New member here looking for some advice on slow-motion video. I am trying to decide if I should buy a new camcorder that supports high frame rates or upgrade my DSLR.
My first question is what is the difference between shooting video at 240 frames per second vs. taking a 60 fps clip and slowing it down in post? Assuming the video is the same resolution in both cases, do you end up with the same result or is there an advantage to shooting 240 fps?
I was shooting video at my son's soccer game when another parent showed me the JVC GC PX100. On first glance it seemed like the perfect camera for me. However, the higher frame rates come with a severe drop in video quality.
My current camcorder is a few years old - it is a JVC Everio GZHM320BU. Lately I have been experimenting with my DSLR for video. I have a Canon 7D with multiple high quality lenses including the 85mm F1.8, 70-200 F2.8 and 300mm F4. My biggest challenge with this video set-up is maintaining focus on moving objects. When focus is on I am very impressed with video quality.
Canon has a new DSLR, the 70D, that is supposed to be much better at video because it can automatically adjust focus. Sorry for all the background info, but I guess my question boils down to this:
1. Am I better off buying the JVC GC PX100 for $800 (there is a $200 rebate on it) or
2. Should I buy the Canon 70D for about $1,000 which will let me use any of my Canon EF lenses? I would then obtain slow mo in post.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!!!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
That is really not a good poll. Too many variables to consider.
I don't think any of the cameras you listed do 240 fps. I have seen good slow motion clips taken at 60fps and processed in a video editing program. DSLR's can take good video but you need a tripod if you have the shakes. My opinion of DSLR's are: they are a photo camera first and a video camera second.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -Carl Sagan
Actually, according to the specs for the JVC GC PX100, it does record @ 240 fps, among other framerates. The highest listed framerate is 600 and the lowest is 120, among the high speed framerates. The problem for me is the framesizes; they only do 640x360 and 320x176.
I own 2 Sony NX5U video cameras and another Sony video camera with interchangeable lens capability. For those times that I need slow motion video, I use Adobe Premiere with the Twixtor plugin. The results are fantastic, even for footage shot at 1920x1080 30fps.
if you intend shooting video in hand held mode (roaming) where you will be shooting random stuff, or shooting moving objects etc, you are far better off with a video camcorder because most have built in image stabilizers (some good, some not so good) and have what is known as IAF (intelligent auto focus)
if using a tripod then you should not need OIS but AF is something you definately need.
DSLR type cameras are photo cameras first, video second, and most do not have built in AF or OIS built into the body, many rely on the lens for these features.
as for the JVC GC PX100 it seems to be a pretty decent video camera (albeit looking more like a DSLR camera) and it has a great array of shooting formats, but if your going to shoot in MOV format your going to need a few 64gb sdxc cards to fit your video on, and it only accepts 1x card at a time.
Last edited by glenpinn; 3rd Dec 2013 at 08:13.
The advantage is better slow motion . They are real frames.
Interpolated frames from doing it in post often have edge morphing and other bizarre artifacts . Results are determined by content - in some types of scenarios it works great, other times it's unusable. For sports it's usually riddled with artifacts (because the motion vectors are hard to predict)
You have to go into a higher price range to get better slow motion . The model you're looking at has too small of a resolution (and it's sensor is probably subsampled - it probably only reads every nth pixel in order to get those speeds - that leads to aliasing "jaggy" artifacts) . This is why NFL (and other pro sports) use custom 900 FPS cameras . But they cost about $150k each.
Maybe a low cost alternative would be a go pro 3/4 . I think they can do 720p @120FPS . But there is significant rolling shutter on them (wobbly "jello" like artifacts, just like your 7D)