RAW 4K Capture Feature Coming for Frame Grabs? [CR1]

[PureClassA]

As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
The major reason is shutter speed.
Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
Also, prefer higher resolution. Since i crop most of my images.
(My work can be found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).

There's nothing stopping you from using 1/4000th per second in video mode if you want. I think you're confusing shutter speeds needed for smooth motion (1/50th for 24fps video, 1/60th for 30fps, etc...) vs any speed you want for stills. There's no limitation. You can manually set shutter speed for video capture now with current DSLRs. It's just that, were you to playback 1/800th or 1/8000th second shutter speeds in motion at 24fps, the MOTION would look VERY choppy, but each frame would be a perfect 8.8MP RAW still (in the case of this rumor). So yes, it could absolutely work.

 

[PureClassA]

But I do think this is the reason the feature may be self-defeating. If the 1DXII already shoots 14fps or something similar, does getting 18fps or 20fps instead of 14mp make transitioning from 22MP to 8MP worth it. I think the answer for most, if not all users would be no.
I guess they could put a 24fps 4k Raw option that only records for 5s...but that probably causes more issues than its worth

And that's why it's a CR1

This doesn't however preclude this from being a very useful feature for some applications. One that would certainly set this STILLS camera apart from any competition. It's academic right now, and just for fun.

 

[sportskjutaren]

The solution would be something like the HDRx mode in the Red cameras, who mix together two frames with two different shutter speeds. To be able to do photos and videos at the same time, every first frame could simply have the shutter speed and ISO that is best for video (like 1/50th), and each second frame is the one for photo (with for example 1/800 and automatic higher ISO). Of course this would require to have at least 48-50 frames a second, so that the video at least gets 24/25fps dedicated frames.
...

Except the shutter speed issue.
There are some other issues to think about.
For now DPAF is far away from fast enough.
Especially if you shoot with something like a 400/2,8 wide open.
Also, what you suggest would produce extreme amounts of data to be handled.
It would end up with hundreds of GB:s for a single game.
For me, it would be totally impossible to work fast enough with that kind of video files.
Then you would get problems with battery time.
Also, i need to be able to transmit Jpeg:s straight from the camera during the game.
And then i write captions and edit selected images.
When that is done, i transmit the edited files to the agency i work for.
This is done during the pauses between the periods.
To be able to to that. I write protect images during the game.
So that i can find it fast enough.
Another issue. Most games I'm not allowed filming the game.
That's due to TV-rights.
I could write more about why i don´t see this happen any time soon.
I guess that not needed.

With that said.
I do belive that the 1Dx MKII will be a great camera.
(Just as the 1Dx are).
And I'm looking forward to try it in the future.

 

[sportskjutaren]

It depends whether you shoot for video and later you decide to take grabs or you shoot video in order to take grabs. In the second case you can set short exposure time.

(My work can be found here: http://www.artofsport)

True. but there are some other issues.
Se my previous post.
Also, your website doesn't work.

 

[kozakm00]

True. but there are some other issues.
Se my previous post.
Also, your website doesn't work.

My bad Now it works.
http://www.artofsport.cz)

 

[brianftpc]

you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.

 

[jkkk]

you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.

It does work, and people do it all the time. You can set your shutter to whatever you want when you're shooting video. Your video may or may not look great, but if your primary purpose is to pull stills, there's no problem. And most high frame rate video is necessarily shot with a fast shutter anyway.

 

[PureClassA]

you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.

See my previous post, a few posts ago down this chain... No, you can shoot video at whatever shutter speed you desire.

 

[faca]

Hasn't Panasonic been doing this for over a couple of years now? I hope that there will be an improvement over their system, other than the ones related to frame size...

 

[PureClassA]

Hasn't Panasonic been doing this for over a couple of years now? I hope that there will be an improvement over their system, other than the ones related to frame size...

You can frame grab from any consumer/prosumer video camera far as I know, but not in 14bit RAW mode. Huge difference.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!

 

[Policar]

Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!

And drive up the price of the camera (and the R&D per unit) because there would be fewer cameras sold. I'm sure someone has done the math.

 

[PureClassA]

Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!

It's nothing to add nowadays. Obviously the cost of adding the firmware in to do it is less than the returns they expect to get. So, you do it.

 

[scyrene]

This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.

 

[ahsanford]

This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.

I see a hybrid version of this happening before before folks go to full video. The now cellphone-ubiquitous burst mode (where a ton of shots in very quick succession both before and after the shutter press) would seem to be a logical in-between step before fully moving over to video recording everything and mining stills out of it.

It would be a mirror-lock up 4K dump of a discrete # of frames while allowing the mirror to drop for recomposition / focusing / etc. before starting the burst again. Something like that could work.

- A

 

[scyrene]

This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.

I see a hybrid version of this happening before before folks go to full video. The now cellphone-ubiquitous burst mode (where a ton of shots in very quick succession both before and after the shutter press) would seem to be a logical in-between step before fully moving over to video recording everything and mining stills out of it.

It would be a mirror-lock up 4K dump of a discrete # of frames while allowing the mirror to drop for recomposition / focusing / etc. before starting the burst again. Something like that could work.

- A

Yes, absolutely. The burst mode is great for, e.g. portraits to avoid blinking but without asking people to pose several times. But sorting through dozens or hundreds of very similar shots would be daunting... it's bad enough with current technology!

 

[Etienne]

Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.

As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
The major reason is shutter speed.
Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
Also, prefer higher resolution. Since i crop most of my images.
(My work can be found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).

You don't have to use long shutter speeds, it is selectable. And if you are shooting for the photo, you could set shutter speed as high as you need to.

 

[douglaurent]

There are plugins who can add motion blur to videos with short shutter speeds, many tv setup's standard settings do have motion blur settings that hide it, and there are also scene situations where you don't see short shutter speeds anyway. Just staying at 1/50 is more or less filmmaker tradition, but isn't always necessary. If 4k60fps, or as rumored even 120fps are coming, technically by rule the shutter speed for video even would have to be 1/120 or 1/240. Depending on the object, that's already enough for many photo situations.

Something that would be much welcome on the other end would be new possible video frame rates like 1, 5, 10 or 15 that allow LONGER shutter speeds and would be nice for timelapse and lowlight scenes with little movement - and then parallel photos who do require such longer shutter speeds. That should be very easy to implement Canon!

 

[sanj]

Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.

As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
The major reason is shutter speed.
Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
Also, prefer higher resolution. Since i crop most of my images.
(My work can be found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).

You don't have to use long shutter speeds, it is selectable. And if you are shooting for the photo, you could set shutter speed as high as you need to.

Simple! I wonder why everyone can't see this. Just set the shutter for what is important - the video or the still. Great potential feature..!!

 

[dash2k8]

At first I thought this video screen grab feature would be extremely useful... then I remembered this thing is supposed to shoot 14fps, which would serve the exact same function. Am I missing something here? The article said this video burst is shot at less the usual video frame rate, so I'm guessing 15 or 12 (30p / 24p), which would be basically the same as a still burst.