Indeed - but it's meaningless anyway. There is absolutely no point in
shooting at anything higher than 24 fps as the eye translates
anything over 14-16 into motion. 18fps is adequate if done well.
15fps looks jerky. That's why I don't understand why most compacts
offer frame rates of 15 or 30fps. If they squeked up the 15fps option
just a bit, it would look a hell of a lot better. It mentions 300fps
- absolutely ridiculous unless you want to do high speed work and
slow it down afterwards for slo-mo replay.
It is possible therefore to base a camera on this which will shoot
24fps and every frame is exposed at 1/25th or faster - i.e., 24
frames @ 1/250th. Or 1/125th. That's perfectly useable. The statement
about 60fps is made to show it's refresh capability, not to make
claims about real world requirements.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 07/05/2007, at 5:10 AM, Ian Nichols wrote:
>
> On 06/05/07, chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Read between the lines. 60 frames/sec = shutter speed not faster
>> than 1/60 second.
>
> Surely 60 frames per second means exposure time not greater than
> 1/60 second?
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|