Why is there no such thing as 60FPS above 320x240?

[Syclone0044]

I cannot find a single 60FPS video larger than 320x240 the entire internet. (I mean a real-life video; I have seen 60 FPS 640x480 videos of video games on www.fraps.com)

I have a 2-3 year old Canon SD750 pocket digicam that also shoots AVI video. It has a "Fast Frame Rate" mode that shoots 320x240 @ 60 FPS. TRUE 60FPS, not this phony "60i" which is really just 30 FPS.

So I thought it would be really easy to find samples of 640x480 @ 60FPS or 1280x720 @ 60FPS from state of the art video cameras.

There aren't any! I searched for hours, and I tried really hard. Is there no such thing as a camera that shoots 60 FPS at or above 640x480?

If there is - can anyone post a RAW SOURCE video sample of 60 FPS >= 640x480? (not a Vimeo/Youtube upload, they can't handle >30FPS) I would like to see it. I will also load it in VirtualDub and step frame by frame to be sure it's true 60 FPS and not just doubled-up 30FPS (is that the dumbest thing or what?)

Want to see an example of TRUE 60 FPS?

Sample video at 30 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0192_640_30fps.avi
Sample video at 60 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0193_320_60fps.avi

[edDV]

I cannot find a single 60FPS video larger than 320x240 the entire internet. (I mean a real-life video; I have seen 60 FPS 640x480 videos of video games on www.fraps.com)

I have a 2-3 year old Canon SD750 pocket digicam that also shoots AVI video. It has a "Fast Frame Rate" mode that shoots 320x240 @ 60 FPS. TRUE 60FPS, not this phony "60i" which is really just 30 FPS.

So I thought it would be really easy to find samples of 800x600 @ 60FPS or 1280x720 @ 60FPS from state of the art video cameras.

There aren't any! I searched for hours, and I tried really hard. Is there no such thing as a camera that shoots 60 FPS above 640x480?

If there is - can anyone post a RAW SOURCE video sample of 60 FPS > 640x480? (not a Vimeo/Youtube upload, they can't handle >30FPS) I would like to see it. I will also load it in VirtualDub and step frame by frame to be sure it's true 60 FPS and not just doubled-up 30FPS (is that the dumbest thing or what?)

Want to see an example of TRUE 60 FPS?

Sample video at 30 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0192_640_30fps.avi
Sample video at 60 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0193_320_60fps.avi

Whoa... calm down

First I assume you want 60fps for better motion accuracy? Or what?

60i (aka 30i) records 60 fields per second so it does have all the motion detail on alternate lines. 720p HD broadcast is full progressive at 60fps (59.94 actually). Regardless of whether a TV show is shot 1080i or 720p, there is enough image information to convert 1920x1080i/29.97 to 1280x720p/59.94 with near zero motion or resolution loss.

This also holds for console game systems if that is what you are doing. The only issue is few games have higher than 1280x720p native resolution (most are lower) and those that are native 1080p are not high action, just slow pretty pictures.

[poisondeathray]

I cannot find a single 60FPS video larger than 320x240 the entire internet. (I mean a real-life video; I have seen 60 FPS 640x480 videos of video games on www.fraps.com)

I have a 2-3 year old Canon SD750 pocket digicam that also shoots AVI video. It has a "Fast Frame Rate" mode that shoots 320x240 @ 60 FPS. TRUE 60FPS, not this phony "60i" which is really just 30 FPS.

So I thought it would be really easy to find samples of 640x480 @ 60FPS or 1280x720 @ 60FPS from state of the art video cameras.

There aren't any! I searched for hours, and I tried really hard. Is there no such thing as a camera that shoots 60 FPS at or above 640x480?

If there is - can anyone post a RAW SOURCE video sample of 60 FPS >= 640x480? (not a Vimeo/Youtube upload, they can't handle >30FPS) I would like to see it. I will also load it in VirtualDub and step frame by frame to be sure it's true 60 FPS and not just doubled-up 30FPS (is that the dumbest thing or what?)

Want to see an example of TRUE 60 FPS?

Sample video at 30 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0192_640_30fps.avi
Sample video at 60 FPS: http://powertuneplus.com/temp/0193_320_60fps.avi

Sanyo HD2000 shoots true 1080p60. Lots of sample clips around

[edDV]

Sanyo HD2000 shoots true 1080p60. Lots of sample clips around

That will be low end consumer quality. Alternate is to watch a high action sport event on ABC, FOX or ESPN HD channels which broadcast 1280x720p/59.94 with high quality cameras.

[jagabo]

Sanyo Xacti FH1 1920x1080p60 sample:

http://88.191.20.67/video/akiba/SANYO_HD2000_1920x1080_60fps.zip

Boring video though. It supports some unusual rates too: 448x336 240 fps and 192x108 600 fps. For some reason they left out 1280x720p60.

[edDV]

For some reason they left out 1280x720p60.

That is so it will never see Blu-Ray without conversion.

[A-thru-Z]

jagebo..I believe those rates are for slow motion recording.

[jagabo]

jagebo..I believe those rates are for slow motion recording.

Yes, but there's no reason you can't flag the video back to the higher frame rates. Playback will be an issue of course. Certainly on a 60 Hz LCD monitor you'll only see 1/4 or 1/10 the frames (or you'll get severe tearing). I don't think any of the 120 or 240 Hz HDTVs will accept incoming video at those higher rates.

[A-thru-Z]

Yeah I think its a gimmick thing...there are vids on youtube. The 240fps looks like average avi quality, the 600fps look truly terrible...from what I've seen some people record at 60fps and then half the speed by 50% in editing to get a good slow mo effect.

[edDV]

Yeah I think its a gimmick thing...there are vids on youtube. The 240fps looks like average avi quality, the 600fps look truly terrible...from what I've seen some people record at 60fps and then half the speed by 50% in editing to get a good slow mo effect.

Are you thinking Syclone0044 is trying to get slow motion? Youtube doesn't support those frame rates.

[jagabo]

For the OP: the main reason you don't find 60 fps videos on the web is that it takes twice as much bitrate as 30 fps videos. And 30 fps looks reasonably fluid.

[lordsmurf]

I still do a lot of 15fps for tutorials and samples online. Without fast motion, you don't even notice. Better bitrate/bandwidth usage that way -- keeps the monthly bills down!

[MJ Peg]

Look up Casio's Exilim Pro EX-F1 that the company says can shoot 60 still images per second or movies at 1,200 frames per second

[jman98]

I cannot find a single 60FPS video larger than 320x240 the entire internet.

You're not looking in the right place. Bit torrent, for example, regularly has 720p 60 fps Simpsons TV captures available.

[Syclone0044]

Sanyo Xacti FH1 1920x1080p60 sample:

http://88.191.20.67/video/akiba/SANYO_HD2000_1920x1080_60fps.zip

Boring video though. It supports some unusual rates too: 448x336 240 fps and 192x108 600 fps. For some reason they left out 1280x720p60.

Thanks! This video, and this one: http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sanyo_xacti_hd2000/sample_images/sanyo_xacti_hd2000_01.mp4 (Birds flying in a park), were exactly what I was looking for.

I'm interested in 60 FPS for real life videos, I shoot car racing and similar action stuff, and it literally feels twice as realistic when 60FPS vs 30 FPS. Sure you can argue that 30 FPS is "reasonably fluid", but you can also argue that 640x480 is "reasonably high resolution". But once you get a look at HD, suddenly 640x480 looks like a cell phone video by comparison.

The same goes for 60 FPS.

60 FPS is the future, check back to this post in 5 years time.

Finally, regarding slow motion - yes 60 FPS is what I'd call the minimum usable for any type of slow motion or "frame by frame" analysis of an action video. I shot some videos of my dog leaping off a deck to chase a rabbit, and 30 FPS doesnt capture much, but stepping through 60 FPS in VirtualDub frame by frame, you can see him approach the edge and plan his final foot positions for take off, how he uses his muscles for the leap, how he sails through the air, and then how he sets up his legs for the landing approach, and how he absorbs the landing and translates it into forward motion.

[edDV]

If you want to get more serious about shooting 1280x720p 60fps this is the camcorder to consider.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/597842-REG/JVC_GY_HM100U_GY_HM100U_ProHD_Camcord...specifications

[jagabo]

Sure you can argue that 30 FPS is "reasonably fluid"...

I meant specifically for web distribution or streaming. 60 fps is obviously smoother.

60 FPS is the future, check back to this post in 5 years time.

Not in the movie industry. They've been at 24 fps for nearly 100 years and will probably be stuck there for 100 more.

[fitch.j]

Not in the movie industry. They've been at 24 fps for nearly 100 years and will probably be stuck there for 100 more.

It's 24 Frames, but actually it's 48 as each is projected twice, this helps to keep the motion smoothe as its not on screen for long enough for the eyes to notice it in scenes with lots of movement.

[jagabo]

Not in the movie industry. They've been at 24 fps for nearly 100 years and will probably be stuck there for 100 more.

It's 24 Frames, but actually it's 48 as each is projected twice, this helps to keep the motion smoothe as its not on screen for long enough for the eyes to notice it in scenes with lots of movement.

Motion is not smoother the picture just flickers less.

[Xpenguin17]

60 FPS is the future, check back to this post in 5 years time.

Nope, higher resolutions are the future, not framerates.

[jagabo]

60 FPS is the future, check back to this post in 5 years time.

Nope, higher resolutions are the future, not framerates.

Unfortunately. I'd love to see the movie industry move to higher frame rates. Since we (USA) are stuck with 60 Hz broadcast I'd like to see 60 fps.

[Xpenguin17]

Me too. But "resolution" and "frames per second" is not how human eyes work so these two outdated concepts will be abandoned entirely in the future anyway. It's easy to see how resolution will be replaced but FPS will be way harder to abolish and will stick around for a while.

[edDV]

With ATSC, DVB, Blu-Ray and Digital Cinema standards firmly entrenched, it is unlikely movie frame rates will change in the next few decades. The film industry is firm they want to stay with 24fps. Broadcasters are neutral. Only home computer geeks have been crying about 24 fps and they failed to convince during the critical 1992-2002 period when all this was decided.

As said, increased resolution and 3D are the next trends, not frame rate.

[Xpenguin17]

With ATSC, DVB, Blu-Ray and Digital Cinema standards firmly entrenched, it is unlikely movie frame rates will change in the next few decades. The film industry is firm they want to stay with 24fps. Broadcasters are neutral. Only home computer geeks have been crying about 24 fps

Heh, true.

and they failed to convince during the critical 1992-2002 period when all this was decided.

Well, anamorphic 720x576 with shitty MPEG-2 at 0.500 BPP was already stretching the limit. 60 fps would certainly junk the quality and nobody would buy DVDs.

[poisondeathray]

Only home computer geeks have been crying about 24 fps and they failed to convince during the critical 1992-2002 period when all this was decided.

Damn you should have tried harder then edDV!

[edDV]

Thank ABC Engineering and independent 720p advocates for the 1280x720p 59.94fps alternate standard. ABC at the time was the primary USA sports network (Monday Night Football, etc.) and was willing to skew network priority to high frame rate progressive. Visionary computer geeks supported progressive but most were clueless about implementation. NBC and CBS were mostly thinking telecined 24 fps prime time drama and compatibility with legacy 480i archives so pushed 1920x1080i 29.97 fps. PBS latched onto multi-subchannel multicast. As a result, 18 formats were implemented in ATSC. Each ATSC tuner needs to handle all 18*.

1280x720p was chosen for bit rate compatibility with 1920x1080i at the time. Turns out they could have gone larger. Nobody was thinking 1366x768 LCD addressing then. That would have been a better choice in hindsight.

In the late 80's-90's FOX was organizing mostly low budget independents into a competing network. They raided key talent from ABC engineering who carried over the 720p orientation to FOX. FOX set a strategy of 480p first, then 720p in a second phase. Meanwhile ABC-Capital Cities acquired ESPN and then they were acquired by Disney. As a result, ESPN, Disney Channel and Disney owned cable channels also went 720p 59.94 fps.

International DVB mostly followed the the same resolutions for programming compatibility but kept 25 fps for legacy compatibility with PAL. DVB 1280x720p uses 50 fps.


* one of the 18 ATSC formats is 1280x720p at 23.976 fps. For 23.976 fps source (e.g. dramas or movies), it would be possible to put two 1280x720p 23.976 subchannels on one ATSC channel with higher quality than one 1280x720p at 59.94 fps.

[Video Head]

Thank ABC Engineering and independent 720p advocates for the 1280x720p 59.94fps alternate standard. ABC at the time was the primary USA sports network (Monday Night Football, etc.) and was willing to skew network priority to high frame rate progressive. Visionary computer geeks supported progressive but most were clueless about implementation. NBC and CBS were mostly thinking telecined 24 fps prime time drama and compatibility with legacy 480i archives so pushed 1920x1080i 29.97 fps. PBS latched onto multi-subchannel multicast. As a result, 18 formats were implemented in ATSC. Each ATSC tuner needs to handle all 18*.

1280x720p was chosen for bit rate compatibility with 1920x1080i at the time. Turns out they could have gone larger. Nobody was thinking 1366x768 LCD addressing then. That would have been a better choice in hindsight.

In the late 80's-90's FOX was organizing mostly low budget independents into a competing network. They raided key talent from ABC engineering who carried over the 720p orientation to FOX. FOX set a strategy of 480p first, then 720p in a second phase. Meanwhile ABC-Capital Cities acquired ESPN and then they were acquired by Disney. As a result, ESPN, Disney Channel and Disney owned cable channels also went 720p 59.94 fps.

International DVB mostly followed the the same resolutions for programming compatibility but kept 25 fps for legacy compatibility with PAL. DVB 1280x720p uses 50 fps.


* one of the 18 ATSC formats is 1280x720p at 23.976 fps. For 23.976 fps source (e.g. dramas or movies), it would be possible to put two 1280x720p 23.976 subchannels on one ATSC channel with higher quality than one 1280x720p at 59.94 fps.

Is this why NFL teams still have their games shot on film?...

[edDV]

NFL films has always been 35mm 24p and high speed (slow motion) film. The goal is emotional documentaries not live coverage.

Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL films said he was going for art ("sports cinematography"). The games were also captured live by multi-camera broadcast TV. They aren't going to develop any film to decide a play.

I helped sell a couple of generations of post production equipment to them in the linear days. I'll have to see what they use now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Films
http://www.videomaker.com/article/8664/


PS: They are now mostly an AVID house for video. This article describes their new (in 2003) digs.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_1_18/ai_97737073/

[Video Head]

NFL films has always been 35mm 24p and high speed (slow motion) film. The goal is emotional documentaries not live coverage.

Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL films said he was going for art ("sports cinematography"). The games were also captured live by multi-camera broadcast TV. They aren't going to develop any film to decide a play.

I helped sell a couple of generations of post production equipment to them in the linear days. I'll have to see what they use now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Films
http://www.videomaker.com/article/8664/


PS: They are now mostly an AVID house for video. This article describes their new (in 2003) digs.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_1_18/ai_97737073/

So it was art? They told me it was for the game...and all those Wednesday and Thursday mornings wasted...

[edDV]

NFL films has always been 35mm 24p and high speed (slow motion) film. The goal is emotional documentaries not live coverage.

Ed Sabol, the founder of NFL films said he was going for art ("sports cinematography"). The games were also captured live by multi-camera broadcast TV. They aren't going to develop any film to decide a play.

I helped sell a couple of generations of post production equipment to them in the linear days. I'll have to see what they use now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Films
http://www.videomaker.com/article/8664/


PS: They are now mostly an AVID house for video. This article describes their new (in 2003) digs.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_1_18/ai_97737073/

So it was art? They told me it was for the game...and all those Wednesday and Thursday mornings wasted...

You were an NFL player? NFL Films is a promotional and media operation