I also wondered about having ND 8 and/or ND 16 filtering available in order to reduce video flickering due to oscillating prop shadows by using longer exposure times. This will "stretch out" the shadow phases. For longer exposure times according to the "180° shutter angle rule" it would also be technically possible to use lower or "negative" ISO values.I don't need them for thermal imaging but when filming video I am forced to use too fast shutter speeds. I have read the for best results it should be 24fps with a 60 shutter speed (closest to 2x the frame rate). Unless it is quite dark out, this is not possible.
I don't need them for thermal imaging but when filming video I am forced to use too fast shutter speeds. I have read the for best results it should be 24fps with a 60 shutter speed (closest to 2x the frame rate). Unless it is quite dark out, this is not possible.
I also wondered about having ND 8 and/or ND 16 filtering available in order to reduce video flickering due to oscillating prop shadows by using longer exposure times. This will "stretch out" the shadow phases. For longer exposure times according to the "180° shutter angle rule" it would also be technically possible to use lower or "negative" ISO values.
Maybe an "electronically induced ND filter" (like i.e. in the FX9 camera by Sony) will become a more common feature also for the smaller chipset cameras...
BTW the RGB camera of the Dual 640T is really great and powerful!
I have some very lightwighted ND filters for a Typhoon H CGO3+. Maybe there is a way to place it i.e. with a tiny ring of velcro...
I get your point. With longer exposure times I was thinking of prolonging them for video shootings i.e. from 1/2000 s (or even shorter in bright sunlit conditions) to 1/50 for PAL or 1/60 for NTSC respectively. For sportive action we use 1/100 s @ 25 fps or even 1/200 s @ 50 fps for 25p-slomos (PAL, Europe).Attempting to lower your shutter speed to what is potentially a very low number which will add undesirable softness to images is not a good solution not to mention for video you would be limited by the video's framerate meaning you wouldn't be able to go below 1/24s for shutter speed anyway.
I know that mathematically it would not exist, but there is a technique that is called "extended ISO" for going below (LO) or above (HI) the sensor's standard range which can be stretched even beyond the negative range. That is why I put "negative" in quotation marks in conjunction with ISO values. But technically (in terms of electronically) downgrading the sensitivity of a sensor would be no rocket science at all. Maybe the term "negative noise level" would be more appropriate in this context.As far as "negative" ISO values goes, there is no such thing.
Sony's "variable light barrier" ND filter is optical. The first time I used it with an FX9 I was reminded of the B787 (Dreamliner) dimmable windows. They use a gel, Sony maybe something more "sophisticated".None of the latest cameras from other makers have it; possibly due to production costs, Sony patents, or something else that we are not privy to.
I get your point. With longer exposure times I was thinking of prolonging them for video shootings i.e. from 1/2000 s (or even shorter in bright sunlit conditions) to 1/50 for PAL or 1/60 for NTSC respectively. For sportive action we use 1/100 s @ 25 fps or even 1/200 s @ 50 fps for 25p-slomos (PAL, Europe).
ND filters (smoked glass) were primary invented for getting rid of excessive light when ISO , F-number and ET are already at their limits. But "some" drones (like the Dual 640 T) do not have variable aperture, just a fixed f-number, so here ND filters are the "only help". (For cameras with variable aperture the ND filters are "the only way" to get stronger Bokeh effects though, in a given light situation.)
I know that mathematically it would not exist, but there is a technique that is called "extended ISO" for going below (LO) or above (HI) the sensor's standard range which can be stretched even beyond the negative range. That is why I put "negative" in quotation marks in conjunction with ISO values. But technically (in terms of electronically) downgrading the sensitivity of a sensor would be no rocket science at all. Maybe the term "negative noise level" would be more appropriate in this context.
Sony's "variable light barrier" ND filter is optical. The first time I used it with an FX9 I was reminded of the B787 (Dreamliner) dimmable windows. They use a gel, Sony maybe something more "sophisticated".
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.