HOME | DD

KarlDawson In reply to DeFutura [2011-06-15 08:29:56 +0000 UTC]

Nope, you're not. You can do shots like this in a darkened room, and set the camera shutter to a *slow* setting (1/3 sec or less), or even to Bulb. That way, it's the extremely short flash duration (between 1/10,000 and 1/50,000 of a second) that freezes the motion, *not* the camera flash. I use flash units that allow for manual setting of the flash power, and preferably the lower the better (1/64 sec or 1/128 sec) since the lower power results in a shorter flash duration.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeFutura In reply to KarlDawson [2011-06-15 23:29:31 +0000 UTC]

Oh I get it, Thanks! long exposure, short lighting. A bit like when I did this [link] or lightnings. Yes being a little more independent with a flash unit would be great! So you had very little light to operate, what was the percentage of quality collisions? how many shots? I'm j/k don't answer that well done again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KarlDawson In reply to DeFutura [2011-06-16 11:19:21 +0000 UTC]

Ahh, that's where the StopShot helps with getting the collisions right even in the dark, but even then, yes, there would be literally hundreds of shots that don't make the cut and won't see the light of day

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to DeFutura [2011-06-15 08:29:56 +0000 UTC]

Nope, you're not. You can do shots like this in a darkened room, and set the camera shutter to a *slow* setting (1/3 sec or less), or even to Bulb. That way, it's the extremely short flash duration (between 1/10,000 and 1/50,000 of a second) that freezes the motion, *not* the camera flash. I use flash units that allow for manual setting of the flash power, and preferably the lower the better (1/64 sec or 1/128 sec) since the lower power results in a shorter flash duration.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to k8star [2011-05-19 00:50:40 +0000 UTC]

Thanks very much

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to Fauxtographique [2011-04-30 11:26:35 +0000 UTC]

Thanks I just checked the original and there's no discernible noise in the image. Some may have crept in during the change from 16 to 8 bit, and then with the save to a moderately compressed (75%) jpeg. I'll just have to live with that

With regards to the shutter lag, the following is from the StopShot manual: "There are many variables that come into play with shutter lag. Auto‐focus, metering, and even the LCD preview being active can affect the duration. For some cameras (such as Canon) the lag can be significantly reduced by enabling “Mirror Lock‐up” in the custom functions settings. In fact this is the only way with a Canon camera to make the shutter lag consistent from shot to shot."

I just did some tests with the 40D (with preview and auto focus disabled), which gave the following results (in milliseconds):

Test No:________Manual____Mirror Lockup
_____1__________127.1_____40.8
_____2__________103.9_____40.7
_____3__________130.9_____45.2
_____4__________103.1_____41.0
_____5__________130.2_____48.8
_____6__________103.5_____40.4
_____7__________107.2_____40.9
_____8__________102.7_____49.6
_____9__________130.6_____41.2
_____10_________108.5_____41.2

For some reason with mirror lockup *off*, the lag for the first image (if you leave the camera sitting idle for about 20 seconds or more) is ~127ms, with the rest being ~103ms. While enabling mirror lockup prevents that, it still seems that occassionally it has spikes of ~49ms instead of the ~41ms for the rest.

When you're trying to repeat something with millisecond accuracy, these differences really show up! If Canon's managed to fix this with the 60D / 7D I'd be impressed, but I doubt it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Fauxtographique In reply to KarlDawson [2011-04-30 14:21:03 +0000 UTC]

75%?! Yeesh, no wonder.
I may be a quality freak, but it pains me to go below even 95% in any image with a smooth gradient (banding and chroma noise, as seen here), or 85% on widely detailed images, which are rare.
I wouldn't complain, but it's distracting.
Surely with 1200x800 you won't have file-size issues even at 100%.

I couldn't find any info on variation in shutter lag for the 60D, and though I've never noticed it in my high-speed endeavours, I too have little faith the problem has been resolved.

How did you get those readings? If it doesn't require any specialised equipment I'd be interested in performing tests of my own.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KarlDawson In reply to Fauxtographique [2011-04-30 22:08:02 +0000 UTC]

Yep, 75%. It's not an issue of file size, it's an issue of copyright infringers. If I'm going to place images on the web, they're not going to be the highest quality I can muster; I save that for sales and competitions.
You probably won't find anything specific about shutter lag variability for the 60D (or the 40D or others for that matter) since it's really only a "problem" for a very very small percentage of customers. I just found this site which shows the lag for a range of Canon cameras including the 40D, 50D and 60D all to be the same at 59ms ([link] - the table is half way down the page). Based on my results that's only possible with mirror lockup enabled, but still, it's not the lag itself that's the issue, it's the variability of that lag; even if only by a few milliseconds.

The StopShot has a shutter lag measurement feature, so I'm using that to get the readings. You can buy them here: [link] .Probably a bit pricey just for doing shutter lag mesurements though

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

map-hopping In reply to KarlDawson [2011-04-30 23:16:36 +0000 UTC]

Just for what it's worth, I'm in favor of a bit of noise to protect your image. I'm voting that you don't go above 75%. Although I usually clock in at about 80-85% on my stuff, that is usually for small images where I've already downsized to a smaller number of pixels prior to optimizing. Where you are showing larger images, you are more at risk. So I vote that you don't give them enough to make a perfect print. In fact, strolling through a number of your gallery images the last two days, I'm almost thinking, take it down another notch. Your pics have such clarity and beauty, it seems like they may be at risk even with the tiny bit of noise you've allowed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KarlDawson In reply to map-hopping [2011-05-02 08:45:20 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the comments, they're much appreciated. I think I'll be sticking with 75% for the time being

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to map-hopping [2011-04-30 11:05:37 +0000 UTC]

Yep, I have magic water, just like everyone else!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to Daisy919 [2011-04-29 23:22:49 +0000 UTC]

Ha ha! Thanks very much, that's very kind of you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to AfricanObserver [2011-04-28 23:08:48 +0000 UTC]

Thanks and no problems

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KarlDawson In reply to kil1k [2011-04-28 23:08:10 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I was kinda happy with that, too

👍: 0 ⏩: 0