Why make PHOTOS when you can MAKE a VIDEO??? 4k 120 fps 4096

File: raep.jpg (247KB, 699x557px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 699x557px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ0bXq18r1c

>>2889501
Is this marketing

Why bother eating a piece of fruit when you can make a smoothie?

>>2889501
>120 fps
we are not manchild

A video isn't encoded as 120 dslr-quality still frames in a second.

>>2889804

Also video has extremely limited options for shutter speeds, no flash sync, no aperture, and a video camera that shoots 4K @ 120 fps will be more expensive than a dslr by an order of magnitude.

1/180 is the slow end of flash sync, and the actual flash fires closer to 1/1000
You're not even close, so don't pretend.

File: SANIC.jpg (152KB, 1477x815px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1477x815px

dynamic range, tonal quality, better by-frame iso performance (bad ISO looks better in motion picture than still photo), portability, durability, ease of use, speed of use, smaller and cheaper lenses, battery life, inconspicuous, less expensive, better raw data editing, flash, longer history of excellent design (peaked in 80s), better weather resistance per dollar, better storage and battery techniques and prices.

there's probably a bit more, but that just about covers it.

>>2889901
oh, and funny fact: the 35mm format was first made to fit motion picture film, using motion picture glass, and now the format is coming back around to surpass motion picture cameras in some aspects.

>>2889908
>Super 35
>Apsc

more info.
in 5 years? 10 years? just need video camera are more cheap.
we dont nee 200 mpx to make a photo
we have toch the ceiling.
video is coming

>>2889501
>A video at 120 fps gives you the same effect of " freezing"
what did he mean by this?

File: 7474482_orig[1].jpg (117KB, 499x438px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 499x438px

>>2891912
a old video of 30 fps.. was shit. all blur if you try to take only a single pic

but if youn take a pic or frame of a video at 120 fps you get a freezing and nitide image
like a dslr.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa 3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Unique Image ID	deee31904c0c5e24ff635c173fffa2b7

>>2891925
No it wasn't. If you take a frame of a video at 30 FPS with a 15° shutter it'll be frozen as well.

FPS has nothing to do with shutter speed and freezing motion, especially in the digital age where you can have a virtual shutter angle of more than 360 degrees.

>>2891929
I'm talking about shutter speed, not how many degrees the shutter can open. Dumbass

>>2889512
this is just weird

>>2891935
>has no idea what a rotary disc shutter is
Shutter angle is the shutter speed, dumbass.

Why do I even try to explain to you monkeys why you're wrong?

>>2889501
>4k 120 fps 4096 × 3112 16 megapixel

4K is typically 3840x2160 = 8 MP.
4096x3112 = 12 MP.
What is math

>The shutter speed of the Flash is 1/125.

No. The impulse duration of a regular photo flash is typically around 0.5-2 ms (1/500 - 1/2000s), depending on type and power setting.

>Yes!! very expensive

A 4K/120 camera capable of raw uncompressed output is not just expensive, it's astronomically expensive.

>>2891929
To be fair, on cameras with continuous read-out and no physical shutter upping the FPS is often the only way to decrease motion blur. But then you typically sacrifice quality.

>>2889512
>that happy go lucky music
WTF
That just makes it creepy

>>2892179
This has never been the case in my experience. Any camera I've ever used that shoots video, even video specific cameras, allow you to set the exposure duration independently of the frame rate. I don't know why you ever wouldn't want that as an option.

>>2891925
You stupid fuck, framerate and shutter speed are 2 different things

>>2889501
Do you think I'm made of disk space or something?

>>2889808
>no flash sync
Continuous lighting you double nigger
>no aperture
nigga u high?

>>2892887
>Continuous lighting you double nigger

Terrible solution.

>nigga u high?

I think I might have been. I'm not really sure what I meant by that.

>>2889501
>Why make PHOTOS when you can MAKE a VIDEO???

This has to be the stupidest argument to get a video device.
There is nothing wrong with actually getting a video device, but this argument...

File: TQPDiXQ.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

photo is dead
video is the future

10 years? 15?
no problemm

year 2030

ey dude see my nikon D6969 have 5000Mp i can see atoms if i zoom the image

4k video gonna need a lot of harddrives to store that shit

File: 35.gif (222KB, 724x429px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 724x429px

>>2894193
nope! you are wrong!
1 minunte in 4k:: 375MB
1 minute 60 seconds. you can make 12 photos/videos in 4k

a RAW of 12 Megapixel 18MB
12 pics 216MB but you only have a single pic

if you work in video you have a PHOTO/VIDEO of 5 seconds... more info. more money in your pocket if you work of photograph

IS THE FUTURE DUDE!! BE THE FIRST!!!

people are buying monitors in 4k. mobile screens are 4k

in 2 or 3 years... all will be in 4k

you must start now!!! open your mind!!
dont make a single photo.
make a short video in 4k!!!
5 secons 10 seconds....
is a PLUS in your photos. can make a single pic but also can make a video..

come on dude. this is the moment!
internet is here. the paper is dead!
video. sounds. move!!!

Does the nikon d3200 shoot in 4k?

File: Epic_Optimo.jpg (372KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1500x1000px

>>2895881
d3200: 24.2 MP 4000x6000 pixels in photo
1080x1920 full hd in video mode
4k video 2160x3840

you can DO photos bigger than 4K but just a single photo. not a video.