• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Casio Coming out with Digital Camera

shocksyde

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Engadget Link

That's some crazy ish right there!

That's GOTTA be using low-quality JPEG shooting, right? Is there even a memory card out there fast enough to handle 60fps RAW?
 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Engadget Link

That's some crazy ish right there!

That's GOTTA be using low-quality JPEG shooting, right? Is there even a memory card out there fast enough to handle 60fps RAW?
Click to expand...

Minor correction-- it's not an SLR, is it?
Click to expand...

Good call. Correcting in title.
 
wow... that's incredible. I have a hard time keeping up with the physics of these new digital cameras. They deliver what was impossible to impossibly expensive to the average consumer for relatively cheap.

Still, I don't understand how this little camera can do 1200fps without absurdly powerful lighting. I understand CCD's can be extremely powerful and light sensitive but 1200 fps? And yea... how much data can be per frame at 1200fps under current flash write speeds? Oh I just read elsewhere that the 1200fps mode is at 336x96 resolution... lol Pretty tiny.
 
Originally posted by: dakels
wow... that's incredible. I have a hard time keeping up with the physics of these new digital cameras. They deliver what was impossible to impossibly expensive to the average consumer for relatively cheap.

Still, I don't understand how this little camera can do 1200fps without absurdly powerful lighting. I understand CCD's can be extremely powerful and light sensitive but 1200 fps? And yea... how much data can be per frame at 1200fps under current flash write speeds? Oh I just read elsewhere that the 1200fps mode is at 336x96 resolution... lol Pretty tiny.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you can shoot at like 600fps and get twice the resolution?
 
Originally posted by: dakels
wow... that's incredible. I have a hard time keeping up with the physics of these new digital cameras. They deliver what was impossible to impossibly expensive to the average consumer for relatively cheap.

Still, I don't understand how this little camera can do 1200fps without absurdly powerful lighting. I understand CCD's can be extremely powerful and light sensitive but 1200 fps? And yea... how much data can be per frame at 1200fps under current flash write speeds? Oh I just read elsewhere that the 1200fps mode is at 336x96 resolution... lol Pretty tiny.
Click to expand...

You're right that it would be light-challenged at some point, but as you also imply, any noise issue would be pretty much gone by that teensy resolution... In any event you wouldn't need an insane amount of light for that frame rate-- 1/8000s is no problem for even cheap DSLRs these days, and you can easily reach this rate in average sunlight, especially with a fairly fast lens and/or a slight ISO boost. Since this camera wouldn't be moving a shutter back and forth, I don't see why (at least nearly) the full time period couldn't be devoted to gathering light.
 
according to elfenix's linked article, the resolution goes up as the fps goes down which makes sense.
I assume the tiny 336x96 is based on the write speed limitation. Not sure though as if my math is correct, but that rate seems to be around 5MB/s which is not that fast.

I'm actually interested in this camera as the high speed can be a good teaching tool for tennis. Only thing is this probably need a ton of light for those optics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CNiWdu4kLw&NR=1
 
I think this is more of a gadget camera. Its really cool in theory but what are you going to do with 1200 rectangular nearly identical 32,256 pixel images? Not to mention the unusual size, what are you going to do with such small pictures?

In real size, 336x96 is about the size of the box below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  |
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
|&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp|
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ugh...lame FuseTalk deletes extra spaces
 
I think it could be moderately interesting as a cheap replacement for a high speed video camera at 1200 FPS (for amateur scientific testing, for example) but really not very useful as a "photo" camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top