Multiple exposure?

Probably not going to be fast enough to do something like that, on burst I believe the 5d mk2 is something like 3-4 fps, the player would be moving too fast to be able to capture it, but you can try. You'll want to put the camera in burst mode and then take the pictures from a tripod and then morph them together using photoshop.

 

For something fast moving like Kobe you're probably gonna need like.. 8fps.

 

Personally, I don't know of any digital cameras that will record multiple exposures onto one file.

That said, while the 5d mark II may not do more than 3-4 fps (I don't know what the spec is, just going from the above), that's a limitation on the buffer, not the actuation of the mirror. In other words, 3 fps doesn't mean that each frame is 1/3 of a second apart. It just means that the buffer can't write more information than 3 times the max file size in one second. I'd imagine you can burst much quicker than one exposure each 1/3 or 1/4 second.

Edit: to get a photo like the one you posted, I suspect the limitation will be your flash, not your camera body.

 

The shot above doesn't look like it used flash. I think brighter lens and higher ISO will do. I would also be surprised if they allow journalist or photographers to use flash from that angle, which will likely interfere with their games.

 

I disagree. Given everyone else in the photo, I imagine that wasn't taken during a game.

That aside, there's no way I can think of to get full exposure on the subject (Kobe moving fast) AND full exposure on the background without a flash.

 

I could be wrong, but it did seem like the shot was taken with high speed burst mode, possibly 8fps and I just can't imagine the flash can accommodate that type of speed. You are right that it wasn't shot during the game. You also mentioned in your prior post that you see the only bottleneck to taking this is the flash, not the camera itself.

With how bright these places are, it just doesn't appear to me a need for a flash if you use ISO 800 or 1600 (can't tell with pic posted) and have a fast lens, perhaps a 24mm 1.4.

 

Another thing I want to point out is this is not too difficult to achieve, especially with wide angle lenses. The impact of wide angle vs telephoto is very different, wide angle provides you with much longer depth of field, with wide open aperture on telephoto will give you very narrow depth of field. I am no expert on sports photography, but just quickly going through Fredmiranda and took a few pictures taken by someone else to illustrate my point. The photographer mentioned that he used 5d2, with 135mm, 50, and 17-40mm lenses. The upper left picture i would assume is the 135mm, while upper right is taken with 17-40. You can see the depth of field difference for the two pics. Bottom picture is essentially the same as the original post, combining multiple shots into the same picture.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You also have to consider the 17-40 is an f4 while the 135 is a f2 and the 50 either a f1.8,1.4 or 1.2. I still don't see you can capture the ball that many time with only 3-4 fps. If you think about it a free throw takes around 1 second from leaving your hands to the rim. That would leave a max of 4 shots taken in that time, so I would have to assume the photographer used a much faster camera.

 

It feels that way to me as well. However, that is what is stated in his thread. I agree the 135 and the 17-40 have different f-values, but I think in general, it is much more difficult to get long depth of field on a telephoto as compared to the wide angles. I will try to find something I read elsewhere on the logic behind this.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/824778

Quote from the link:

Haven't shot much sport for a while, but it's good to be back into it despite the crappy dark fluorescent lighting in sports halls! Thoughts and feedback appreciated as always. This was all shot on the 5DII with 135L, 50 1.4 and 17-40L

 

Got this from Google search, probably photography 101. # 3 is what I am referring to.


There are three variables that affect DOF, the size of the Aperture, the distance to the object and what lens you’re using. (There is a fourth thing that affects the DOF, but that’s the size of the sensor and unless you have two cameras with different sensor sizes this isn’t something to take into account.)

1. As you can see in the illustration above, a lower f-number equals a shorter depth of field. A higher f-number will give you focus over a longer distance — when you’re having a hard time getting the correct focus it might be a good idea to extend your DOF by changing the aperture.

2. The distance between you and the object is also important, the closer you are to the object the shorter the DOF. If you’re photographing a person but needs to have a high f-number you can still get a very short DOF by keeping the distance between you and the person to a minimum.

3. The last thing you can do to affect your DOF is to change the lens. A wide-angle lens has a much greater DOF than a telephoto lens; the most extreme wide-angle and fish-eye lenses don’t even have to focus because they are so sharp on every aperture for the entire DOF (making for excellent scenic shots).

http://www.tutorial9.net/photography/depth-of-field-in-photography/

 

Absolutely the telephotos are going to create a smaller DOF, but I'm saying they are going to be a little closer with the same f-numbers.

Check this out,
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Calculates the dof depending on lens and aperture, interesting to play with.

 

Very interesting website, thanks for sharing. Never viewed photography from this technical of an aspect. So was choosing my setup.... 1D Mk2>17mm>f4, 11 ft distance to subject = infinite depth of field.... didn't know it goes that far.

 

Btw Chris, very nice photography website you have there in your profile.

 

That's cool, in photoshop did you just duplicate layers and take everything out except the basketball in each one? never tried this -_-

 

Sorry, I did not take those pics as I stated in my post. One of my colleague however did something similar, and he told me it is to combine the layers on photo shop. I agree it is a real cool. Below is another picthat I found on the internet which is also pretty cool. I would love to try and take one of these some day.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's one of the coolest photos I've seen in a long time.

 

As far as I know, that's exactly what it means. You can take 4 shots in one second. Whether you take 4 shots at 1/500 or 1/4, it's only 4 shots.

 

That's what I said.

4 frames maximum in one second, but that doesn't mean there is a 1/4 second delay between frames.

The buffer holds a certain amount, say: 100MB, and the files are a certain size, say 25MB, and the buffer feeds information to the memory card at a certain rate, say 100MB/sec.

I can take four 25MB files, at which point the buffer is filled and the camera won't allow any more shots until it has cleared, which takes a second.

I believe that's the functional limitation.

 

I can lock the film in my SLR and take as many exposures on it as I like.

What digital Nikon does that? And what's it doing? Is it using its build in "HDR" function to merge two frames together? What happens if they are completely different looking?

(Sorry if you don't know the answers, but I'm super curious about what algorithm would allow the camera to write multiple exposures to one file).

 

My Nikon d300 will do it. So will the d3 and d700.

 

My old film 35mm Canon 1N could do it, tried years ago but the result came up to be pretty lousy because of over exposure. I do not think you can easily do that without lots of experiments, if it can really be done successfully. If for example 3-4 shots are taken on the same film, then the moving object is blurry (due to too short of the exposure), and if exposed too long to try and capture the moving object, then background would be over exposed. Since it was film, I tried a few times and didn't think it was worth the hassle, but was fun. My newer 1D Mk2 however doesn't have the function. I would think it is a lot easier to do this via Photoshop instead of having the same picture exposed multiple times. I have to try this again one of these weekends.