My Canon S3 IS is a 6.2 megapixel camera with a 1/2.5" CCD sensor.
I am wondering if the video mode of 640x480 at 30 frames per second can translate into megapixels?
I hope the question is clear enough. Thanks for the info in advance.
Tom
videomode = what in megapixels?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Thomas Ashcraft
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:56 am
- Contact:
-
Mike B in OKlahoma
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: Oklahoma City
If I understand your question correctly, 640 * 480 = 307,000 pixels in each frame. 30 frames per second would go to 9,216,000 pixels per second. So you'd have about .3 megapixels in each frame, and about 9.2 megapixels per second of video. I don't know anything about video, but I'm not sure where the figure matters.
Sorry if I've totally misunderstood what you are asking!
Sorry if I've totally misunderstood what you are asking!
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Mike's numbers are correct.
The bottom line is that each video frame contains a lot less detail than a still image would, shot at full camera resolution -- and presuming that the optics are good enough to present such detail to the camera to be captured.
In exchange, you get motion.
Gerd's technique of shooting some of each seems like a great way to cover the bases.
Tom, what are you thinking when you ask the question?
--Rik
The bottom line is that each video frame contains a lot less detail than a still image would, shot at full camera resolution -- and presuming that the optics are good enough to present such detail to the camera to be captured.
In exchange, you get motion.
Gerd's technique of shooting some of each seems like a great way to cover the bases.
Tom, what are you thinking when you ask the question?
--Rik
-
Thomas Ashcraft
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:56 am
- Contact:
Mike, Rik,
Thanks for doing that math. I was just pondering the parameters and limitations of my camera and the possibilities of the video medium.
Previously I was using a Logitech quickcam as my microscope camera and it is a 1.3 megapixel camera that shoots at a smaller frame size.
Interestingly, in my present 640 x 480 videos I can expand the viewing area to fit my full 17" monitor and they don't pixelate too bad. That's kind of useful to get a little more info out of the protozoans sometimes.
Tom
Thanks for doing that math. I was just pondering the parameters and limitations of my camera and the possibilities of the video medium.
Previously I was using a Logitech quickcam as my microscope camera and it is a 1.3 megapixel camera that shoots at a smaller frame size.
Interestingly, in my present 640 x 480 videos I can expand the viewing area to fit my full 17" monitor and they don't pixelate too bad. That's kind of useful to get a little more info out of the protozoans sometimes.
Tom