View Full Version : Take 1000 FPS videos with an ordinary camera?
robowurmz
16 Jan 2007, 18:10
Is it possible to take 1000 fps videos with a normal camera? Is there some sort of program that lets you override your webcam's FPS rate?
Surely that requires some specialist (and expensive) equipment.
I'm no authority on camera FPS rates, but I doubt your little webcam can has the physical capabilities to process 1000 images in a second.
In fact, I doubt it can process anywhere near that number.
MrBunsy
16 Jan 2007, 18:31
Normal cameras physically aren't capable of anything like that. If you could override the fps you'd likely end up with a blur, or nothing at all.
robowurmz
16 Jan 2007, 18:38
Aww. As a by-note, is there anyway to project a kind of onion-skin onto a movie you have made, to make like a sort of after-image/motion-trail effect?
Liketyspli
16 Jan 2007, 19:32
1. Peel Onion.
2. Wrap around movie.
:rolleyes:
Preasure
16 Jan 2007, 20:02
Is it possible to take 1000 fps videos with a normal camera? Is there some sort of program that lets you override your webcam's FPS rate?
No. Normal cameras just can't move their shutters fast enough, and it's very unadvisabe to mess with the technical stuff in your camera.
Aww. As a by-note, is there anyway to project a kind of onion-skin onto a movie you have made, to make like a sort of after-image/motion-trail effect?
Wrong place to ask that, really. Try looking for a film editing forum, and ask there.
FutureWorm
16 Jan 2007, 20:50
why would you want a 1000 FPS video seriously
Buy a highspeed camera. They're expensive.
You probably can achieve a motion blur effect with a movie editing or special effects software.
Paul.Power
16 Jan 2007, 22:21
why would you want a 1000 FPS video seriouslyMaybe he's been watching the cricket on telly and wants to replicate the UltraMotion cameras at his own cricket ground?
EDIT: Wait, it's January... and he's in Scotland...
Err, scrub that.
That wasn't an edit, you just put that in. It'd say at the bottom of your post if you had edited it.
How misleading. You should be ashamed.
It's only a joke people.
robowurmz
17 Jan 2007, 07:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX6aerxQPOs
That inspired me.
That wasn't an edit, you just put that in. It'd say at the bottom of your post if you had edited it.
You know that the edit notice the bottom only appears after a certain (short) time or when someone else has already read the post?
AndrewTaylor
17 Jan 2007, 10:41
Aww. As a by-note, is there anyway to project a kind of onion-skin onto a movie you have made, to make like a sort of after-image/motion-trail effect?
Yes. Depends how technical you are. I'd imagine VirtualDub could do that. If not, it's a fairly simple effect you could implement yourself if you're a good coder with access to a suitable development environment.
MtlAngelus
17 Jan 2007, 10:42
Is it possible to take 1000 fps videos with a normal camera? Is there some sort of program that lets you override your webcam's FPS rate?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry.
Yes, as everyone states, expensive equipment.
Liketyspli
17 Jan 2007, 12:31
In that movie how they managed to follow a tank missle with a camera is completely amazing.
Cisken1
17 Jan 2007, 12:34
In that movie how they managed to follow a tank missle with a camera is completely amazing.
It IS impossible,and probably computer edited!
In that movie how they managed to follow a tank missle with a camera is completely amazing.
It IS impossible,and probably computer edited!
Why?
I could think of a setup where the camera is fixed on rotating mount.
With the knowledge of the muzzle velocity of the shell you can spin it with the appropriate angular velocity.
Besides, that shell doesn't look like a regular shell to me anyway.
It's quite long and the stabilizing fins at the rear are usually found on recoilless anti-tank rifle shells.
So it could well be a slower travelling projectile.
AndrewTaylor
17 Jan 2007, 13:36
Why?
I could think of a setup where the camera is fixed on rotating mount.
With the knowledge of the muzzle velocity of the shell you can spin it with the appropriate angular velocity.
Besides, that shell doesn't look like a regular shell to me anyway.
It's quite long and the stabilizing fins at the rear are usually found on recoilless anti-tank rifle shells.
So it could well be a slower travelling projectile.
You could. It'd be much easier to point a camera at the muzzle, pan across to the impact site, set off an explosion, and add the shell later with a computer, and doubtless that's what would be done for a film, probably with a normal speed camera, but in this case I think they just rigged the camera to start panning very fast the moment the shot was fired. That's why they de-synch towards the end and the shell starts to lag behind the camera a bit.
Edit: Though in principle they could also have taken a much wider-angle shot with a fixed camera, and cropped it differently on each frame.
in this case I think they just rigged the camera to start panning very fast the moment the shot was fired. That's why they de-synch towards the end and the shell starts to lag behind the camera a bit.
Yep, I thought that too.
Maybe the shell was somehow triggered when the camera started to pan.
Paul.Power
17 Jan 2007, 16:32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX6aerxQPOs
That inspired me.
That was rather fun up to the point it got obsessed with guns.
Those bits with the water balloons where the water held its shape briefly before exploding everywhere were cool.
In that movie how they managed to follow a tank missle with a camera is completely amazing.
They know how fast the missles fly, so they mount the camera on something that would point the camera appropiatly. Or atleast that is how I would do it.
Cisken1
20 Jan 2007, 22:55
ok so I was wrong! Sorry!
Crud, every time I play a Soul Calibur, I think "Man, that frame rate is just unreal," and I'm pretty sure it only runs in the upper 60's per second. It's pretty ridiculous to think you'd need 1000 fps for much of anything.
AndrewTaylor
24 Jan 2007, 10:13
For capturing images of things that happen very fast, you can need any crazy framerate imaginable. For playback you never need go far above 60 because the human eye won't take it in.
If you want to make a film for pigeons then you'd need more than 60Hz, but let's assume we're all humans.
SupSuper
24 Jan 2007, 12:30
Neat stuff.
I suspect this is the kind of camera you'd be looking for: http://www.weinbergervision.com/High-Speed-Camera-Range-l3cat90.html
Either that or you use dozens of regular cameras synchronized so that they each take a different fraction of the second.
Crud, every time I play a Soul Calibur, I think "Man, that frame rate is just unreal," and I'm pretty sure it only runs in the upper 60's per second. It's pretty ridiculous to think you'd need 1000 fps for much of anything.
It's not ment to be played back at 1000fps! I would love a highspeed camera, so I could film silly things like firecrackers blowing pencils into to pieces and seeing it in ultra slow motion. That kind of investigation is what the cameras are for.
Yeah, that all makes perfect sense.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.