Yes, I realize that for people who want to do this then it can be useful for them.
You sift through > 1000 that are identical or almost identical to find the 1 or 2 best ones? Or do you mean you sift through > 1000 that are not almost identical? Quite different situations.This is silly."5-10 seconds" bursts at 60fps is 300-600 frames to go through and each frame is separated by 1/60 second so many of them are identical or very close to identical. To me, but not to you, going through all of those to find the "1-2 solid frames" would be torture. And, I suspect, in a single day of shooting this way one wouldn't have just one "5-10 seconds" burst. One would have several, many, a whole lot of "5-10 seconds" bursts so then one would have thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of frames to go through.You can extract the few stills in camera quite easily. And you shouldn't be shooting 5 minute videos. More like 5-10 seconds as if it was a regular burst shot.As I said, that is a hellish life, IMO:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61534888
Going through thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of frames to find the 1-2 solid frames. Not for me. Of course, some people get masochistic pleasure from this sort of thing, I guess.
My earlier post about just that:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61534888
Let's see, how many seconds are there in a basketball or soccer game? 60fps times that number of seconds. How many individual frames would that be? Even if you just take spurts of video during the game of a few seconds each you would likely have many of those video bursts at 60fps each. Even if each burst was only 5 seconds then that would be 300 frames per burst. And with the continuous action in those and many other sports you might not want to take the chance of just taking video bursts.
I return from a trip such as my recent trip to Turkey for a month with usually around 3000 photos. I find it almost excruciating to go through them all in Lightroom over several weeks, selecting the ones I want to work on, and then working on them for my website. And they are not even almost identical photos separated by 1/60 second. 3000 in a month of travel. I personally would rather be dead than have to go through 35,000 or 60,000 or 1,000,000 or whatever number of frames in 60fps video (or as he says, even 120fps video!). And not even having the luxury of spreading it over several weeks.
Imagine coming back from a trip with hours of 30fps, 60fps, or 120fps video and then wanting to select the best frames for still photos? As I said, I am happy for you that you want to do that. I don't, but I sure don't mind that others do.
1) Sorting through images shouldn't be that strenuous. I regularly shoot > 1000 in a day, and have them sorted within an hour or two. Just find some decent software and rate them. I sort images at about 1-2 second per image. Your 3000 images would take around 1.5 hours to sort out. Post processing obviously takes longer, but you're not going to be post processing 3000 images.
This subthread is about shooting 4K video using the fps choices it gives you.
Both.You sift through > 1000 that are identical or almost identical to find the 1 or 2 best ones? Or do you mean you sift through > 1000 that are not almost identical? Quite different situations.This is silly."5-10 seconds" bursts at 60fps is 300-600 frames to go through and each frame is separated by 1/60 second so many of them are identical or very close to identical. To me, but not to you, going through all of those to find the "1-2 solid frames" would be torture. And, I suspect, in a single day of shooting this way one wouldn't have just one "5-10 seconds" burst. One would have several, many, a whole lot of "5-10 seconds" bursts so then one would have thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of frames to go through.You can extract the few stills in camera quite easily. And you shouldn't be shooting 5 minute videos. More like 5-10 seconds as if it was a regular burst shot.As I said, that is a hellish life, IMO:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61534888
Going through thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of frames to find the 1-2 solid frames. Not for me. Of course, some people get masochistic pleasure from this sort of thing, I guess.
My earlier post about just that:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61534888
Let's see, how many seconds are there in a basketball or soccer game? 60fps times that number of seconds. How many individual frames would that be? Even if you just take spurts of video during the game of a few seconds each you would likely have many of those video bursts at 60fps each. Even if each burst was only 5 seconds then that would be 300 frames per burst. And with the continuous action in those and many other sports you might not want to take the chance of just taking video bursts.
I return from a trip such as my recent trip to Turkey for a month with usually around 3000 photos. I find it almost excruciating to go through them all in Lightroom over several weeks, selecting the ones I want to work on, and then working on them for my website. And they are not even almost identical photos separated by 1/60 second. 3000 in a month of travel. I personally would rather be dead than have to go through 35,000 or 60,000 or 1,000,000 or whatever number of frames in 60fps video (or as he says, even 120fps video!). And not even having the luxury of spreading it over several weeks.
Imagine coming back from a trip with hours of 30fps, 60fps, or 120fps video and then wanting to select the best frames for still photos? As I said, I am happy for you that you want to do that. I don't, but I sure don't mind that others do.
1) Sorting through images shouldn't be that strenuous. I regularly shoot > 1000 in a day, and have them sorted within an hour or two. Just find some decent software and rate them. I sort images at about 1-2 second per image. Your 3000 images would take around 1.5 hours to sort out. Post processing obviously takes longer, but you're not going to be post processing 3000 images.
Indeed so, and that is how I refer to some of mine.That is known as the Spray and Pray style of photography.
www.flickr.com
I think spray and pray suggests press the shutter and hope for the burst. Whereas considered burst shooting probably means you know what you are trying to achieve but you are maximising the chance of getting it.
I like the sound of "considered burst shooting", and I do know what I'm trying achieve and trying to maximise my chance of getting it. That said, I don't use bursts and there is a strong random component to what I'm doing so "spray and pray" does I think capture some of the essence of the process (especially the "pray" part of it).
It's called "the decisive momentS" with the emphasis on the final S which is short for spray.
I rarely use burst mode. Usually I forget it's even there, even when i could use it for something.
www.flickr.com
Brilliant example
Deleting duplicate images is easy. Flag the ones you want. Select the ones that aren't flagged. Delete them.
A couple of our Casio pocket cameras have a Best Selection scene mode. In that the camera takes a short burst at 30 fps at full resolution, then analyses the images to get the best one out of the bunch where there's no blinks and smiles are present. Keeps the best one and deletes the rest of the bunch. Tested and it works nicely! I think it is limited to testing up to 10 faces in the frame, but not sure on that right now.
It ain't so difficult really anymore with E-M1 II because you can finally browse images in playback as quickly as with Canon.
.x.jpg "AEL/AFL as a Lock button")
Sequential shooting is useful in many ways, it is speed how quickly camera is ready to take a another photo.
Have you tried to do other stacking methods? Focus, denoise, ND filter, time lapse, and the usual averaging benefits?I only use burst shooting, indeed bracketing, for HDR only and after a HDR be produced, all of the original shots would be deleted. I don't have your problem. YMMV.
