Is there any still digital camera in existence that can record still frames at a constant 30FPS at around 1MP or more? Of course the higher the resolution, the better. That would solve a lot of problems for me. If there isn't one, then why not? Seems like that would be great for a photographer to pick the exact right shot out of a sequence of shots. I would love to have such a camera to create high quality short video sequences out of the still sequence.
I have a Sony Z1, but the single frame quality does not seem to come near that of a cheap still camera. The Z1 frames seem dull and lack sharpness. This may be due to the amount of compression and the fact that the Z1 sensors are not that high resolution.

If there were, then what would be the point of any of the low cost HD cams? No, there is nothing in the low-cost still image camera offerings with enough processor horsepower to record 30 frames per second at high resolutions.

As far as the Z1 or any other HDV camera, I know (and have seen) many 5 x7's printed from these cams, and they look stunning, much like what you'd see from any 2-4 megapixel cam. Compression is definitely high with the low-cost HD cameras, but compression does not have to refer to poor image quality.

I would not even mind a relatively high priced digital camera if could do the job ;) I need to post some examples of Z1 verses Still Camera. I don't know exactly what it is about the Z1 stills grabs that bother me so much. They do seem to lack a lot of color compared to a still camera. If I auto balance the Z1 frame image in Photoshop it improves greatly, but still not quite as nice to me. This is a time consuming step I want to avoid.
For what I want to do, I need to convert the video into stills as a first step regardless, so it would be nice to have a sequence of stills from the start.

Also one thing that is very noticeable on a Z1 frame is that in any lower light situation the noise is much more visible on a frame of video then on a still camera.

I'd suggest one of two things:
1. Be sure you know exactly how to operate your camera
or
2. Send your camera in for a check up.

We've been shooting all week with a Z1 and a Canon G5 mounted on a Bonehead Carbon Fibre. While the G5 pix definitely are nicer to a degree, I'd certainly not consider the Z1 images being "poor" or lacking in color, sharpness, etc. When comparing a 6megapixel image to a 1.8megapixel image, you'd expect differences in detail. In some ways, the Z1 is actually preferable. Shooting images at 130 mph (head down flying) means that both cam and subject are presenting a lot of motion. The Z1 on some frames adds a very nice, smoothing blur to the overall image.
Measuring all things equal, see what you get when aperture, shutter, lighting, etc are all the same, and compare a 2 megapixel cam to the Z1. I think you'll find them more similar than dissimilar.

Here is an example of the type of results I get in poor lighting. Too bad I could not find a better test, but this shows what I am talking about.

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/z1C.JPG
http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/stillC.JPG

The Z1 shot has a ton of grain, low in color, and looks like it has a haze about it. The still shot has more color, looks richer, and looks to have more resolution to me. I have done no processing on either shot. I cropped and resized the still shot to be the same size as the Z1 frame.

I will post a good light Z1 shot next.

Here is a frame from the Z1 in good light:

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/original.png

And here is the same frame color corrected in Photoshop.

http://www.gamersden.com/stuff/corrected.png

The original looks good, but when you flip back and forth between the two you can see that the original has a haze or fog about it that is fixed the the corrected shot.

What I'm seeing in those images isn't comparable in size, lighting, or shot.
Second, what I'm seeing in those images doesn't demonstrate good camera setup in either image.
Third, My experience, and experience of others is significantly different from what you're posting.

Resizing a still that started out much larger than the Z1 is only shrinking the image, thereby also shrinking the noise apparency.

In identical light, on occasion even my A1 will look as good as my G5. On other occasions, my A1 stinks compared to my G5. But no matter how you slice it, there are 4MP difference in the two. Which accounts for something. Slicing out a 1920 x 1080 (not shrinking) section of the G5 image isn't significantly if at all better than what the A1 or Z1 are shooting.
there are indeed some significant processes happening in a still cam that a video cam can't present. Very few still cams, and on a linear curve related to price NO still cam, can present the speed and resolution of shooting that the low cost HD cams can offer. Another solution for you is to buy 30 still cams, line em' up to fire 30 times a second, and sequence them. then you've got your image. This is often done, it was a significant part of how "The Matrix" was shot. Or, buy 3 Canon E20's, and sync em' to shoot every fourth frame. You'll get the same result, just from 3 cams. And it will still cost you a tiny fraction of what an HDCAM SR would shoot.

I have a Sony Z1, but the single frame quality does not seem to come near that of a cheap still camera. The Z1 frames seem dull and lack sharpness. This may be due to the amount of compression and the fact that the Z1 sensors are not that high resolution.

The three Z1U sensors have a resolution of 960x1080 each, which is then interpolated to 1440x1080 pixles per frame -- not bad compared to my first digital still camera at 640x480 pixels. The interlaced recording means that a simple deinterlaced image has an effective resolution of 1440x540 pixels or 0.78 megapixels, which as DSE noted makes respectable 5x7 prints. To me the prints look "videoish" upon close inspection but not bad to a casual observer.

Rumor has it that in England there are more inquiries about HDV cameras from photographers than from videographers. Let's not give photographers in the U.S. any ideas...

I have pondered the use of multiple cameras many times, not only for frame rate, but to overlap the images to get over-sampling, and to create wider fields of view. The problem is each camera will have a different angle, thus the image will not match.

I believe the captures I posted combine both 1/60th of a second fields to a 1/30th of a second slice of time, so I should be getting the full resolution of the frame. Unless the shutter was below 1/60th of a second on the Z1

I would suggest a progressive cam. 30 progressive frames per second is the closest your going to get to a still cam shooting 30fps.

Ken, I agree progressive would be better. I had a JVC HD10u, but the color was no good in lower light. My reasoning behind the Z1 this that I would be shooting on a tripod with mostly static scenes, so I should get more effect resolution in stills from 1080i. I got the Sanyo HD1 720p a little while back, but the video quality is a bit lacking.

How are you converting the video into still images? That could explain why the colors look washed out.

Sometimes, the video decompressor will decompress into the 16-235 range (black at 16, white at 235). This seems to be the case will your still shots.
*Many video cameras will record information above white, so that's why there are values above 235. This is sometimes called "superwhites".

Other decompressors will use the 0-255 range. This may not be as preferable since you lose the superwhite information.

Anyways, in Photoshop you'd just make sure you use the levels or auto color filter to fix for this problem. If you want to use the superwhite information, then you may want to bump saturation up a notch to compensate.
As an alternative, you could use a s-shaped curve in Photoshop to bump contrast and saturation at the same time. Some people like that look.

That is a good point Glenn. I am using Vegas to export the still frames. I can try some other programs and compare the results. The video looks great when viewed on my HD TV.

actually you probably should use vegas to export the frames... just keep in mind the levels are a little different.

You oculd use the levels filter in the video preview FX to adjust the levels, and the color corrector to change saturation. Or just one instead of color corrector.

Offset = -16
Gain = 255 / (255 - 16) *that's what I think it should be. check the hsitogram to see that the levels peg 255.

Ken, I agree progressive would be better. I had a JVC HD10u, but the color was no good in lower light.

Well there you go, why it isn't considered a still frame camera. Of course the HD100/101/200/250 will have a better image due to lens and electronics. As DSP explained, lighting is key. If you recieved poor quality images due to low light with the HD1/10 and the FX1/Z1 then it is obvious you are expecting far to much from video. You have experienced poor results from a prgressive and interlaced cam. The answer is clearly to add more light and in a proper way. It is not the cam per say. You have the greatest low cost tools ever available, and you can not achieve a proper result. Personally I have no idea why you would choose an interlaced format for what you ask. It seems you are starting out ass-backwards. You want the best still frame from an interlaced source? The only advantage of interlaced is VIDEO(motion)! We all agree that your origional question was a little goofy. Do you understand interlaced vs. progressive for video? I hope so.
My only advice is light correctly. Use a tri-pod. And use a high shutter speed. If you do so you should have incredable 1MP 30fps shots from your HD1/10. I do.
Unless your cam's broke you should kick ass. Use a HD100 ande you should be laughing!

Thanks Glenn, I will try that out.

The reason I selected the interlaced Z1 is that I want resolution. In a static scene, both the fields can be used to create a higher resolution frame that can be created with a 720P camera.

I still stick to the idea that a still digital camera will produce better results in lower light then any of the video cameras I have tried. I just need to prove it some day ;) It is probably due to the fact that the Camera CCD is larger then the Camcorder CCD and allows more light in the first place.

I want to use natural indoor lighting, but I guess with a 1/3 sensor, it's not going to happen...

The reason I selected the interlaced Z1 is that I want resolution. In a static scene, both the fields can be used to create a higher resolution frame that can be created with a 720P camera.

That logic is incorrect. For starters the resolution of a format does not determine how much detail is within that frame. Have a read of the DV.com's Low Cost HD-shootout, for an understanding of how the cams compare as far as resolution captured.

That is a great read. I got the Z1 a year ago, and did not have the resolution details I have now. I was going under the assumption that a 1920x1080 frame will have more detail then a 1280x720 frame. Its really should, but that is not always the case depending on the camera...

the JVC 10U has been mentioned a few times on this thread - asking if the JVC-GR hd 1 could be used for the same quality ?? thanks

The JVC HD1 sould be pretty close to the 10U, but the HD1 has more edge-enhancement.

canon s80 - 4 bills - records xga@30fps.Kurth

Looks like XGA (1024x768) records at 15 FPS. VGA (640x480) records at 30 fps.

Looks like XGA (1024x768) records at 15 FPS. VGA (640x480) records at 30 fps.

Correct.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s80.asp


I'm confused why we are even having this conversation, besides being nerds. It doesn't matter how much resolution a still cam gives you at what frame rate, they are completely lacking the controls needed to produce good video.
For starters, does anyone care about what kind of audio they deliver? Wanna lobby Canon to include XLR inputs on the S90?
How about a smooth zoom you can use while shooting?
Manual focus while shooting?
Manual iris control while shooting?

I've taken a good look at video clips from most of the high end still cameras that shoot video. Even the best of them looks like ass compared to my old miniDV Canon ZR40. Stuttery, choppy, poorly exposed and overly compressed. These aren't even in the same world. Sure, I like the movie mode on my SD500, I use it a lot when my video camera isn't around, but never would I consider it a viable alternative.

If I really wanted to shoot good video off a still camera, I would buy a Canon 1d Mk2 that shoots 8fps, and put a fast prime lens on it. Granted you'll never get any usable audio, but I'd have bragging rights like you've never seen.

That's my $0.02

I'm confused why we are even having this conversation, besides being nerds. It doesn't matter how much resolution a still cam gives you at what frame rate, they are completely lacking the controls needed to produce good video.

Makes sense to me why someone might want a still camera which records many frames per second over a long period of time, even if the ultimate goal wasn't to produce a video from that. One of the biggest challenges of photography in some situations is capturing exactly the right moment, so having the equivalent of a continuous motor drive could be quite useful. And who wouldn't want the option to be able to make a good print from any frame of a video in case someone wanted that? I advertise prints from HDV now but caution people that they're not a replacement for proper still photographs; how cool would it be to really have unlimited images at true printable quality?

Joseph - you're right - it had been a while since I read the review , but the dpreview clip looks pretty good at 15fps. The 1dmk11 only shoots 40 frames at 8.5fps. Maybe they're not quite there for some uses but they'll get better and better. We can expect 16x9 hd soon , maybe from panasonic with the replacement for the lx1. Still cameras w/video will probably put consumer just-video cameras out of business in the next 3 years. I personally can see alot of uses for these cameras. Kurth

Sure it is not a replacement for a real video camera, but it would be perfect for a project I need to do, if it existed ;). The video modes from still cameras will most likely be too compressed compared to single shots. I was hoping some camera out there could capture 30 still pictures a second for at least a few seconds, but that does not seem to be the case yet. Perhaps the RED camera will solve this problem for me soon...

Makes sense to me why someone might want a still camera which records many frames per second over a long period of time, even if the ultimate goal wasn't to produce a video from that. One of the biggest challenges of photography in some situations is capturing exactly the right moment, so having the equivalent of a continuous motor drive could be quite useful. And who wouldn't want the option to be able to make a good print from any frame of a video in case someone wanted that?

Fair enough. There are always certain people who need specific things. Sports photography is a good point. If you had a video camera shooting 30fps of quality printable photos, why would the average person need a still camera? (lots of exceptions I know)

The debate of "could a still camera replace a video camera, or vice versa" for the average consumer is pretty interesting.

And, FWIW, I'm buying a Panasonic FX01 for it's 16:9 video recording mode, but still keeping my video camera. :)

for dylan or all - in order to get clean HD frame by frame video graps for printing - should the camera be progressive scan ? thanks

in order to get clean HD frame by frame video graps for printing - should the camera be progressive scan ?

For obvious reasons, yes. If there is no motion a high quality de-interlacer and render time can make a nice still from an interlaced source. But the concept of progressive (one whole frame at a time, just like film) is ideal. Use a high shutter speed to avoid excessive motion blur, unless that is the look you want.