect. At 1/2000th, the car is crystal clear, and looks like it is stationary and parked up. So yes, if you shoot with the shutter speed kicked in, and freeze the frame, you'll get a sharp image, but - Normal video is not routinely shot with a high shutter speed, as the effect can be unpleasant. Sports footage however *is* routinely shot with a high shutter speed - think of the action replays. We need to see that tennis ball hit (or not) the line - not a blurry green streak. Shutter speeds have their uses. I used to film loads of airshows, and using shutter speeds on prop-driven aircraft had disastrous consequences. The rotors and props looked dreadful, and the director thundered a decree that shutters were not to be used on such planes! You get a 'strobing' effect on the props, which distracts attention, and looks weird, although it can have its uses (music sequences etc). So, I think that if you were to shoot video for stills use, a fast shutter speed would be useful. You would shoot video for stills, or video for video, but perhaps not both at the same time. The goals are different. Having said that, the quality of the still image would be entirely dependent on the quality of the CCD(s), the imaging system, the medium acquired onto, the editing process, etc. Beta SX is a digital broadcast medium, and the still pics from it are remarkable, but that's from a camera costing 20 grand (UKP) plus, and a post-production facility, server-based editing system worth another 5 million! Interesting point though. The EOS-1D can shoot 8 frames a second, so why not 25 frames a second? BTW, I have no info on the quality of the cameras you mention. Cheers, Cotty (with obviously little work going on here this afternoon ;-) _______________________________________________________ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
