Jump to content


Photo

2000 fps is considered revolutionary?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:04 AM

I was watching the 84th Academy Awards and took great interest in the section on technical achievements. It was noted that with digital high speed cameras, 2000fps was now possible. I was under the impression that for decades, there have been high speed film cameras that could run at more than double that frame rate. Am I missing something here?
  • 0

#2 Jock Blakley

Jock Blakley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, VIC

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:06 AM

Yeah, you're missing the fact that everything that was ever achievable with film never happened.
Geez, get with the program.

;)
  • 0

#3 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:29 AM

Yeah, you're missing the fact that everything that was ever achievable with film never happened.
Geez, get with the program.


I don't know what's confusing me more from that awards night - the 2000 fps statement or Angelina Jolie's exaggerated leg pose :huh: .
  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2737 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:51 AM

High-speed up to 20,000pps was always fairly straightforward with 16mm, and much higher with more specialised techniques where the film didn't have to move at all- up to millions of pps equivalent.
But the limit for 35mm. was always a lot lower- a couple of thousand pps and a few hundred pin-registered. 1000' in a few seconds.

(PPS, 'pictures per second', accounts for using a half-height frame with the appropriate rotating prism to get a higher effective framing rate. So the film only has to move at half the speed.)
  • 0

#5 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:18 AM

Yeah that actually took me a bit by surprise too, I mean of course film stock gets ridiculously chewed up, but that kind of slow motion has been possible with film for a while. The digital equivalents are getting pretty interesting though.
  • 0

#6 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2737 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:29 AM

film stock gets ridiculously chewed up,

We used tweezers, paintbrush and a vacuum cleaner to clean up after each run.
  • 0

#7 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:20 PM

We used tweezers, paintbrush and a vacuum cleaner to clean up after each run.


We called it "making salad." The statement at the awards should not be so difficult to understand. The achievement was in digital photography which is or will be the new standard.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineLab

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera