Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54530511

I was the first to start to use industrial slow motion cameras for slow motion on broadcast sports many years ago. Back in the day we had a 512 by 512 at 500 FPS and the world thought it was great but the color was not so good. Over time the cameras have become better and better. We can go over 1 million FPS in low res or 25,000 in 720P and 1000 in 4K but these solutions are in the 6 figures. Now we have the luxury to choose many different frame rates, resolutions and price points. With a hammer and chisel you can make a statue that lasts for centuries or a pile of dust that is washed away in the next rain. Slow motion now is used for research, education, entertainment and art. The camera is the tool and we need to know how to use it to get the results we want (or expect) I am looking forward to Grahams new camera and think it will fit into many areas of imaging soon.

Oct 14, 2014permalink

Joe Ogiba

18,500 fps at a useless 64x64px size or 1080p @ 200fps and 2560x2048 @ 75ps is not a big deal today since there are 4K camcorders like the Panasonic HC-X1000 that shoots 4K UHD 3840x2160p @ 60fps on low cost SDXC cards. The Sony camera in the iPhone 6 costs $16.50 and does 720p @ 240fps vs the FPS Gold's 720p @290fps. I guess the sweet spot would be the FPS Platinum with 720p @ 550fps for slow motion fans.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

Excellent presentation without any BS, or eardrum shattering loud crappy music. Just the facts.

I also think it is very well designed from the customer viewpoint:

1. Use your own lens
2. Power supply is easily available standard USB type battery / charger
3. LCD screen is built in
4. Various models available with increasing pixel and speed resolution to fit the buye's needs and budget.

Overall an excellent idea, design, and marketing.

Thanks!

Oct 12, 2014permalink

MediaDigitalVideo

Are those camera's gona be used at the next Olympic Games at the finish line :) ?

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

andrew hc ng

....i guess he meant using for video?

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Single shot is fine when you can trigger the time of the shot, but not when you want to see a sequence such as water balloon, or some other event. With multiple frame (video) you are guaranteed the ability to pick the most interesting set of frames even if you just want a single frame. Hence, for many applications the multiple frames of video are a better choice of tool. You can always not use multi frame if you wish, but a single shot device does not give you a choice.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

MediaDigitalVideo

What it the best relation between number of fps and shutterspeed to get the best quality out of every videoframe.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

For one, amount of light is a major factor since with very short exposures, you get less light.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

joelman1

After reviewing the video examples I noticed that the colors tend to be muted grays, whites, browns, etc. What I did not see was the ability to capture brilliant yellows, blues, reds, etc. Also the resolution appeared fuzzy; this may be due to the lens of choice or it could be the sensor used to capture the imagery. It was apparent that high quality lenses could be used with the camera setup (seen in the video) so I suspect that the sensor is not capturing images as sharply as one would like. These are my first impressions. This being said the concept of a low cost high speed camera is highly appealing but the image quality potentially is lacking.

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

Durandalfr

Ithink slowmotion can be very very usefull at understanding how things works sometime. It also a perfect thing for mouvement study but not every one have enough money for such camera like a phantom one. but look how it can be used for pure vulgarization: https://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

The Channel you refer to (Smarter Every Day) is a very good and informative channel. We all try to show interesting things that people think they know. When you look at them in slow motion they are often not what you expect. You are also welcome to visit my channel on youtube to see over 500 slow motion videos. www.YouTube.com/UltraSlo

Oct 14, 2014permalink

DesmondD

This looks like what I need! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRePAfVeU0

Oct 11, 2014permalink

What we should be striving for is 240 fps video on true 240 fps monitors. The result would simply blow you away.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

oysso

That is NOT the goal here. The goal is to take video that are played back in slow motion so the video are not bad when played off then.
Human eye are not so very fast. Even at 24 fps that are used in cinematic films today are enough to make a film that looks fluid. To send ten times the ammount of data to the screen can make it better but at a cost of bandwidth.

Oct 12, 2014*permalink

"To send ten times the amount of data................... at a cost of bandwidth."

We are already sending 10,000 times the amount of data compared to 25 years ago.

25 years ago many people said that 4MB of ram was overkill.

25 years ago many people said a 640x480 8-bit color monitor was fantastic.

Are you one of those people?

Oct 12, 2014permalink

You are confusing spatial resolution with temporal. The visual system does not change with improvements in technology.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

oysso

@maxnimo I know that bandwitdh are getting broader. But our human eyes perceptional limits are the most important one when you choose the number of frames you send. There is no point sending five times more data to the eye than what can be percepted.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

I know all about the human limit of perception, and the maximum happens to be about 300 FPS... that's when motion appears like looking out the window at real nature.
120 FPS is a good start, as nearly everyone finds it far more soothing to the eye than 60 FPS, even when doing simple tasks. And have you ever seen a camera panning across a landscape in a film? Even with motion blur it looks like a jittery, fuzzy joke - technology from 100 years ago.

So we still have a bit more to go to reach the ultimate FPS.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

Years ago a lot of research was done to see what the eye can resolve. The results were interesting and Imax was born. They settled on 60 FPS with 70 MM film to present flicker free real time images. There was a cost factor that entered the formula also but 60FPS was the best compromise. The 24 FPS that you see in the theater would run a cutter in front of the film in many projectors to also mitigate the flicker. 120 and 240 hertz screens sold for home use are repeating the image this helps cut blur in fast moving images. there are some bluray specs that allow for use of some of the higher frame rates but not oall of it!

Oct 14, 2014permalink

oysso

@maxnimo
For sure we might see that movies and cinema will go into 60p or even 120p since it is still details to gain. And especially in scenes with lots of movement todays 24p is way too little to convey all the details. What the ultimate is, I don't know. Data have never been the ultimate solution, it is about the solution that is possible at a given time. There might be a future where all films are shot at 240fps and all cinemas support the same fps. But it is still a way to go. And if you at the same time goes to 4K or even 8K film, you talk about 160 times the required disk space for the same length of 1080 film at 24p. One TB of disk space could fill 26 minutes of movie at 8K resolution and 240 fps. Would I want to film that kind of film today? No. Because I don't have large and enough disks to accommodate so much film. In the future? Maybe. But really not relevant for me now.

Oct 15, 2014*permalink

Video at 8K resolution and 240 fps would be close to ideal, but I certainly don't expect to see it this year... I'm not that foolish. But I would prefer 1080p /120fps video than 4K at 60 fps. Then the next step should be 4K at 120fps, then 1080p at 240fps, then 4K at 240fps... and then eventually to 8K at 300 fps - the ultimate.

Oct 15, 2014permalink

GCHYBA

$1600 for the top end device is a small price to pay for HD slow motion like this...

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Scottelly

Cool. Another interesting gadget that I would love to have . . . but there just isn't enough time or money for everything.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

steelhead3

I wonder how my Pentax 110 lenses will work on this camera?

Oct 10, 2014permalink

tecnoworld

High fps recording is going to be the "new" macro.

I think that all high end cameras (say over 1000$) should be able to record at least 120/240fps at 1080.

Of course there is room for specialised items like this one, but 8x slow motion (10x if played at 24fps) is often more than enough for most situations.

I'd say that 240fps is like a 1:2 macro. If you want 1:1 or more (eg more than 500fps), then you really have to need it.

Oct 10, 2014*permalink

Scottelly

Weird comparison, but I think I get it. Not many people really need or even do 1:1 if they have the capability. A lot of people who are into closeups like to shoot stuff like jewelry or flowers or whatever, but 1:2 is fine for them. The same sort of thing goes for the frame rates. For most people who want to slow down action, cutting speed to 1/2 or 1/4 generally does the trick it's not many instances where you need or want to cut the speed to 1/10th or slower . . . like 1/20th or 1/50th speed, so such cameras that can do 500 fps or faster make more sense for a few "professionals" or slow motion aficionado hobbyists.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

tecnoworld

You got it perfectly. And going to 1:1 (or beyond) has some tradeoffs (ultra thin dof) and requires great technique and equipment (manual focusing, focus stacking, 4 ways tripod head and so on).

The same happens when you go from 240fps (still a lot for most uses) to 500fps or beyond. You need very fast lenses (but then you decrease dof) or a lot of continuous light, for instance.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

audijam

this is awesome!

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Fogsprig

Next one with m43 mount and I'm in.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

chewdoggydog

These dummies with all the negative bs...sdaniella, if you are so damn smart, go work for NASA.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Jim Evidon

By chewdoggydog (6 hours ago)

"...These dummies with all the negative bs...sdaniella, if you are so damn smart, go work for NASA...."
I did. At least for one of it's major contractors and for many years. So much for so called "negative bs".

Oct 10, 2014*permalink

audijam

@Sdaniella and you are hot!

Oct 10, 2014permalink

nerd2

Try apply for NASA without US citizenship. Hint: you can't, even with MIT Ph.D. of engineering.

Oct 12, 2014*permalink

Sdaniella,

Good for you. We need more people who are curious and know how to use their brains, and we especially need women to show youngsters, that when it comes to creativity, brains etc. females are every bit as capable as males!

Oct 12, 2014permalink

Sdaniella The NX1 does not shoot at nearly the rates you quote. Here is the link to the Samsung NX1 page. http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/smart-camera-camcorder/smart-nx/smart-nx/EV-NX1ZZZBZBGB At 28 MP it will go 15 FPS That is blazing for that resolution but it is not 240 FPS and won't achieve that for some time to come. Take a look at the cameras on the Vision Research site, They are the leader right now in slow motion.

Oct 14, 2014permalink

Jim Evidon

Back in the good old days of rocket research, we used to rely on a high fps rate camera called a GSAP to study rocket engine firings. It's total running time was a matter of seconds. It cost a fortune then.

Now there may be one for less than $700? What possible use can an amateur
photographer have for such a device once he has taken a picture of a hummingbird in flight or a bullet shattering a light bulb? It's a marvelous achievement in price vs. performance, but it's long term use to the average photographer will be in bragging rights only.

Someone said he'd pick one up in a heart beat. And do what with it? Do you have any idea how quickly it will fill a 32GB card at 18.500 fps @ 2560 x 2048 pixels per image? I would imagine we are talking in terms of seconds.

It has a profound scientific future and I cheer for the inventor, but aside from that who in amateur photography needs it? Who will want one is another matter.

Oct 10, 2014*permalink

Jonath

Alternatively and taking a 'slightly' less cynical view. The extreme high cost of ultra high speed video has meant that it has been the preserve of the few - scientific research, nature documentaries, ballistic testing... while this product itself may be niche, the principle is much more important; ultra-high speed doesn't have to cost a fortune. I just think once the masses get their hands on this kind of cheap accessible tech, our idea of what this kind of video is for will change, because the user will change. Much of ultra high speed video at the moment (as cited in the examples you have given) is extremely functional, it’s amazing what a bit of creativity etc. can do. Why constrain our thinking only to the ways in which a technology has been used in the past?

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Model Mike

I agree, though the intended market is clearly much wider than just 'the average photographer' - there's support for users to customise the firmware.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

JWest

Back in the good old days, we used to rely on a camera called a box Brownie to take pictures. It cost a fortune then.

Now there may be cameras for less than $200? What possible use can an amateur have for a device that captures light to create an image?

Oct 10, 2014permalink

shaocaholica

This is what's always said before a new product comes to the consumer market.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Some people may use it for Art !

I have seen some amazing photos with swirls of water and splashes that was truly beautiful superimposed on dancers for example.

One should never underestimate artistic creativity.

Oct 12, 2014permalink

JordanAT

Interestingly, there are a bunch of rocket enthusiasts out there today and capturing certain phases of flight with one of these is terrifically entertaining, and often useful. High power rocketry may not be a large market, but the reduction in electronics size has allowed us to carry far more complex avionics and attempt things I would have only expected to do at NASA. I'm sure there are other applications, too.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

David Julian

Wow, he's got a brilliant product proto, and I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Good luck Graham!

Oct 10, 2014permalink

ealvarez

Interesting for spotting movement error in sport such as mma, boxing etc.. also cool for filming action sports.. i want one

Oct 10, 2014permalink

AstroStan

"one of the dilemmas of sports/action is predicting start/stop ..."

That can be solved with a bit of software that runs the camera continuously in an overwrite loop. Pressing the button will save the last few seconds that occurred prior to the button press.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Henry Falkner

We have come a long way from the constant speed film camera I saw in 1966. It worked with a slot, and a rotating prism throwing the image at the running film. High speed video beyond 120 frames at HD720p resolution is still specialised territory, hence the price. The Platinum version will very likely replace much more complicated gear in laboratories round the world.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

DBK The Camera Guy

Am I missing something? The sample videos are not very good quality. Soft focus, or no focus depending on how you look at it.

I'd love a high speed camera, but this doesn't come close to the image quality I would be looking for.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

caravan

Looks interesting,GoPro with its marketing expertise could make this product into something great.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

nerd2

1080p200f looks very interesting (AND changeable lens too!) but price is bit too high.... Now we have 480p 240f (iPhone, and other android phones will soon support this ) and 720p120f (most android phones) on smartphones already.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Unsubscribe me please

iPhone is not a camera, ... it's a smudge device!

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Porsupah

http://vimeo.com/106557317 says otherwise.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

please share how that compares to 10000fps

Oct 10, 2014permalink

AstroStan

Nice. I especially like the plans for a unfiltered (non-color) version, which can make a huge improvement in "low light" (still has to be pretty bright for high frame rates). Price points are expensive and will restrict the user base to industrial users and high-end enthusiasts ("slow-mo" will become very popular due to the new iPhone so they might get a little boost from that coming fad).

Oct 9, 2014permalink

ProfHankD

There are a lot of high-speed industrial cameras out there, but the gap between sensor cost and camera cost is a lot larger than in this one, especially for a stand-alone camera. The biggest issue I see is that it doesn't seem to have a fast enough interface to support tethered continuous capture. (Actually, there are some software tricks from my research that might help them with that....)

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Joriarty

This is what Canon should have launched with their (horrible) marketing campaign.

That, and a big update to the promising-but-languishing EOS M system.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

raincoat

What's wrong with the EOS M?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

wherearemyshorts

the m is dead!!!

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Alcantariya13yum

Cant get over it? It worked.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Joriarty

@raincoat

A few more APS-C primes wouldn't go amiss, along with an updated body and sensor, built-in flash and EVF, and more enthusiast-friendly controls (dials + buttons!).

Basically, it's still a great entry level mirrorless, especially at the price it's selling for. But there is no enthusiast body offered, which is a shame.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Sirandar

How bright would the light have to be to get 18,500 fps ?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Don Colbert

Photon torpedo bright?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

CallMeAlan

Colbert, a photon torpedo is a weapon, not a fancy flashgun. I mean, come on, give the inventor a chance!

Oct 9, 2014permalink

RichRMA

Fairly bright, but lenses faster than f/1.4 are common enough in c-mount.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

imsabbel

As you have basically no resolution at that speed, you don't need to care about good quality optics. So you can easily get c-mount lenses faster than f/1.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Flying Snail

At 64x64 resolution? Not very.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Don Colbert

Wow, CallMeAlan, you actually took me seriously! LOL! I just can't believe it! Give the jokester a chance, eh?

Would you have understood better if I had said nuclear explosion bright?

Oct 13, 2014*permalink

Jogger

I'm more interested in the potential for scientific or educational applications. It would be a great, low cost option for undergrad labs or high school science class, etc.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/002/667/409/63ff8f9c839a6355c9493e1066815395_large.png

The frame rate is probably too slow to capture the students as they flee when the bell rings. Video of fingers swipping phone screens would be blurs. ;)

Oct 9, 2014permalink

ealvarez

@jcoch2 hahahahahaha..

Oct 10, 2014permalink

duartix

I know he has to source the sensors so that's probably a limitation he can't work around, but I'm not very fond of the odd resolutions apart from 1080p200 and 720p550. And you need to take the highest pledge (999£) for that.

I wouldn't put my money on it before I see some HD and FHD footage. I understand that he's targeting the speed freaks, but if the sensor really delivers he should have showed some Gold and Platinum output even if coming from an early prototype.
Silver right now is not impressing me:

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

moe lem

If he doesn't do this well and soon then I'm sure goPro or someone similar will steal the show. This is where kickstarter could be a bad idea.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

gopro has no chance whatsoever. it's a stupid overpriced consumer product.
that's like saying ferrari must be careful with the new prototype because toyota might steal the idea.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

moe lem

Total nonsense. Gro pro is very popular and innovative. Its only a matter of time before they add high ffs as a specialist feature on some models.

Oct 13, 2014permalink

stevo23

Very cool!

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Andrew Butterfield

i used to have a Casio camera that did 1000fps at a very low res. That was years ago. It was fun but the low res at high frame rates in the end was pointless.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

You "used to" have one. What happened to it?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Andrew Butterfield

Sold it. It was fun, but not fun enough often enough.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

smafdy

DPR could write an article about a revolutionary new, defect free, technology that is within reach of the common person — with absolutely no down side, and some commenters here would find something to nit pick (My God, Ethel! It doesn't have a frozen yogurt dispenser!).

I appreciate creativity and new tools and technologies that expand creative reach. I don't give a damn what badge that technology is sold under.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

moe lem

You confuse badges with usefulness. If it cant do standard quality HD video at high fps then its only a toy. If you want to do something amazing go get the pro gear.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

it's called hackaday. google it.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

KameraFever

This should be excellent in the hands of talented people. While not for everyone, it's very useful in it's niche.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Lawrencew

Well done that man

Oct 9, 2014permalink

joyclick

God save him from corporations.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

smafdy

God save ALL meat people from the corporate "people."

Oct 9, 2014permalink

He may make more money by selling the device rights to a corporation than by making them alone. Casio made an honest effort in the field without getting whole lot of reception.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

newe

The end is nigh...

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Drazen Stojcic

200 fps at 1080p for a 1000 pound Platinum version is very usable. If we were to compare this to the closest current camera that offers 200 fps at full HD, that would be the Sony FS700 (priced at 6,000 US$), then the advantages are not so clear. The Sony is a real camera, not a one-trick-pony, that offers more flexibility for video production. On the other hand, the size of the FPS1000 is a HUGE advantage. Being able to stick this tiny camera into remote vehicles, cramped spaces etc, while still having the option to mix and match lenses and f-stops, is very good. I can totally see this being used for TV or even movie productions. All is all, not a bad product that could really open up the world of high-speed videography to the masses. We also have to consider the upcoming GoPro4, that offers 120 fps at 1080p, but also has 2.7k and 4k video modes. Of course, we can't change lenses on the GoPro, but it's still almost half the price. If I was starting from scratch, I'd pick up the GoPro4.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

Paul Guba

Cool product. I do shudder to think of seeing all the super slow motion videos of people doing inane things. Long live the selfie generation.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

(unknown member)

Cue the slow motion nose picking

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Potemkin_Photo

This and projects like the Axiom are the future.

One can already hear the sounds of moribund dinosaurs like Canikon buckling their knees and crashing into the Jurassic dirt.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

straylightrun

RIP Go Pro

Oct 9, 2014permalink

vladimir vanek

It is a completely different market than GoPro.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Sonyshine

Great work! I wish him well!

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Reactive

Well I guess very few companies will be interested in making a competing product; its market niche is even smaller than the cameras' resolutions. Good luck to Mr Rowan if he has cornered a tiny scientific market.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

smafdy

The creative applications of these tools are far beyond their scientific applications.

At the prices projected, they will sell quite well to those completely uninterested in science.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

zonoskar

18000 fps at 64x64 pixels. Very usefull. NOT And only 200 fps at 1080p, you'd almost better get a Gopro Hero 4 (but that's only 120 fps at 1080p).

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

ecm

For a scientist, yes, useful. For a videographer, no, not what you want.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Jon Rty

A GoPro, with a fixed lens, middling codec and poor controls isn't at going for the same customers as a programmable camera that offers full exposure and focus control, RAW recording and interchangeable lenses. Horses for courses.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

zonoskar

Hence the 'almost'.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

so unuseful that my university is going to buy 100.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Weia

Why those DOS-computer resolutions, why not 720p and 1080p?
And logic speeds like 500 or 1000 fps?

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Artistico

If you want higher resolutions at a higher frame rate, then by all means get an expensive high-speed camera. These products are the entry point and gets you a lot of bang for your buck, but it's not meant to have the best specs in the world.
What's more logical about 500 fps or 1000fps? Presumably the speeds are the optimal framerates for that resolution without getting dropped frames due to processing limitations. They're not there to please someone's wish for the roundest numbers possible.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Weia

For time studies I would like logical frame rates. I use a simple Casio for athletic coaching, 120 fps mostly. Timing in 0.01 seconds would be nicer.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Samuel Dilworth

I think the fact an iPhone does 240 fps at 720p resolution is going to put a damper on sales. I know it has advantages over an iPhone – for a start the GOLD does 290 fps at that resolution and the PLATINUM does 550 fps – but my suspicions remain.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

JamesF168

sensor size, global shutter, memory and the biggest advantage.. it's not an iphone.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Jon Rty

The iPhone doesn't really offer nearly enough control to be a flexible tool to use. The fps1000 has a interchangeble mount, full exposure and focus control and records RAW.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

duartix

Plus, the iPhone must be line skipping like crazy to get 720p240.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

also does 18500 fps?

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Everlast66

Great idea, nice to see something fresh, new and simple!
And I think it has potential as well.

As opposed of the usual rehashing of old beaten to death ideas.

Oct 9, 2014*permalink

Dan Wagner

Graham Rowan -- my new hero! Fantastic.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

HBowman

Perfect gear for San Pornando Valley me say. Can't wait.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

great product.

Oct 9, 2014permalink

Peter Del

On the face of it, this sounds like a winner - 18000 frames for a £1000. He is headed for success - good luck to another British innovation which, like DPreview, will probably be snapped up by an American conglomerate. Just personal thoughts.

Oct 9, 2014permalink