cheapest way to 60fps?

chedabob

Northwind wrote:

The only point of higher framerate for these things is slow motion- if you want to go all Life Cycles and show absolutely every bit of riding at half speed it's useful, though your viewers are going to kill you.

Not really. It produces a much smoother image. If you've got a 60hz display, you might as well use it.

You can do high FPS with Twixtor without a 60fps camera, although the results vary from absolutely absurd to indistinguishable from the real thing.

Anonymous

Nope, the image is not perceivable as being any smoother. The eyes just aren't fast enough. It really is just snake oil.

The advantage of higher refresh rates becomes apparent when trying to show 24 fps films, at 25 fps, or 30fps. In that case, a refresh rate is decided upon which is divisible by the film frame rate, instead of having the odd frame played twice occasionally.

bluechair84

Well, this is as interesting a propositiion to something other than a more expensive Go Pros etc;
- clicky piccy

High-resolution Recording 720 x 576 pixels at 30 FPS
Image sensor: 1/3" Sony HAD CCD
Dimensions:Φ18 mm x (L) 75 mm
Focus range: 2.5 m
Wide angle lens: 72 degrees
3hrs battery

But there is no example video footage so I suppose impossible to tell.

welshkev

you done a youtube search for footage?

Northwind

Pretty narrow lens that, if their numbers are correct (I think maybe it's a typo though, calling a 72 degree lens wide angle is a bit mad).

That's a lot like my old motorbike kit, which was pretty nice, might even have the same sensor... but anything wired-in is a pain in the bum on the bike. It's good that it runs the camera off the DVR battery though, mine needed seperate sources for each, total bummer (though, I'm curious if the battery life quoted is running both devices or just the DVR)

I woudln't. Couple of years ago I would but now I'd find the extra £50 for the Gopro 960.

thekickingmule

yeehaamcgee wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

Do you have a problem watching old movies? Say from the mid 90's earlier? They were all done at 25-30fps as far as I'm aware.

All FILM movies are still 24 frames per second. It's been a standard for.... ooh, forever.

Cinema = 24 fps.
American pre HD telly = 29.97 fps (long, bloody stupid story)
pretty much everywhere else pre HD = 25 fps.

HDTV has pretty much stuck to these standards, although I think that 29.97 has lost favour to 30fps.

Aha 24fps. I was thinking 26fps, couldn't remember the number from my uni days. I had a feeling that it was standard today, but wasn't sure whether technology had increased from the mid 90's.
Isn't the human eye only able to see about 25fps, hence the cameras not bothering to go much higher? As you said, it's only when you want to slow movies down that it becomes worth while.

Anonymous

Bullet cams are never going to be great in dark, wooded areas. Even the ones the professionals use (which, incidentaly, can be bought from Dogcam), are pretty pathetic when used on, for example, rally cars.
Rallying quite often has similar lighting issues to mountain biking. Overhead branches blocking out direct sunlight etc.

A lot of TV work uses GoPro now, but the same issues are still present.

bluechair84

welshkev wrote:

you done a youtube search for footage?

Yeah, could only find a promo vid of stills, not actual footage. Emailed the bellendimeanseller and s/he responded "Sorry I can't do that"

So, for the time being the Go Pro is actually the cheapest option for decent quality video then? I'll get that little veho copy out again and have another fettle