possible, to record more fps?

[Sebastian Linda]

Hi

I just wanted to know if it would theoretically be possible to update the framerate of the camera.
Could it be possible to update firmware and record 200 fps.

Theoretically it shouldn´t be any problem?

[Gabriel Florit]

I don't think a firmware would take care of that. More fps means more information per second, the compression algorithms would have to change, I bet some of them are hardware-based... No, I think we'll see that on the EX-7.

[Craig Kovatch]

I think heat from the CMOS imagers would be a factor as well. I can't see Sony putting a larger fan in such a compact body, with the noise and all.

[Sebastian Linda]

what a pity ... :(

[David Lorente]

It's not just a problem of firmware or codecs. As Craig has said, the CMOS sensors would have to work at 2,66 times the current maximum speed (60 fps) to achieve 200 fps. Then, the DSP's would have to handle 2,66 times their current data bandwidth, and so on.

Of course it is possible, but not for that camera.

And then, there's the marketing issues. A device capable of handling high speed photography is not going to be available in the price range of the EX-1, even if technically possible, just because that's a special feature that can justify a much higher price.

If you are very interested in high speed, do a google search by "high speed cameras". For example, check http://www.visionresearch.com/, the equipment shown there is just amazing. There are also demo videos, enjoy!

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by David Lorente

It's not just a problem of firmware or codecs. As Craig has said, the CMOS sensors would have to work at 2,66 times the current maximum speed (60 fps) to achieve 200 fps. Then, the DSP's would have to handle 2,66 times their current data bandwidth, and so on.

I would be willing to accept lower resolution for higher fps. A 1280x720 crop would be fantastic, though 800x480 would be acceptible. The higher FPS modes on the Sony Z7 are an example of what is possible.

Sony could make money selling a water cooler as an accessory for high FPS mode, and high FPS would only be available with that part installed. That said, I'm sure people would be willing to pay for this water cooler to get 90 FPS at 1080p. Overclocked Windows boxes deliver 30-50% gains.

[Sebastian Linda]

I just filmed with 1000 fps. Of course, cameras far beyond the price of the EX1.
And I am so amazed by the footage!

I can understand that the camera might not be able to record 200 fps for half an hour.
But just a few seconds?

Come on Sony, give it a try ;)

[Charles Young]

It has been about a year since I have worked with high speed cameras but basically here is the deal. The frame rate is basically governed by the horizontal scan rate. For 1 camera I worked with, they would take 210 frames per second at 640X480. 640X240 at 420 frames per second. 640X120 at 840 frames per second. You get the idea, it is all the same data rate.

A lot depends on the hardware.

From a logical standpoint the EX1 can do 1280X720 at 60 fps so it should be able to do 1280X360 at 120 fps and 1280X180 at 240 fps. It is obviously not in the firmware and probably never will be.

[David Lorente]

Originally Posted by Gints Klimanis

I would be willing to accept lower resolution for higher fps. A 1280x720 crop would be fantastic, though 800x480 would be acceptible. The higher FPS modes on the Sony Z7 are an example of what is possible.

Sony could make money selling a water cooler as an accessory for high FPS mode, and high FPS would only be available with that part installed. That said, I'm sure people would be willing to pay for this water cooler to get 90 FPS at 1080p. Overclocked Windows boxes deliver 30-50% gains.

Indeed, the EX-1 performs 60 fps at 1280x720. The maximum frame rate at 1920x1080 is 30 fps.

I don't think you can just put a water cooling system over the chips and just expect it to work. I wonder how many people would really be interested in such a conversion, which, if possible, will also be very expensive. And it surely will make the camera to look, at least, like a sort of plastic Frankenstein monster.

Originally Posted by Charles Young

It has been about a year since I have worked with high speed cameras but basically here is the deal. The frame rate is basically governed by the horizontal scan rate. For 1 camera I worked with, they would take 210 frames per second at 640X480. 640X240 at 420 frames per second. 640X120 at 840 frames per second. You get the idea, it is all the same data rate.

A lot depends on the hardware.

From a logical standpoint the EX1 can do 1280X720 at 60 fps so it should be able to do 1280X360 at 120 fps and 1280X180 at 240 fps. It is obviously not in the firmware and probably never will be.

That's right. And, in order to scan at lower resolutions ("windowed" portions of the sensor area, in fact), the CMOS, DSPs and compressor chips must be designed to work with just a portion of the maximum area. But, as they are now, they only work with their whole area. And the redesigning of all these devices is an EXPENSIVE process...

Don't forget the increase in data rate. When you set the camera at 720@24fps, and then you put the Slow&Quick motion item to 60 fps, the camera is recording to achieve a final data rate of 35 Mbps in playback, so it is, in fact, recording 87,5 Mbps. To do the same thing at 120 fps, you must handle 175 Mbps. For 200 fps, it would be almost 292 Mbps. It is not impossible, of course, but such an increase of processing power means, again, a major redesigning of the entire camera circuits.

But, as I stated before, I don't think the problems here are just technical, but also commercial: the costs in development and manufacturing of such a high performance device are great, so, at the present day, no one manufacturer will incorporate them in a standard camera. And, if we take in consideration the market laws, as not all filmmakers are interested in owning a high speed camera, the market will be reduced, and a small market means less units sold, and this means high prices.

That doesn't mean that in a future the average prosumer cameras aren't going to incorporate these features, it is technically possible and right now there are high speed devices that can record at several thousands frames per second at 720p resolution, so I'm sure we will see it sooner or later, but that's not for tomorrow.

[Sebastian Linda]

thanks for your excellent explanations.

Great. I learn so much here.

Another Great thing: This is thread 123456 :)

[Charles Young]

One of the most affordable high speed systems I am familiar with is the Imperx camera, although not hi def (640X480). Anyone doing EX1 video editing could add a CamerLink card and grab data from the Imperx, a raid 0 is required to write for long records (>1min). We had typical record times of 3-4 hours using 4 300gig raid 0 SATA drives. Just a couple thousand dollars.

The holy grail is the Vision Research bunch of cameras. The V12 at 1280X800 at 6200 frames per second, capable of 1 million frames per second. The one I used was the V10 at 1920X1080 at 978 frames per second. All I can say is wow, but at >100,000 US Dollars.

It is all a matter of temporal resolution. What is the subject and how will it move through your field of view over time. Color is the killer, you loose too many stops to get good shutter speeds and clear images. Of course unless you are willing to vaporize your subject with 100,000 foot candles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oot_candle.jpg

[David Lorente]

Originally Posted by Charles Young

... Of course unless you are willing to vaporize your subject with 100,000 foot candles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oot_candle.jpg

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I have never seen a foot candle before! LOL!!!

[Gilles Guerraz]

Anyone tried to shoot 300 or 600 fps with the new Casio EX-F1 ?
I'm wondering wether it would be rellay usable or if it's just a gadget thing...


http://exilim.casio.com/browse_camer...lim_pro/EX-F1/