Using a still camera as capture

Scott Morabito · January 19th, 2006, 11:13 AM

I'm about to bite the bullet on a nnovia A2D recorder so I can use a variety of cameras and methods of capture with the additional ability to edit on the fly from my laptop. I'm also looking to buy a nice digital still camera which makes me curious if I should just combine the two. I would live to invest in a decent ($800-$1500) digital still camera and be able to use it with the drive. Has anyone had experience with this? I know I may be limited to analog, but I'm getting the A2D to I can utilize it. It is more important to me to have exposure control and use a nice set of lenses than to capture DV. A picture can have an incredible resolution, but if the actual composition stinks you just have a bunch of wasted pixels. I'd love to hear any ideas on video cameras without recording elements too. I've seen CCTV cameras, but I'm sure there is something better. Thanks for the help.

scott morabito, boston.

Andrew Khalil · January 26th, 2006, 03:06 PM

digital still cameras only record onto memory cards. On some high end Canons and Nikons, there are wireless modules that can send pictures to a remote laptop.
I wouldn't combine video and stills - always ends up being a compromise in one way or another. For still cameras, go with a digital SLR and you'll be really happy with the image quality.

Scott Morabito · January 26th, 2006, 10:13 PM

It appears that the Nikon D70s has an NTSC video out which I'm assuming is a live feed. Anyone have any experience in that realm? Of course any package really is about compromise - what I'm looking to do is combine the investments of a decent digital still camera and lenses, with the capture capability of a tapeless deck. DV cameras all have decks, but that's the piece I can do without here. Another option I'm looking at is a CCTV with some nicer C mount lenses which have more depth of field and sharpness than you're average CCTV lens.

thoughts?

Andrew Khalil · January 26th, 2006, 10:44 PM

the video out that many digital SLRs is only for viewing pictures on a screen after they are taken. DSLRs cannot display a live image while being used and the display on the back is cannot be used as a viewfinder - only for looking at pictures after they're taken and for viewing menus.
This is because the sensor in a DSLR is not active except for the split second when a picture is taken and even if it was, it would be blocked by the mirror.
Point and shoot still cameras may work for this, but I don't know the resolution at which they output through their composite outputs - even if they did, it sounds like you're after better quality and point and shoots won't get anywhere near a SLR.
In my opinion, why not just use a regular miniDV camera like everyone else uses? You don't have to use the tape if you have a hard drive recorder like you mention.

Scott Morabito · February 2nd, 2006, 11:07 PM

I would have guessed that the video out would return the video as seen on the LCD. The high res CCD would be covered except for the split second the picture is taken, otherwise a lower res CCD is used for the LCD. Hmm, I guess video out of the last picture taken would be a more useful feature. The main reason to not use a regular DV cam is the same reason that SLR digital cameras exist - to take advantage of better lenses. If anyone has any additional ideas let me know. I could hotwire the LCD video connectors....or not.

best,

Andrew Khalil · February 3rd, 2006, 07:35 AM

what about an XL2 with EF adapter? I think that would work quite well unless you need wide angle.

John Mitchell · February 21st, 2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Morabito

I would have guessed that the video out would return the video as seen on the LCD. The high res CCD would be covered except for the split second the picture is taken, otherwise a lower res CCD is used for the LCD. Hmm, I guess video out of the last picture taken would be a more useful feature. The main reason to not use a regular DV cam is the same reason that SLR digital cameras exist - to take advantage of better lenses. If anyone has any additional ideas let me know. I could hotwire the LCD video connectors....or not.

best,

You're not listening to good advice - DSLRs do NOT output a live feed, and you don't see a "live" picture on the LCD on the back of the camera (so hotwiring it would achieve nothing). The viewfinder is an optical device and is the only "live" viewfinder on a DSLR. Therefore you don't see video on the LCD... ever. And you can't record it.

On the other hand there are some video cameras with megapixel still functions.

RED camera (see forum) should take pretty decent stills when it comes out.

Konstantin Serafimov · February 23rd, 2006, 02:25 AM

there's is no digital still camera that shoots 24 or more fps at full rez, or anywere near that. I think this is pure marketing problem, not technical, cos most cmos sensors can double framerate at half rez.

However with DSLR there still moving mirror/shutter that simply isnt fast enough for that. Movie cameras use rotating shutter that is very different and not so good for the still use. Another issue with large cmos is that they may have so called "rolling shutter" which is also bad for continious video shooting.

So currently, DSLR has no more than 10 fps and 40 frame buffer. It is called "continious drive". I've read it is expected they will evolve to 12 fps 150 frames for next 5 years and thats it. Better dynamic range and frame size are more important there than additional 5 fps. It was link to a movie made with D20 in "Still crazy" here. Stunning pictures at about 5 fps.

Best movei mode as i know curently holds canon is2. The test movies in the net are amazing even at sd rez. My colegue own one and it is wierd like hell to shoot video with it. It records video in separate mode which can be described as full auto. Lucky shooter one must be :)

The right way imho, is to get decent camera head from sumix, siliconimaging, elphel etc. This will cost from 1000 to 5000 without lens and probably let you shoot the way you want, i.e. hi rez, progressive, direct to disk.

Andrew Khalil · February 23rd, 2006, 11:49 AM

which dSLR can shoot 10fps? I thought 8 was the fastest but I could be wrong.

Konstantin Serafimov · February 24th, 2006, 02:02 AM

sorry, its me that wrong. I thought it is a hi-end camera that make about 10fps but now i cant find any. Canon's mark is called "fastest" with 8.5, so lets say 10 is either rounding or hope for year '07 models.

Michael Salzlechner · February 24th, 2006, 06:27 AM

Forget the still image capture for movies except if you plan on making a movie such as Corpse Bride which was shot with Canon 1DMkII still cameras

For real video/movie capture you dont get the fps needed and also the aperture of automatic lenses is not precise enough to give you the exact same exposure on every frame so it will flicker. This is why they used manual nikon lenses with manual apertures for corpse bride

As far as no DSLR's existing with live preview that is not true. there is one available now from olympus which has a TTL optical viewfinder as well as live preview. Still not usable for video capture though

If you want video get a video camera. if you want stills get a still camera. Getting one for both either way yields lousy results

January 19th, 2006, 11:13 AM	#1
Scott Morabito New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8	Using a still camera as capture - I'm about to bite the bullet on a nnovia A2D recorder so I can use a variety of cameras and methods of capture with the additional ability to edit on the fly from my laptop. I'm also looking to buy a nice digital still camera which makes me curious if I should just combine the two. I would live to invest in a decent ($800-$1500) digital still camera and be able to use it with the drive. Has anyone had experience with this? I know I may be limited to analog, but I'm getting the A2D to I can utilize it. It is more important to me to have exposure control and use a nice set of lenses than to capture DV. A picture can have an incredible resolution, but if the actual composition stinks you just have a bunch of wasted pixels. I'd love to hear any ideas on video cameras without recording elements too. I've seen CCTV cameras, but I'm sure there is something better. Thanks for the help. scott morabito, boston.

February 24th, 2006, 06:27 AM	#11
Michael Salzlechner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Royal Palm Beach, FL, US Posts: 228	Forget the still image capture for movies except if you plan on making a movie such as Corpse Bride which was shot with Canon 1DMkII still cameras For real video/movie capture you dont get the fps needed and also the aperture of automatic lenses is not precise enough to give you the exact same exposure on every frame so it will flicker. This is why they used manual nikon lenses with manual apertures for corpse bride As far as no DSLR's existing with live preview that is not true. there is one available now from olympus which has a TTL optical viewfinder as well as live preview. Still not usable for video capture though If you want video get a video camera. if you want stills get a still camera. Getting one for both either way yields lousy results __________________ Michael Salzlechner

January 26th, 2006, 03:06 PM	#2
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	digital still cameras only record onto memory cards. On some high end Canons and Nikons, there are wireless modules that can send pictures to a remote laptop. I wouldn't combine video and stills - always ends up being a compromise in one way or another. For still cameras, go with a digital SLR and you'll be really happy with the image quality.

January 26th, 2006, 10:13 PM	#3
Scott Morabito New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8	It appears that the Nikon D70s has an NTSC video out which I'm assuming is a live feed. Anyone have any experience in that realm? Of course any package really is about compromise - what I'm looking to do is combine the investments of a decent digital still camera and lenses, with the capture capability of a tapeless deck. DV cameras all have decks, but that's the piece I can do without here. Another option I'm looking at is a CCTV with some nicer C mount lenses which have more depth of field and sharpness than you're average CCTV lens. thoughts?

January 26th, 2006, 10:44 PM	#4
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	the video out that many digital SLRs is only for viewing pictures on a screen after they are taken. DSLRs cannot display a live image while being used and the display on the back is cannot be used as a viewfinder - only for looking at pictures after they're taken and for viewing menus. This is because the sensor in a DSLR is not active except for the split second when a picture is taken and even if it was, it would be blocked by the mirror. Point and shoot still cameras may work for this, but I don't know the resolution at which they output through their composite outputs - even if they did, it sounds like you're after better quality and point and shoots won't get anywhere near a SLR. In my opinion, why not just use a regular miniDV camera like everyone else uses? You don't have to use the tape if you have a hard drive recorder like you mention.

February 2nd, 2006, 11:07 PM	#5
Scott Morabito New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8	I would have guessed that the video out would return the video as seen on the LCD. The high res CCD would be covered except for the split second the picture is taken, otherwise a lower res CCD is used for the LCD. Hmm, I guess video out of the last picture taken would be a more useful feature. The main reason to not use a regular DV cam is the same reason that SLR digital cameras exist - to take advantage of better lenses. If anyone has any additional ideas let me know. I could hotwire the LCD video connectors....or not. best,

February 3rd, 2006, 07:35 AM	#6
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	what about an XL2 with EF adapter? I think that would work quite well unless you need wide angle.

February 23rd, 2006, 02:25 AM	#8
Konstantin Serafimov New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 13	there's is no digital still camera that shoots 24 or more fps at full rez, or anywere near that. I think this is pure marketing problem, not technical, cos most cmos sensors can double framerate at half rez. However with DSLR there still moving mirror/shutter that simply isnt fast enough for that. Movie cameras use rotating shutter that is very different and not so good for the still use. Another issue with large cmos is that they may have so called "rolling shutter" which is also bad for continious video shooting. So currently, DSLR has no more than 10 fps and 40 frame buffer. It is called "continious drive". I've read it is expected they will evolve to 12 fps 150 frames for next 5 years and thats it. Better dynamic range and frame size are more important there than additional 5 fps. It was link to a movie made with D20 in "Still crazy" here. Stunning pictures at about 5 fps. Best movei mode as i know curently holds canon is2. The test movies in the net are amazing even at sd rez. My colegue own one and it is wierd like hell to shoot video with it. It records video in separate mode which can be described as full auto. Lucky shooter one must be :) The right way imho, is to get decent camera head from sumix, siliconimaging, elphel etc. This will cost from 1000 to 5000 without lens and probably let you shoot the way you want, i.e. hi rez, progressive, direct to disk.

February 23rd, 2006, 11:49 AM	#9
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	which dSLR can shoot 10fps? I thought 8 was the fastest but I could be wrong.

February 24th, 2006, 02:02 AM	#10
Konstantin Serafimov New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 13	sorry, its me that wrong. I thought it is a hi-end camera that make about 10fps but now i cant find any. Canon's mark is called "fastest" with 8.5, so lets say 10 is either rounding or hope for year '07 models.