3000 frames per sec

[<Shutterbug>]

For the Australian Open Tennis which is being played for the next 2 weeks, they have a camera recording at 3000 frames per sec, which gives amazing slowmo's of muscles moving and stuff.
Brillent pics, with no real loss of light.

My question is this.....in Aust we work on 25 frames/per sec....if I add 2000 shutter into my picture, does this now mean I am recording at 2000 frames/per sec.....so therefore is this "new" camera just recording at 3000 frames/per sec...or is there more to it?
Cheers

[Shootblue]

Ummm...no, your camera is exposing for a 2000 a second instead of a thirtieth of a second for whatever your pal/ntsc rate is per second. They are exposing 2000 frames per second. Of course I might be wrong.

[dhilljr]

Are you sure about the 3000 fps? That seems rather high. At that rate it would take 100 seconds of tape to record 1 sec vid@3000fps? Are there machines that can transport the tape that fast? Or systems that could store that much that fast if they aren't shooting tape. Just curious.
David

[ January 19, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: dhilljr ]

[<actionnewsman>]

As I understand the principle in film, they ramp up the speed at which the film goes through the camera. Thus, they get really cool slo-mo shots of things blowing up (think the Star Trek pictures). A fraction of a second becomes a long drawn-out explosion when played back at normal speed. I guess you could apply the same to video, but I honestly don't know if it's possible. Perhaps Shaky or someone with more technical acumen could weigh in on this one. :)

[Hess]

Is it something like this?

http://pro.sony.com.hk/productfinder.php?id=149&action=model

It's sony's super-mo camera.

Just a thought.

Joey

[<Macro>]

A good example of this is the ESPN NFL broadcast. They use a camera that records the action at 90 frames per second and use it for super slo-mo replays during the broadcast. CBS also has a version of a high frame rate camera they have been using for NFL games too. Their's does show a significant loss of light under football game lighting. 3000 frames per second??? not sure about that without needing tons of light. I can't imagine that a tennis match would have more lighting than an NFL game.

[Buck]

Originally posted by &lt;Macro&gt;:
3000 frames per second??? not sure about that without needing tons of light. I can't imagine that a tennis match would have more lighting than an NFL game. Can't they just kick up the gain, if need be? :)

[atomic]

Something like this, perhaps?

http://www.visinst.com/VIDLITE.html

or this?

http://www.photron.com/products.cfm?id=1

[Terry E. Toller]

I don't think they use tape for high speed, slo mo...

Don't they use the disk system like the NFL uses for instant replays?

When I was in the navy I used a film camera that shot 2000 fps! It had a 1200 foot load of 16mm film.

[<Shutterbug>]

Maybe this helps


http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/455675

[<Shutterbug>]

Maybe this helps


http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/455675

[Icarus112277]

Theres always the super-mos.

Also, tape transport doesn't have to be an issue nowadays.

[Lil' Photog]

Don't confused shutter speed with frames per second.

"over-cranking" will not affect lighting.

[Terry E. Toller]

Increasing the fps increases the shutter speed. If the image is being exposed at a faster frame rate, the shutter speed has to be higher to make up for the speed...

[<omniscient one>]

the government has cameras that can record at 10 million frames per second. I am not lying.

[shoot da parrot]

10 milion????? to get exposer you would have to be sitting on the damn sun..

[Natural Born Stringer]

Originally posted by &lt;omniscient one&gt;:
the government has cameras that can record at 10 million frames per second. I am not lying. Of course you're not. It's posted on the internet! It must be true! :rolleyes:

[Tippster]

Originally posted by Lil' Photog:
Don't confused shutter speed with frames per second.

"over-cranking" will not affect lighting. Sorry, but you're wrong. It directly correlates.