My $900 HD camera smears still images. Alternatives?

Not familiar with that camera. Can you adjust any settings in video mode?

Basically the video stills are blurry because of shutter speed being too slow (for sharp stills, but this also help make video look more realistic).

If you can increase iso, this will decrease motion blur in video stills. It will also make the video look less "lifelike" when playing back in video mode.

It comes down to your goals. If your goal is coaching and critiqueinf form, etc, then you want sharp stills over beautiful video. If you are wanting the camera to make beautiful video, then you need to accept motion blur in your video stills.

I don't know of any camera that allows full manual control in autofocus mode. If you need autofocus mode, then iso probably is the only variable. Increase the iso to 400 or 800 and report back, I bet it solves your problem.

The Canon SLR have the best pictures. Video will never be the same as stills.

Video stills will never be sharp until you get into some really expensive equipment.

There are a few way camera collect still from video, but the basic way is to just select a frame from the video. Most good video cameras will record 30 frames per second. Essentially a still grabbed from this will have had a shutter speed of 1/30 second. Compare that to 1/1000 or so that you'd normally use for sports photos and you can see why it's blurred.

LOL! The $3k Blackmagic does the job beautimagicafantastically. Every frame at 30 fps is razor sharp. Google for it.

Others have explained why the individual frames are blurred, so I won't go into that.

You might have another option, depending on why you want sharp still.

Most new cameras have a burst mode. On your camera, it's called continuous. The specs say it's 12 frames per second. This would give you 12 sharp stills per second, assuming good light conditions. You could try that mode. If you want to catch the exact moment of footstrike, this might not be idea. If you just want to get a good still of your runner, this might be the way to go. It's better than a single still because you can choose the one you like.

My phone has the HD quality I need.

fisky wrote:

might not be *ideal*

Unless you're shooting with a $10,000 camera (RED for example or a 35mm film camera), your video is compressed (even HD) and is going to look compressed frame by frame. For every second, your camera has to record between 24 and 30 pictures (or even 60) so, frames aren't going to look as good as what a still camera shoots. Also, shutter speed, frame rate, gain, etc. all has an effect on the video. You might try adjusting the settings and you can probably get something that looks pretty decent but, on a $900 camera, they're probably not going to look as good as even an inexpensive point and shoot.

Shutter speed is fixed when recording video at 1/30 per second which means blurred images when filming moving objects. This actually contributes to the illusion of smooth movement when playing back video. Still images have adjustable shutter speed so to freeze a moving object you'd probably have at least a 1/500 shutter speed. Can't have it both ways. If you want perfectly frozen stills, take stills. If you want moving images, take video. It's not your particular camera. All cameras do this, cause that's the video standard.

Les wrote:

Shutter speed is fixed when recording video at 1/30 per second which means blurred images when filming moving objects. This actually contributes to the illusion of smooth movement when playing back video. Still images have adjustable shutter speed so to freeze a moving object you'd probably have at least a 1/500 shutter speed. Can't have it both ways. If you want perfectly frozen stills, take stills. If you want moving images, take video. It's not your particular camera. All cameras do this, cause that's the video standard.

This is a good explanation. The Panasonic FZ1000 has a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second in video mode. That means blurred images when the subject is moving. In still mode in bright light, the shutter speed can be as fast as 1/4000th of a second. These cameras adjust shutter speed and aperture automatically so you don't know the actual setting. It has a sports mode that would use a higher shutter speed to stop motion blurring.

I'd suggest you use the continuous mode to take your stills.

Sounds like this camera sucks. My $600 sony dslr allows me manual control of f stop, shutter, and iso when I turn off autofocus in video mode. This is nice if I want to eliminate motion blur for form analysis, etc. In autofocus, I can still adjust iso, can can still assure the camera can have a fast shutter if I want.

The op would probably be able to get what he wants with any of the newer dslr cameras although it adds a slight learning curve.

Sounds like this camera sucks. My $600 sony dslr allows me manual control of f stop, shutter, and iso when I turn off autofocus in video mode. This is nice if I want to eliminate motion blur for form analysis, etc. In autofocus, I can still adjust iso, can can still assure the camera can have a fast shutter if I want.

The op would probably be able to get what he wants with any of the newer dslr cameras although it adds a slight learning curve.

a wise man wrote:

Sounds like this camera sucks. My $600 sony dslr allows me manual control of f stop, shutter, and iso when I turn off autofocus in video mode. This is nice if I want to eliminate motion blur for form analysis, etc. In autofocus, I can still adjust iso, can can still assure the camera can have a fast shutter if I want.

The op would probably be able to get what he wants with any of the newer dslr cameras although it adds a slight learning curve.

You're talking about two different things. His camera taks fine photos. What he's trying to do is collect still images from video. Even your Sony Alpha can't do that better than his.

You have to have a vidcam with a still button feature that captures slides in addition to video. Look for it on smartphones and standalone cameras. Later this year LG and Samsung smartphones will have instant shutters that will freeze each video slide like a real camera does. But slides will only work if the light is very good.

It still only captures one frame of the video, likely with a shutter time of 1/30 second.

Read it wrote:

You have to have a vidcam with a still button feature that captures slides in addition to video. Look for it on smartphones and standalone cameras. Later this year LG and Samsung smartphones will have instant shutters that will freeze each video slide like a real camera does. But slides will only work if the light is very good.

The keyword is here is "global shutter" which traditionally has been a mechanical device that freezes the image for sucessive video frames.

Today the Sony F55 4K and Black Magic 4K has a CMOS chip that does the same as a mechanical global shutter, achieving 180 FPS with no skewing, jello, distortion, or banding.

The Sony F55 costs over $20,000 used.

The Black Magic is $2,500 new and uses Canon EF mount lenses (same as Canon DSLR). Each video frame is 8 megapixels.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=964119&gclid=CPXdu_q0ycACFeRj7Aod3HAAjQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details

The US is way behind Europe in fibre optic to the home.

How about GO PRO.

Canon has it.