jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 15, 2016 13:06:51 GMT -5
so you hit the shutter button and the camera takes 10-20 or 30 photos automatically like a machine gun. Then sits for a while digitally matching the images from front of subject to back of subject. Result is a very deep depth of field all in focus. not stacked, notice poor focus front and rear  Stacked focus, subject in focus from front to rear. set at 10 photos. hand held. processing done in camera quickly.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 14:28:59 GMT -5
Artistically and practically depth of field is very useful.
But
This adds a whole new element to photography!!
I like it.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 5:02:46 GMT -5
Artistically and practically depth of field is very useful. But This adds a whole new element to photography!! I like it. Question- not sure if it just stacks by changed focus distance-or changed focus distance AND changed exposure. even the human eye has a limited depth of field. |
|
Intheswamp
Cave Dweller
Member since September 2015
Posts: 1,910 
|
Post by Intheswamp on Jul 16, 2016 7:12:01 GMT -5
A lot of macro-photographers use this technique. Incredible images of bugs. Which camera are you using, James? Normally, the guys shooting bugs will use some type of stacking software rather than in-camera stacking. Interesting that you're doing it in-camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Jul 16, 2016 7:15:08 GMT -5
That camera is making a million calculations almost instantly. Hard to say what all is going on. Now, there is no camera that fires a real shutter 240 times per second, so alot of this is computer manipulation of the same image, or a few images. Or witchcraft. Who cares if it works, but interesting how photography has changed since my first Canon A1.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 8:05:17 GMT -5
A lot of macro-photographers use this technique. Incredible images of bugs. Which camera are you using, James? Normally, the guys shooting bugs will use some type of stacking software rather than in-camera stacking. Interesting that you're doing it in-camera. This piss ant camera Ed. and yes, calcs done in camera. Rather fast, like less than 10 seconds. Pretty sure the next camera you buy will have stacking as standard option. Must have developed a high speed chip to zing the billions of calculations. Might as well use it for every photo lest you are looking for blurred back/fore ground for effect.  |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 8:09:36 GMT -5
That camera is making a million calculations almost instantly. Hard to say what all is going on. Now, there is no camera that fires a real shutter 240 times per second, so alot of this is computer manipulation of the same image, or a few images. Or witchcraft. Who cares if it works, but interesting how photography has changed since my first Canon A1. The instructions/specs are messing w/my head. HS=high speed. It can do HS1 and HS2. At a common shutter speed in sun light of say 1/1000, consider that it is possible to do 240/second.... Mechanically I don't see it and am in agreement with you. Copied from instructions garage: "High-Speed2 The images are taken sequentially for up to 100 frames at about 60 frames per second (fps) while pressing down the shutter button all the way down." So it looks to be the shutter is doing 60/sec.....?? This operation can be played out over time, say for a fireworks explosion. Basically a 100 frame video that can be programmed to burst in one second minimum, or a pre-programmed time chosen for taking time, say 5 seconds@20 frames per second = 100 frames. Resolution is reduced to allow SD card to vacuum info at such fast rates. Well, 60 shutter ops in one second is sure nuff buzzing along. Could it be so ?? And in the movie mode, it seems to suggest 240 fps @ low res, Holy cow, that seems mechanically impossible. Perhaps in this small camera they can make the shutter buzz at those rates. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 12:11:22 GMT -5
Nothing mechanical. All software.
It likely refocuses farther and farther into the image...
|
|
Intheswamp
Cave Dweller
Member since September 2015
Posts: 1,910
|
Post by Intheswamp on Jul 16, 2016 15:43:41 GMT -5
A lot of macro-photographers use this technique. Incredible images of bugs. Which camera are you using, James? Normally, the guys shooting bugs will use some type of stacking software rather than in-camera stacking. Interesting that you're doing it in-camera. This piss ant camera Ed. and yes, calcs done in camera. Rather fast, like less than 10 seconds. Pretty sure the next camera you buy will have stacking as standard option. Must have developed a high speed chip to zing the billions of calculations. Might as well use it for every photo lest you are looking for blurred back/fore ground for effect. That ain't a piss ant camera, James. Nice!!! Point and shoots tend to have some nice macro capabilities just from the focal length they have...along with landscape capabilities. Adding in the features that this camera has makes it something to really appreciate. Nice catch!!!!! Ed |
|
metalsmith
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by metalsmith on Jul 16, 2016 16:13:53 GMT -5
That stacked image is the way!
I would have thought the exposure would stay the same, but a mate of mine was testing his new phone camera the other day that took HDR all in one take, so why not?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 21:54:51 GMT -5
That stacked image is the way! I would have thought the exposure would stay the same, but a mate of mine was testing his new phone camera the other day that took HDR all in one take, so why not? If the foreground was dark and the background is bright then changing exposure would sure help. Alter exposure by shutter speed or f-stop ? Or both ? but then it would over expose some of the frames. That gets complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Jul 16, 2016 22:15:36 GMT -5
That processor is crunching some serious data. Think about how much more complex that machine is than what they used to put man on the moon. For about $350.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 22:29:43 GMT -5
That processor is crunching some serious data. Think about how much more complex that machine is than what they used to put man on the moon. For about $350. Exactly. Nasa space travel computers were (maybe are) the equivalent of the old intel 486 chip Something about the van Allen belt of radiation surrounding the earth wrecking the chips of more densely populated chips. Our cameras, televisions and telephones have far greater computing power. And the $1 binoculars at the bargain store are better telescopes than galileo had! |
|
Intheswamp
Cave Dweller
Member since September 2015
Posts: 1,910
|
Post by Intheswamp on Jul 16, 2016 22:29:59 GMT -5
That stacked image is the way! I would have thought the exposure would stay the same, but a mate of mine was testing his new phone camera the other day that took HDR all in one take, so why not? If the foreground was dark and the background is bright then changing exposure would sure help. Alter exposure by shutter speed or f-stop ? Or both ? but then it would over expose some of the frames. That gets complicated. Maybe it's taking a very short video while at the same time macro-moving the focus. The onboard software then cuts different frames out of the video and stacks them. Just a thought. We could probably do some serious googling and find the answer but...it wouldn't be near as much fun as guessing.<grin> |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 22:46:51 GMT -5
That processor is crunching some serious data. Think about how much more complex that machine is than what they used to put man on the moon. For about $350. They stack micro conductors in smaller than ever IC chips. In layers with super short conductor paths. It all gets smaller and faster. Photo stacking a few years ago-manual method and real complicated: neccc14.neccc.org/Tech_Articles/Dennis-Goulet-Focus-Stacking.pdf |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 23:07:16 GMT -5
Looks like a common setting is 24 or 30 frames per second at 1/100 shutter speed for video. 60 fps is becoming common recently. Youtube just started accepting 60 fps videos. "Shutter speed refers to the amount of time that each individual frame is exposed for. In video, the shutter speed you use will almost always be a fraction of a second. The number used in setting a camera’s shutter speed refers to the denominator of that fraction of a second. For example, if you set your camera’s shutter speed to 60, that means that each frame is being exposed for 1/60th of a second. People often make the mistake of equating frame rate with shutter speed. In other words, some people determine that if they are shooting with a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, that they are in turn shooting 100 frames per second. This is not the case. Depending on the camera you are using and the frame rate you have selected, you are probably shooting at either 24, 25 or 30 frames per second and exposing each individual frame for 1/100th of a second. As a rule of thumb, you want the denominator of your shutter speed to be approximately double the number of frames per second that you are recording. In other words, if you are recording at 30 frames per second, you want your shutter speed to be 1/60th of a second. Even though we generally set the denominator of the shutter speed to be double the number of frames per second, you can achieve some interesting stylistic effects by straying from the norm. Shutter speed can have a very noticeable effect on the look of your video, particularly when it comes to motion. A fast shutter speed such as 1/400th of a second will produce a series of crisp frames that have a choppy look when played back. A slow shutter speed such as 1/30th of a second, on the other hand, will produce a series of slightly blurred frames that have a smoother look when played back." source: vimeo.com/blog/post/frame-rate-vs-shutter-speed-setting-the-record-str |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 16, 2016 23:21:23 GMT -5
There is a camera shop I stopped at to pick up an SD card. It was a weird shop with weird equipment.
The salesman said they were a dedicated high speed camera shop, sold nothing else. Lots of custom built stuff.
Sold me my SD card. About the only thing familiar in the whole shop. Must stop in again and get an education.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Jul 16, 2016 23:34:14 GMT -5
Suppose it was the type used for super slo-mo effects? Bullets through apples kind of stuff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Jul 16, 2016 23:48:10 GMT -5
Yes, a fast shutter will stop motion. A fast burst rate will give you the best chance of catching that action at the desired moment. Case in point, a fast shutter was needed to stop action here, but without shooting in burst mode, I doubt I would have been able to time the photo so precisely with wingtip brushing the water.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,612
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 17, 2016 10:04:36 GMT -5
Yes, a fast shutter will stop motion. A fast burst rate will give you the best chance of catching that action at the desired moment. Case in point, a fast shutter was needed to stop action here, but without shooting in burst mode, I doubt I would have been able to time the photo so precisely with wingtip brushing the water.
A trophy considering you did not use burst. You have luck or deadly coordination. New burst technology =faster and bigger high res files. Reading about ccd and cmos light detectors. It appears they can switch these semiconductors at super high rates of speed using transistor technology. So the high shutter rates.... You and @shotgunner Intheswamp are correct. shutter not doing 240 fps. BUT, shutter is singing at 5 or perhaps 10 fps on stack focus. And possibly faster in sequential mode. Can not find maximus mechanical shutter specs yet. |
|
