The NEX VG20 does 60p so buy the body and alpha adapter and a cheaper Sigma lens. This will still come out under 20 grand or 2 grand American.

How "amateur", Rich? The new GoPro Hero2 would fit the bill...actually, way under the bill. I don't have version 2, which will reach 120fps, but I do have version 1 that shoots at 60fps, albeit at 720p.

Steve

120fps is not really fast enough even for sports slomo, 150fps is as slow as it gets to be usable.

What recording time, resolution and color rendition do you require?

The problem shooting high speed is that first you need a sensor that can be scanned quickly.
Next you need a way to record the data and here you get hit in two directions. Silicon might not be fast enough to encode the video so he raw data is written to a recording medium. That means lots of data being written quickly and that means expensive media. The big cost in the serious high speed cameras is the recording media.
Once you make the leap the cost of being able to shoot 150fps is the same as 500 or 1,000fps, there's no kind of middle ground sadly.
Of course you also loose a lot of light so fast lenses are required and that is again expensive.

Optronis do make a range of less expensive high speed cameras at a well, affordable price. Their cameras take Nikon lenses so you're not going to break the budget too badly buying PL mount lenses. I would take a long hard look at the image quality though. It's been a while since I looked at their cameras and I don't recall it being spectacular. Even the Phantom is not all that good, if you want breath taking high speed then the Weisscam HS-2 is the go, yummy, yummy images.



Worth watching in HD. Even with that camera the issues are soon apparent. As you need lots of light the DOF is shallow so getting it all in focus is problematic.

Bob.

The Hero2 is a great suggestion. I don't own one yet, but I've sure watched a lot of video and this camera appears to be capable of producing some amazingly good results.

As to whether 120 fps is fast enough, Bob knows a lot more than I do about that, since he's done it with both film and video. My only thought on this is that, if you start with at least 120 fps, you can actually use Twixtor (yes, I know you said you don't want to do that ...) and get really, really good results, rather than the somewhat botched look you get when you start with 1/4 that speed. In other words, Twixtor actually works pretty darned well when starting with 120 fps.

The 120fps is only available at WVGA resolution on the GoPro (848X480.) I second the Hero 2 as worth a look if SD is OK and your shots can work with the fixed field of views offered. I haven't shot slo-mo yet with mine, but have done several shoots the opposite way with time lapse at 1080, as well as standard frame rate. I haven't seen such bang per buck in a while when it comes to image quality in a cheap package.

Hadta dig to find this one but loved it when I first saw it two or three years ago. It was done with a Casio EX-F1, kinda grovels that at 240 fps I believe the resolution is only 448 x 336 but still pretty stunning imho. Looks like it'll go up to 1200 fps at 336x96. Don't know if there might be a newer version of the camera that may or may not do anything better then it did back then but may be worth checking out.

New York 2008

- Ray
Underground Planet

"As to whether 120 fps is fast enough, Bob knows a lot more than I do about that, since he's done it with both film and video"

I only have very limited hands on with any of this. 150fps is a very common figure though, Sony do a couple of camera systems aimed at the sports market with dual recording for fast slomo playback.

I did spend a lot of time on a slomo project for Coke that started with the agency talking about 5,000fps and I made them realise 400fps was what they wanted. I did some previz work by shooting 60p with my EX1 and then AE to slow it down. As I had predicted Coke looks like treacle or used engine oil slowed down. Probably talked myself out of a bit of money and a lot of fun on that job but meh, I can sleep well over it.

What I find frustrating here is a lot of people devote their time trying to give good advice based on very poor information. Something like the CX700's "golf shot" mode might meet the OP's needs or be way, way off the mark. 120fps might be just fine or not. If even an agency with big budget clients is clueless and took a lot of prodding to finally get them to reveal their expectations I really think it's vital for posters to more fully describe their expectations. At the end of the day any of the software tools might be the best solution, maybe the OP has rejected that solution for the wrong reasons, we don't know.

Bob.

Right, Bob. That's why I asked Rich how "amateur" he considers himself or the intended use. I have no idea. He does. Maybe a couple hundred US for a GoPro is good enough to clear the "amateur" bar and simultaneously get that coveted 120 fps. Want ND? Ergonomics? Higher bit rate? Um, look elsewhere.

Thanks to all that replied. Before posting my question to the forum, I researched Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Casio, and more. Many supported 60fps, but I wanted something faster and I wanted HD (720p or 1080p). I have the GoPro Hero 1 but the optics and IQ are poor (IMO) so I wasn’t considering the Hero 2 even with 120fps. GoPro upgraded the optics, maybe I should think about them again.

It is a moot point now, but I’ll answer a few questions that were asked. I am a “total amateur”, I only want to please myself. I don’t have a client to please. When I put a video on the web, I’d like to think someone out there is saying, “Hmmmm, not bad for an amateur”.

Regarding the 120fps, it was not a hard number. I want to slow down ocean waves, water drops, skateboarders, skiers, etc. My experience with 60fps played back at 30fps didn’t meet my expectations so I doubled my specification to 120fps.Yesterday using my Canon S100 P&S which shoots at 120fps, I was pleased with the results of shooting ocean waves, but the resolution is limited to 640x480 and the IQ is weak. In addition, I can’t control much (exposure etc.).

I see the GoPro Hero 2 shoots at 120fps at 848x480 which is 16:9. I think I’ll see if I can get hold of some raw footage, this might be my best solution for now.

Frame rates are increasing like CPU cycles (Moore’s Law), I think it is just a matter of 1-2 years before I get my wish. In the meantime, thanks to all that replied.

Rich

Don't give up on the 60p yet. Check this out:

http://vimeo.com/17439665

There are a lot of guys doing some pretty sweet slo mo with Twixtor and time remapping in after effects.

I'm pushing for 300 fps, then the 50 Hz world and the 60 Hz world can have a common standard for once.

Bob thanks for the Optronis link very cool. Man how are those images from Weisscam!!!!!

imho, 60p slowed down (to 15%) in a Sony Vegas Velocity envelope is not horrible. To my eyes, "Disable Resample" offers a significant visual improvement.

Obviously, tools like AviSynth/MVTools2 are a vast improvement (thanks, johnmeyer for alerting this forum to that tool). I'm aware the OP does not want this option.



...Jerry

"Man how are those images from Weisscam!!!!!"

There was one on a stand at the last SMPTE trade show in Sydney. I had a long chat with the owner who went to some length to explain how much better it was than the Phantom. I suggested he could loan the camera and a set of primes to me for a week in exchange for a glowing review but for some reason he saw right through my little scam.

I need to work on my poker face.

Bob.

I noticed that Stargate put a watermark on their video but I didn't see any credit for the music at the end. From a remark I heard by Andre Rieu I presume that Bolero is still in copyright.

"Obviously, tools like AviSynth/MVTools2 are a vast improvement (thanks, johnmeyer for alerting this forum to that tool)."

Jerry, can you share the script you used for this sample? Their instructions are designed to be read by programmers, and I retired from that profession 15-years ago.

"Jerry, can you share the script you used for this sample?Here 'tis:

loadplugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\mvtools2\mvtools2.dll") 



AVISource("C:\Users\Jerry\Documents\Vegas Projects\@DebugMode\frameserve.avi").Killaudio()



super = MSuper(pel=2)



backward_vec = MAnalyse(super, overlap=4, isb = true, search=3)

forward_vec = MAnalyse(super, overlap=4, isb = false, search=3)





MFlowFps(super, backward_vec, forward_vec, num=8*FramerateNumerator(last),den=FramerateDenominator(last))



assumefps(59.94)

...Jerry

Edit: The 8*FramerateNumerator(last) means 1/8 speed SloMo.

Again, thanks to all the replied and for the suggestions. I'm going to stick with what I have for now.

For those that might be interested, here is a 2.5 minute clip I put together with the Canon S100 P&S shotting at 120 fps. I am pleased with the results, only wish the camera had better optics (changable lenses) and more control (exposure).

No third party software was used, done entirely in VP11 with velocity envelop.

http://vimeo.com/36355764

Rich

"For those that might be interested, here is a 2.5 minute clip I put together with the Canon S100 P&S shotting at 120 fps. I am pleased with the results, only wish the camera had better optics (changable lenses) and more control (exposure).

1)None of it really said "slow motion" to me.
2)There's at least one really jerky pan.
3)The rolling credits have some nasty artifacts.

3) Is not your fault.
2) Is probably because of the way the camera controls exposure.
1) Problem I see is your audience's reference for slomo looks so much more spectacular, with higher fps you can almost freeze the waves and water droplets in the air. 120fps is fine for speed ramps of say people walking, for things like waves breaking where we don't have a good reference stored in our brains you probably need a higher fps to get the WOW factor working

Bob.