Reading mode: Light Dark

Which digital for dance catalogue

Go to last post
R

Robert Jober

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Ljubljana, SI
My task is to set up a catalogue of images and video clips of dance movements. We want to shot several thousand images and at least one thousand video clips. One video clip and two to six images for each dance step. Low resolution images and video-clips will be posted to web and high resolution to DVD.

Currently we have Nikon Coolpix 990 and Sony digital camcorder PC5, which can also produce 640x480 still images. Because I want to have the best image resolution possible for later applications (maybe print) video still quality is not enough.

I want to decompose a single dance step in two to six images, so that a person looking at the images could get an idea about the dance step and try it. While testing in the pre-production environment I have concluded that I need a really fast digital camera, so that I could shot video and photo at the same time. If I ask dancers to stop in the middle of the movement to take a photo the movement looks unnatural. Also I have to shot separately for the video and for the photo, which tajes more time and is more expensive.

But which digital camera can shot so fast that I can record milestones of a dance step or if I rephrase the question, how many frames/second is enough to capture the milestones of a dance step. Is it 3fps or 5fps or 10fps.

Looking at D1x and D1h specs D1x has (3 fps up to 9 images = 3 seconds) and D1h has (5 fps up to 40 images = 8 seconds). If I would use D1h I could shot 40 images in 8 seconds in resolution 2000 x 1312. Is that true. How many seconds would I then have to wait to shot again? Later in the postproduction phase I would select 2 to 6 images out of 40 (hoping the right ones are among 40).

Can anybody say from real world experience how many fps is enough for my project.

Is there any other camera that I missed and would do the job?

And my final note: if D1x would shot faster with lower resolution, would that be great.--robert
http://www.robertooo.com
 
Robert Jober said:
But which digital camera can shot so fast that I can record
milestones of a dance step or if I rephrase the question, how many
frames/second is enough to capture the milestones of a dance step.
Is it 3fps or 5fps or 10fps.
Click to expand...
A good photographer takes the shot just at the right moment. Not a guessing out of several shots. You have to train yourself for such a job.
Robert Jober said:
If I would use D1h I could shot 40 images in 8 seconds
in resolution 2000 x 1312. Is that true.
Click to expand...
Yes
Robert Jober said:
How many seconds would I then have to
wait to shot again?
Click to expand...
I think depends in which format you shall write the images. TIFF, NEF, JPG and compression factor.
Robert Jober said:
Can anybody say from real world experience how many fps is enough
for my project.
Click to expand...
Depends to the skill of the photographer to shoot at the right moments.
Robert Jober said:
And my final note: if D1x would shot faster with lower resolution,
would that be great.
Click to expand...
There shall always be a underside border by the mechanics of the mirror movements and "jump" aperture etc. So don't think you get 20 shots a second just by using half the resolution (1/4 of image size). 5 shots a second is maximum, otherwise Nikon has given other specs if it was faster.
Leon
 
Leon Obers said:
Member said:
But which digital camera can shot so fast that I can record
milestones of a dance step or if I rephrase the question, how many
frames/second is enough to capture the milestones of a dance step.
Is it 3fps or 5fps or 10fps.
Click to expand...
A good photographer takes the shot just at the right moment. Not a
guessing out of several shots. You have to train yourself for such
a job.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. But lets say I can choose the right moment to start shooting a sequence. I would like to know how many fps I need to capture enough frames that will explain dance step in useful detail. For example I can see that 15 fps from my video mode on Coolpix 990 is more than enough, but the image resolution is not (only 320x240). I don't want to buy D1h just to test if 5fps will do.

Now I am going to convert my test Coolpix video clip from 15fps to 5fps to see if the results are still satisfying. Is this the right way to test? Is it true that when I shot 5fps on a digital camera each frame is precisely 1/5 of a second apart?

I am also worried if 5fps is maximum or minimum. What is then real life performance of maximum size image in good lighting conditions.

Robert
Member said:
Member said:
If I would use D1h I could shot 40 images in 8 seconds
in resolution 2000 x 1312. Is that true.
Click to expand...
Yes
Member said:
How many seconds would I then have to
wait to shot again?
Click to expand...
I think depends in which format you shall write the images. TIFF,
NEF, JPG and compression factor.
Member said:
Can anybody say from real world experience how many fps is enough
for my project.
Click to expand...
Depends to the skill of the photographer to shoot at the right
moments.
Member said:
And my final note: if D1x would shot faster with lower resolution,
would that be great.
Click to expand...
There shall always be a underside border by the mechanics of the
mirror movements and "jump" aperture etc. So don't think you get 20
shots a second just by using half the resolution (1/4 of image
size). 5 shots a second is maximum, otherwise Nikon has given other
specs if it was faster.
Leon
Click to expand...
 
Hello!

From a point of view of someone who can't dance under any circunsances ;-) :

First:

I don't care if a camera can take 3 or 5 shots per second, I doubt that the "important" moments in the step happen each 1/5 second... (I mean: first important movement when you shot, second 1/3 second later, third 1/5, fourth 1/2 and ending 1/3 later... there is no way you can get it unless shooting A LOT of frames per second...)

When I bought my EOS-5 (several years ago) I thought it could be fine for high speed photos... I would be able to take a player throwing a ball or a hockey stick moving down to the disc... NO WAY, 5 fps is not enough... I learn to shot just one frame... at the right moment. (Oks , 5fps its ok for getting the "catch" of an american football player running to the end-zone, but not capturing the movement of the quarterback in the instant of throwing the ball or being knocked over... it's better wait and ... shot!)

Second:

I don't know if you will use flashes or there will be enough ambient light, but if want to freeze the movement you will likely use them. So, you will need a flash that's able to shot as fast as your camera. Quite hard for 1 burst at 5fps, very dificult for higher speeds and you will have to wait between bursts to let the flash condenser to reload, so don't worry too much about the time needed for the camera to save the pictures to the compact flash...

My (humble) advice:

Don't shot burst, shot one shot each time, but take several pictures each time they perform a step. That is: They start to move, and you look through the camera waiting for the moment... and shot, they go on and you shot for the 4th important part of the movement (For instance: she is flying up and he is waiting for her to fall). Now they finished the movement and you missed the 2,3 and 5th part of it (that's, if your pictures have been fine) then repeat and aim to the 2th and 5th... you know what I mean...

They will have to perform each movement several times... but they will have in any case if you want to get good examples of the step.

It's just my opinion, but I would do that... and use the flash to freeze them.

Sarbos
 
Hi!

On capturing the right moment:

I know it is difficult to capture dancers at the right moment. Especially if you are shooting for a cover page. One can not just burst-shot and hope for the best. But my case is different - I am building a database of dance movement images. I need good quality (not cover-page) images. I will have to shot 5.000 images in two weeks (cca 1200 dance combinations).

On shooting environment

The shooting will take place in the studio environment with studio lights and computers around. So after each session (1/2 hour) I could check the images (or have someone check them) and repeat only those dance steps that weren't captured well.

I admit I am not sure

Regarding my idea, which I am considering for a while now - I believe it can work, but I am not sure, because I can not test it. Maybe someone has tried something similar, and can tell me at what FPS rate it is worth the trouble.

Robert
 
sarbos said:
First:
I don't care if a camera can take 3 or 5 shots per second, I doubt
that the "important" moments in the step happen each 1/5 second...
Click to expand...
I agree. It has fully to do wth the rhythm of the music itself. Every starting and ending point of a step is important, not the between "hanging" of feet and legs. (I did dancing "Salsa" for several years).

Typically "Salsa" doesn't have an evenly rhythm. It does have an extra "click" after 3 steps or just the opposite --> a little "pause".
 
I understand what you are trying to do. How many frames per second you will need depends to a large extent on how fast the action is, which varies by dance style. I shot a film (motion picture) of a ballet some time ago, and would suggest two possible inexpensive ways to answer your question.

First, you could take video of the dance (at 25 or 30 frames per second, depending on whether you are PAL or NTSC), and then look at the individual frames to see which frames would show the steps for the stills. If you find that every 6th frame is good, then you need 5 frames per second. If you find that you only need every 20th frame or so, then a slower frame rate will be adequate.

An alternative method would be to rent an F5 or F100 (or similar Canon) and shoot film to determine what frame rate you need. For a fairly reasonable amount of money, you could see if you need more than 2 FPS.

The point about flash was a good one, but I find that good "hot" lights work well for dance photography, and flashes can intrude into the dancers concentration.

Best, GP
 
Hi!

GP. Your message is exactly what I was having on my mind. If today's photo cameras would have 15fps burst shot ability for 10 seconds (150 photos before saving them) then my problem would be solved and possible many sports and action photographers would not need to wait for a special moment to press the button. I believe in not so distant future this will be possible, because there is enough demand among professional photographers. Of course some of the magic would be lost but that is the cost of the progress. Anyone can decide to be romantic and still take only analogy photos or only use even older Leicas.

Does anybody knows which is the fastest photo camera that is available today?

What are the physical limitations? Considering shutter speeds of 1/500 or 1/200 one could put several frames into one second.

Thanks Robert
 
Robert
Have you looked at the Oly E-100RS? It has burst rates of 3, 5, 7.5, and
15 fps. It only has a 1.5 megapixel CCD, so it may not meet your require-
ments. Maybe some of you pros have tried this camera?

Good Luck
DeWayne
Robert Jober said:
My task is to set up a catalogue of images and video clips of dance
movements. We want to shot several thousand images and at least one
thousand video clips. One video clip and two to six images for each
dance step. Low resolution images and video-clips will be posted to
web and high resolution to DVD.

Currently we have Nikon Coolpix 990 and Sony digital camcorder PC5,
which can also produce 640x480 still images. Because I want to have
the best image resolution possible for later applications (maybe
print) video still quality is not enough.

I want to decompose a single dance step in two to six images, so
that a person looking at the images could get an idea about the
dance step and try it. While testing in the pre-production
environment I have concluded that I need a really fast digital
camera, so that I could shot video and photo at the same time. If I
ask dancers to stop in the middle of the movement to take a photo
the movement looks unnatural. Also I have to shot separately for
the video and for the photo, which tajes more time and is more
expensive.

But which digital camera can shot so fast that I can record
milestones of a dance step or if I rephrase the question, how many
frames/second is enough to capture the milestones of a dance step.
Is it 3fps or 5fps or 10fps.

Looking at D1x and D1h specs D1x has (3 fps up to 9 images = 3
seconds) and D1h has (5 fps up to 40 images = 8 seconds). If I
would use D1h I could shot 40 images in 8 seconds in resolution
2000 x 1312. Is that true. How many seconds would I then have to
wait to shot again? Later in the postproduction phase I would
select 2 to 6 images out of 40 (hoping the right ones are among 40).

Can anybody say from real world experience how many fps is enough
for my project.

Is there any other camera that I missed and would do the job?

And my final note: if D1x would shot faster with lower resolution,
would that be great.
--
robert
http://www.robertooo.com
Click to expand...
 
Seems like there is a lot of yak without focus on the problem. Robert, lets work backwards. As you have indicated, you need images suitable for web and print, ina catalog format. From this, I would infer that you probably need to use the "dance step sequences" at a size around a few inches wide and tall at most. On a standard letter size page, you could squeeze in two 3 step sequences and some captions.

OK

I would do a thorough test using a high-quality DV camera, such as a sony vx-2000 or pd-150A. These are industrial level 3 chip cameras available for rental most everywhere. Shoot your sequences in progressive scan mode, which will eliminate interlaced scan lines, set your shutter speed to 500th/sec and get out the hot lights. Then find a laptop running imovie, final cut, or premiere, and do a little DV capture. From the captured footage, find the frames you want, export them as still images (pict files) and bring them into photoshop. If you resize these images, without any interpoation, they will convert from 720x480 @ 72 dpi to 2.4" x 1.6" @ 300 DPI, just about the right size for a 3-4 image sequence to go to offset press for great results. Apply a bit of unsharp masking, and interpolate up your resolution slightly, and I would wager that at any size under 3-4" inches, nobody, and I mean nobody, will be able to tell they are not still photos.

I work with interpolating video frames into print constantly, and have had succcess blowing up good frames into 5 foot tall posters without any fuss. The other factor to consider is the speed of your workflow. Working with video in this case will be 10x faster than shooting stills.

I would rent or borrow a camera, and do a test. I would take the images to a good commercial printer and ask them to run off a digital proof of the images for you so that yo can see how the quality will hold up.
Good Luck
Kevin Sprague
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top