Video Camera FPS for Throw Analysis

[jenb]

Please provide information on the minimum recording frame rate that I should consider in a video camera for throw analysis.

Any specific recomendations of cameras less than $300?

Any experiences using this camera with 1000 fps recording rate capability?

http://www.amazon.com/Casio-EX-FH100-10 ... cr_pr_pb_t

[rehder]

Slo-mo vids are only good for seeing if you get certain bodymechanics right such as a tight pull line

Timing you want to see at natural speed. And this is a big component in long throws.

F.ex. I thought it was a shame, that the following video didnt also include normal speed footage of their throws

[keltik]

yeah 60fps is good enough for just about any action shot. just be forewarned that you need a fairly stout computer to handle 720p 60fps video (even playback). I have a camera capable of filming in HD but not a computer capable of playing/editing such high quality.

[jenb]

So if I film at 60 fps, and then use one of those video editors to slow it down, it will be good enough?

What is the difficulty in filming in slo mo and then using a video editor tool to speed it up? Granted, it wouldn't be 720p. That 1000 fps camera switches to lower resolution (VHS quality) at higher frame rates.

[vto]

I have a Casio EX-FC100, and it has been useful in analyzing form flaws for me. One thing you should be aware though is that the 1000fps setting in these cameras is completely useless, as the resolution is too low to see much of anything. In EX-FC100 the most useful setting has been the 210fps 480x360 high-speed video. It is a decent enough resolution, and also pretty nicely slowed footage. I also fiddled a bit with an editor to slow the playback to 10fps to make a super slomo video, and it was really easy to see all the positions you go through.

[JR]

These are the resolutions for that camera taken from the manufacturer.
Hi-speed Movies (HS) 224 x 64 (1000 fps), 224 x 168 (420 fps), 448 x 336 (240 fps), 640 x 480 (120 fps), 448 x 336 (30-240 fps), 640 x 480 (30-120 fps)
HD Movies 1280 x 720 (30 fps)
STD Movies 640 x 480 (30 fps)

Here is a clip shot at 120 FPS with a model of the Casio Exilim line that i don't recall the model of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4SpYKs0MA0

Check out each clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mfranssila

Some of it is slightly lower resolution Samsung and some Casio Exilim EX-F1 the top of the line model in 2009 in the lowest frame rate of high speed function. I think it's 300 FPS. In that Avery Jenkins bit the obliquely downward angled camera is the 512x384 resolution 300 FPS EX-F1 and the level camera is the Samsung with 250 FPS. The video is edited to play at 250 fps.

Indoors too little light filmed with Casio EX-FH20 these are raw data files as produced by the camera so it's not been edited in any other way other than at times clipped for shortness. The resolutions and frame rates vary between the two lowest frame rates. That are 210 FPS at 480x360 and 420 FPS at 224x168. The guy in the videos won masters division Euro Tour in 2010.
http://www.mediafire.com/?280v2bo5huc2yzd
http://www.mediafire.com/?yvocybydfix3w3e
http://www.mediafire.com/?o41rl4xn23a44p5
http://www.mediafire.com/?wwocc1176u2oe5x
http://www.mediafire.com/?mi7rwgrhw5q741b

With the experience from filming these and myself with four cameras using different FPS/resolution combinations i'd say that 120 fps might be a little overkill for body positions but it will tell timings of the arm pull onset better than 60 FPS. For wrist snap 300 FPS ain't always enough it's a matter of luck if the camera hits the proper spots to show you what's going on. 600 FPS has always been enough for me for wrist snap but seldomly not enough for disc pivot. Any cheap camera has very blocky and details restricting lack of resolution at 600 FPS.

It depends on what you need. Take a close look at 420 FPS 224x168 resolution to determine if you can see enough of it. If not you need a higher resolution. Also take note of the FPS for the things you wanna discover. The worst mistake would be to go overkill for Hollywood stuff or too little for your needs and needing to buy a new camera for more money than a sufficient camera in the first place.

For timings determination it is easier to see the differences in slo mo. In time as the eye is more experienced real time will start to work too. You really need both real time and slo mo.

[Frank Delicious]

Moving this to the video section.

[jenb]

Does anyone have a suggestion for a camera that is a step up from the Casio, in that it can do 600+ fps but at better resolution?

From what I can see, the real high speed cameras cost $9000, $150000, or even $457,000 (photron fastcam) each. I'm not paying that much. Is the Casio pretty much the best high speed camera for under $1000?

[keltik]

I like my Kodak PlaySport. I got as a Christmas gift. I think they retail for around $150. it does 720p 60fps. honestly you don't need that nice of a camera for video critique. we don't need to see the tendons flexing in your fingers at the hit. we just need to see how you enter the hit, hit it (or whether or not you hit it) and how you exit the hit. even VGA at 120 fps is plenty. a lot of guys do video critique with video from their smart phones.

[Star Shark]

Note - Here's what a DG throw looks like at 240fps courtesy of Brad Walker

[JR]

Like i said you need to figure out what you need. If you need 600 FPS and some resolution to see details have you looked at the Casio flagship model Exilim EX-F1 For self study that high FPS may be necessary but 120 FPS is good enough at 640x480 resolution for form critique and seeing your body positioning and most timings. That is available in much cheaper models than the EX-F1. I suggest that you go to the home page of Casio and compare the high speed resolutions versus FPS and check out the differences in retail prices so that you know how much the extra goodies are gonna cost you. So you know if it is a good idea to skimp or splurge. I haven't checked if there have been new releases for high FPS cameras the last year. Two years ago Casio was it.

Casio resolutions vary wildly from model to model at around 600 FPS or more. Only the top of the line EX-F1 really works at all at such high FPS. Even the second best model EX-FH20 at 420 FPS lacks resolution for seeing what each individual finger is doing in the wrist extension and disc pivot.

Note that the highest FPS rates really come useful when you watch the video one picture at a time. With viewing programs such as VLC or Media Player Classic. If you watch a video you are much more likely to miss out details in disc pivot.

I would imagine that it is a no brainer to get the top of the line EX-F1 for under 1000$. At 300$ the resolution and light sensitivity needed for high frame rates are such that you can forget about the highest frame rates. Which means that if you go that way you can easily get the one you linked in the first post. Just don't think you might get very useful information out of the highest frame rates. You can always try but good luck with that. It all depends on your needs.

The vid of Brad above is IIRC taken with EX-FH20.

[jenb]

Like i said you need to figure out what you need. ... I would imagine that it is a no brainer to get the top of the line EX-F1 for under 1000$. At 300$ the resolution and light sensitivity needed for high frame rates are such that you can forget about the highest frame rates.

Dude! I checked and the EX-F1 is going for $2800. Where do you see it available for $300?

[JR]

That is a place i wouldn't trust. It is double the price of Amazon for example. I didn't write that EX-F1 would go for 300 bucks but it should be available for 1000$. Amazon sells new ones for 1400ish. Second hand should be cheaper. I forgot that Casio upped the price of EX-F1 significantly after i got mine.

When you asked is the Casio the best for under 1000$ that is why i brought up the EX-F1.

But if you are limited by 300$ then the camera you linked would be great for the price because at 240 FPS it has the same resolution as the second best model of the line. Bang for buck right there. The difference between those is that the model you linked will need more light but in Texas it shouldn't be a problem usually. The cheaper one will have easier transportation being lighter and way smaller. Dunno about the battery time.

[jenb]

I couldn't find the EX-F1 on Amazon for less than $2800, but I did find it for $1400 on ebay. ThenI found it for about $850 somewhere. But in the process I found the EX-FH100 for less than $200, and I went ahead and ordered it. If it turns out that it's not enough camera, I'm not out much.

UPDATE: That website cancelled my order. They said the camera is OOP, but I just ordered it form Amazon. It was a little more money, but I paid less in the long run because I had an Amazon gift card.

[JR]

I'm sure it will go a long way being the first camera. You can work on disc pivot with the drills in the super sekret technique thread and other snap threads.