Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
frames per second
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
May 2, 2016 17:11:06   #
whitewolfowner
 
You claim many pros shooting sports, shoot in Jpeg; well just as many or more will shoot only raw. It depends a lot, who they are shooting for. If a newspaper, the quality in them is so poor it doesn't matter, so these guys may shoot in jpeg. Internet shooters may choose jpeg too. But the truth is that it is night and day when working a quality print in software later. One can do so much more in a raw file than a jpeg file.

Yes, jpeg allows more frames shot before the buffer is full but so much determines that too. I shoot with a D750 which is neither known for a large buffer or a fast frame per second rate, but by using San Disk Extreme Pro SD cards I can run off close to 20 frames in raw before the buffer fills and San Disk has an even faster card than the Extreme Pro.

And if you talk to most of the experienced pros you will find that they rely on their experience of the sport and knowing their equipment to use single framing shooting instead of rapid firing most of the time. Trying to sort through 20 shots or so for the perfect one. most of the time reveals that that perfect shot came in between two frames and their luck is better served by shooting the single frame.

It all come down to experience and what and who you are shooting for. The bottom line is that if you want the best quality photo you can get, then raw is the only way to go.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 17:16:24   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
whitewolfowner wrote:
You claim many pros shooting sports, shoot in Jpeg; well just as many or more will shoot only raw. It depends a lot, who they are shooting for. If a newspaper, the quality in them is so poor it doesn't matter, so these guys may shoot in jpeg. Internet shooters may choose jpeg too. But the truth is that it is night and day when working a quality print in software later. One can do so much more in a raw file than a jpeg file.

Yes, jpeg allows more frames shot before the buffer is full but so much determines that too. I shoot with a D750 which is neither known for a large buffer or a fast frame per second rate, but by using San Disk Extreme Pro SD cards I can run off close to 20 frames in raw before the buffer fills and San Disk has an even faster card than the Extreme Pro.

And if you talk to most of the experienced pros you will find that they rely on their experience of the sport and knowing their equipment to use single framing shooting instead of rapid firing most of the time. Trying to sort through 20 shots or so for the perfect one. most of the time reveals that that perfect shot came in between two frames and their luck is better served by shooting the single frame.

It all come down to experience and what and who you are shooting for. The bottom line is that if you want the best quality photo you can get, then raw is the only way to go.
You claim many pros shooting sports, shoot in Jpeg... (show quote)


If this is the case, get the one shot, then why does 16 fps exist for pros?

| Reply
May 2, 2016 17:18:13   #
whitewolfowner
 
And how did you see these prints? Were they printed and if so on what paper and on what printer and what ink was used? Did you see comparisons shots that were shot in raw? Did you see them on a computer, what screen, how big and viewed from what software? All these things makes a difference.

All I can tell you is that if they were done in raw and processed in raw, the final photo would have been superior from the raw file.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 17:27:04   #
whitewolfowner
 
Some prefer to shoot in rapid sequence. Some lack the experience, confidence or knowledge in the subject they are shooting. Some lack the skill to time the shot and rely on the best of the bunch from the rapid shooting. Also, you'd be surprised who out there calls themselves a pro and who is not. Many serious amateurs are better shooters than many pros are.
I have shot as a professional and as an amateur for my enjoyment and have seen the field of who is a professional photographer. Especially in publishing, the reporter is given a camera, barely knows how to use it, gets to the events with their press pass and is considered a professional photographer. Then they ask more experienced photographers to teach them how to shoot a good photo for the event they are covering. So,as you can see, just because one is called a professional photographer has no effect as to their abilities, experience or capabilities to use the equipment they are given to use.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 17:32:37   #
mikeroetex
 
Jer wrote:
....What I tell young photographers is that the first shot in a multi-frame shooting should be the one you want and the others are back ups. Also, the 5dm3 allows you to adjust your focus speed.

If you ever shoot for a publication you may have a very tight deadline. You can't afford to be overly generous with fps usage.

The other thing is to learn the sport you are shooting. That will help some in getting better photos. You will know generally where the action is going.

Also, some sports photos aren't of the action. Look for slice of life photos. For example, a coach talking to a player, a group of players or fans watching the game.

Remember it takes time to learn the ins and outs. Be patient while working to improve.

Ok, one last thing. in sports that involve flying objects...never take you eyes off the action. Make sure the object is not flying around between plays. More photographers have been hit when the turned away and didn't notice a player who missed catching it and you get hit.

Also, some of my best photos were when I only had a chance to take once shot....like a hockey goal shot where the goalie blocked the puck. The puck had just hit the stick and ice was flying. Neat shot. Sometimes it pays to be lucky rather than good. But in reality you make your own luck by being prepared.

good luck
....What I tell young photographers is that the fi... (show quote)
This may be some of the best advice I've ever seen on this board. It's obvious you are an experienced pro, without having to state it. I'm a former sports anchor who enjoyed shooting a lot of his own video. now that I'm not in the biz, I enjoy trying my hand at sports still shots and have earned a much greater appreciation for my former newspaper colleagues.

One thing that held true in video (and works for me in stills) .... anticipation and knowing the sport were keys to getting the shots. And the tighter the better. Reaction shots tell the story as much as the actual hit or goal. My other tip, keep your outside eye open while shooting. It will feel weird at first, but helps see the action coming into frame.... not to mention not getting run over on the sideline!

| Reply
May 2, 2016 18:09:48   #
Al Bruton
 
I am not a Cannon shooter, but Nikon. Thus do not know all the settings you have available.I have shot NFL, College football, PGA & LPGA golf and shoot for USOC. I always use a higher ISO, high speed crds, continuous focus and back button focus. Usually shoot high jpeg, but even with raw I have no problems with speed.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 18:12:27   #
mikeroetex
 
whitewolfowner wrote:
Some prefer to shoot in rapid sequence. Some lack the experience, confidence or knowledge in the subject they are shooting. Some lack the skill to time the shot and rely on the best of the bunch from the rapid shooting. Also, you'd be surprised who out there calls themselves a pro and who is not. Many serious amateurs are better shooters than many pros are.
I have shot as a professional and as an amateur for my enjoyment and have seen the field of who is a professional photographer. Especially in publishing, the reporter is given a camera, barely knows how to use it, gets to the events with their press pass and is considered a professional photographer. Then they ask more experienced photographers to teach them how to shoot a good photo for the event they are covering. So,as you can see, just because one is called a professional photographer has no effect as to their abilities, experience or capabilities to use the equipment they are given to use.
Some prefer to shoot in rapid sequence. Some lack... (show quote)
hey Jon Snow, first of all, welcome to the forum. secondly, use the quote reply feature so we know who and which reply you are responding to!

| Reply
May 2, 2016 19:56:04   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
whitewolfowner wrote:
And how did you see these prints? Were they printed and if so on what paper and on what printer and what ink was used? Did you see comparisons shots that were shot in raw? Did you see them on a computer, what screen, how big and viewed from what software? All these things makes a difference.

All I can tell you is that if they were done in raw and processed in raw, the final photo would have been superior from the raw file.


But could everyone SEE the difference and even if they could, would it make ANY difference to anyone except the photographer's psyche ??

| Reply
May 2, 2016 20:38:12   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
imagemeister wrote:
But could everyone SEE the difference and even if they could, would it make ANY difference to anyone except the photographer's psyche ??


:thumbup: A pro is someone who gets paid, and amateur is one who does it for the love of doing it. As has been said the quality at times has no relationship. Like teachers are frequently those who can't teach and those who can do.
The 5D will go fast but just do not expect blinding speed from it. Of course I remember the Canon and Nikon F models were considered fast at 3.5 fps with special versions at 10 FPS for a gazillion dollars.
Learn the strengths of your equipment and work around it or acquire the tool that fits your needs.
If you can survive a cropped format the 7D MII is fast for sports.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 20:48:56   #
CA_CanonUser
 
I try to only write to the compact flash card and I only use Sandisk Extreme Pro (160 mb/s) cards. The 5D Mk III writes slower to the SD card -- even if you use the SDXC extreme pro card; this is a performance characteristic of the 5D Mk iii.
In reality the 5D Mk iii is not ideal for sports photography in part because of its limited FPS capability. It is better for landscape and portrait photography. Sports and wildlife (especially birding) is the specialty of the 1DX model. The new 1DX Mark II will be able to shoot 14 - 16 frames per second in raw. But of course it also sets you back $6K.

| Reply
May 2, 2016 21:03:17   #
jrb1213
 
the only other thing that I have found that picks up the speed not mentioned above is when I turn off the IS. It focuses faster and gives me a higher frame rate. It also helps if you do not shoot with anything else on auto. my highest frame rate came when I turn off all auto including autofocus. This works well when you are waiting for a pitch, the ball to be hiked, penalty shot, free throw, or even a jump ball

| Reply
May 2, 2016 21:40:04   #
Blurryeyed (a regular here)
 
avery48 wrote:
I could use some assistance from more veteran photographers. I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark 3 and am trying to improve on sports photography (grandsons in sports). When I want to shoot continuous frames in an event, I can only muster up a two or three fps. I know that camera can do better. What do I need to set to get maximum fps? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I use Lexar 800x 16 gig CF and Transcend 32 gig 90mb/s 600x SD cards typically, if that makes any difference.

d.


I shoot birds in flight with a Canon 7D Mark II (10 fps), I shoot raw and I am not going to pretend to be an expert either but I can generally get somewhere between 15 and 20 frames, maybe more before I notice the camera slowing down. I will say that I use the CF slot because I think that CF cards are faster than SD's and I use fast cards, maybe not the best, but far from the least expensive, I have also learned if I really don't want to bump against my buffer that if I shoot 8 to 10 frames and give a slight pause and then resume that I seem to never have a problem with the camera slowing down.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031509-REG/lexar_lcf64gcrbna10662_64gb_pro_compact_flash.html

| Reply
May 2, 2016 22:45:35   #
whitewolfowner
 
Anyone who is truly a photographer, an artist, sees the difference as night and day. It's shooters who go out and buy expensive equipment and think it makes them good who don't.
It's the difference between a photograph and a snapshot and honestly is the biggest problem real photographers have selling their craft today; too many lack the training or the eye to see the difference between a quality photograph and a fuzzy snapshot.

| Reply
May 3, 2016 21:21:28   #
jimvanells
 
Are you shooting both raw and jpegs? That really slows down the writing to the card. Your cards are not the problem, they are plenty fast. I shoot the same camera with 600x and faster cards at 5-6 fps. Most sport folks do just shoot jpegs because they do not need all the resolution of raw files since print does not require it.

Just another opinion but check out the other suggestions as well, it may be a combination of things.

| Reply
May 4, 2016 01:08:28   #
blackest
 
imagemeister wrote:
But could everyone SEE the difference and even if they could, would it make ANY difference to anyone except the photographer's psyche ??


Could be the jpegs slow things down?
Shooting both would be the slowest.

Jpeg requires raw capture then processing (noise reduction sharpening contrast ect) then compression and then writing to the card.

Raw capture then write to the card a bigger file admittedly. *

Buffer size may be the main limiting factor.

I'm not sure about the canon software but the Pentax software gives the same settings on the computer as in camera. So your computer could take the burden of the jpeg processing after the game instead of while shooting. If you prefer the in camera presets.

I guess it depends when the pictures are needed. Plus there is the time it takes if the event takes 2 hours and post processing takes 2 hours then you are working for 4 hours with raw. With jpeg the job is done after 2 hours.

It depends on where the picture appears as to if there is a noticable difference.

* Your camera may have to create a jpeg for the raw file as an embedded preview, surely would be faster if it didn't or created one on review not on taking the image.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.