Pro Golfer Swing Videos

[safetrip]

The 240 fps quality is not that bad looking from the videos I have seen. I would like to see what it looks like capturing a club traveling 85-100 mph though. Would it be possible/better to shoot the swing at 1080p 60fps and then slow it down using software? I have only seen my swing on a cell phone video camera so I am excited to for some quality video of it. Is the TMO guy still doing swing analysis? I have watched all of the posted videos and really enjoy them.

I don't think 60fps will help you even in 1080p if you want to see where your club head/shaft is going at impact. If you do the math, at 100mph club head travels about 146 feet per second. Now at 60fps, each fame captures about 16 msec of time. That means one fame will cover the club head moving about 2.4 feet at impact. Even at best exposure, your club head will look like 2.4 feet long blurry line on the picture. At 240fps, on the other hand the frame has to cover only 0.6 feet so the club head and shaft will be much clearer.

BTW, using same math, if you have a high speed still images of your golf swing from the frontal view, you can calculate the club head speed at impact. Just take two frames around the impact and measure how far the club traveled between those frames. Multiply that number to fps will give you the club head speed per second.

[safetrip]

It' Sanyo FH1, I think it is 448x336. It works great for me. The 600 FPS is really tiny and virtually unusable, but the 240 is awesome. Also, the Full HD at 60 FPS is sweet!

That's great! Now I'm really praying to Santa.

[zenchili]

I don't think 60fps will help you even in 1080p if you want to see where your club head/shaft is going at impact. If you do the math, at 100mph club head travels about 146 feet per second. Now at 60fps, each fame captures about 16 msec of time. That means one fame will cover the club head moving about 2.4 feet at impact. Even at best exposure, your club head will look like 2.4 feet long blurry line on the picture. At 240fps, on the other hand the frame has to cover only 0.6 feet so the club head and shaft will be much clearer.

True. I tried this today and yes the club head was blurry. 240 FPS is the way to go. And I actually just use another setting for full speed. The BGA setting at 30 fps gives me good enough video for your basic analysis and a goof file size. Higher definition doesn't really do much more for analysis. Between the VGA and 240 FPS mode I get all of the analysis I need.

[iacas]

I don't think 60fps will help you even in 1080p if you want to see where your club head/shaft is going at impact.

Sure it will. Download this and step through it frame by frame.

http://iacas.org/asm/fimgs/60fps.mov

That means one fame will cover the club head moving about 2.4 feet at impact.

For one, that's instantaneous clubhead velocity, so the club won't move that much except for a very short amount of time (near impact).

Second, shutter speed isn't the same as the time between frames, so in good light the shutter speed is often 1/4000th or 1/8000th of a second. No blurring.

Even at best exposure, your club head will look like 2.4 feet long blurry line on the picture.

Wrong. Again, shutter speed isn't the same. Simple mistake to make though if you don't understand how cameras work.

[zenchili]

Sure it will. Download this and step through it frame by frame.

I must not have had very good light when I tried the 60 FPS at HD level. Thanks for the info.

[Rukus43]

What do you think the clubhead speed is at impact in the video iacas linked? 100mph? Just curious, he seems to have a powerful swing. So IF the clubhead is traveling ~100mph then at impact it looks like it is traveling about 2-2.5ft or so between frames right before impact. I think your math logic is sound.

[safetrip]

Sure it will. Download this and step through it frame by frame.

My version of quicktime doesn't let me download this so I can't comment on the video yet but what kind of camera did you use for this? If what you say is true, could this have been shot with still camera on burst mode? All the video cameras that I used for golf swing always gave blurry impact even with my super slow swing speed. I hope you are not confusing exposure time of still camera to that of video. There could be a special video camera that gives you 1/4000th or 1/8000th exposure at 30fps but most consumer level video cameras that I know in 30-60 fps operate at no more than 1/60. The reason is that unlike still photography, you need certain amount of blurring when the image is moving fast to have a smooth transition. Otherwise the video looks a little jerky. That is why a normal flim camera has 24fps but the exposure is 1/48. Most consumer level video camera's don't usually give you option of changing exposure. The only way you can have faster exposure time is putting it on hi speed mode. Just look at those swing videos again. Pause near the impact. You definitely see the blurring of club head even at 240fps. If the exposure was 1/8000, you won't see any blurring. As a matter of fact, 1/4000 is pretty fast even for a still camera. My canon elph only goes down to 1/1500. You'll need to get an expensive SLR to get to 1/4000 or 1/8000. Yes, technically, impact swing speed is at impact only. But I'd argue that since you are still accelerating through the impact, the swing speed just before the impact will be a little bit lower and the swing speed after the impact will be a little higher. So if you average out the swing speed just before and after impact, this will give you pretty good estimate of swing speed at impact. By looking at two frames just before/after impact, you are doing that average. I'm guessing that if you are looking at the frames within +-1 feet from impact, that will give you fairly good estimate.

[iacas]

My version of quicktime doesn't let me download

I'm certain that your browser does. Just download the URL. Don't load it in your browser - download it.

this so I can't comment on the video yet but what kind of camera did you use for this? If what you say is true, could this have been shot with still camera on burst mode?

The Zi6. It's a hundred bucks.

There could be a special video camera that gives you 1/4000th or 1/8000th exposure at 30fps but most consumer level video cameras that I know in 30-60 fps operate at no more than 1/60.

That's not correct at all.

And I'm not suggesting that the Zi6 does 1/4000th (let alone 1/8000th), but it's a ton faster than 1/60th. I'll do the math in a bit.

The reason is that unlike still photography, you need certain amount of blurring when the image is moving fast to have a smooth transition. Otherwise the video looks a little jerky. That is why a normal flim camera has 24fps but the exposure is 1/48. Most consumer level video camera's don't usually give you option of changing exposure. The only way you can have faster exposure time is putting it on hi speed mode.

I've done a lot of work in digital video through the years, and that's not correct at all. Now, a lot of the $150 cameras don't let you

control shutter speed, but once you hit $250 or so they often, often, and they'll go to 1/500th at a minimum. I looked up several camcorders under $750 at various sites and they almost all did (including the ones that were $279). The ones that didn't let you specify a shutter speed were probably like the Zi6 and just set faster shutter speeds automatically (under $250, most camcorders are of the "simpler is better, minimal controls" variety).

Just look at those swing videos again. Pause near the impact. You definitely see the blurring of club head even at 240fps. If the exposure was 1/8000, you won't see any blurring.

And look at the video I shot. You said you'd see a 2.4 foot blur of the club, yet you clearly don't. Look at the image below and the ball isn't even blurred for a foot. If this was 150 MPH of ball speed, 4" of blur would equate to a shutter speed of roughly 0.0015 sec, or faster than 1/600th of a second.

As a matter of fact, 1/4000 is pretty fast even for a still camera. My canon elph only goes down to 1/1500. You'll need to get an expensive SLR to get to 1/4000 or 1/8000.

You can spend $500 and get this. Even my Canon SD550 did 1/2000th and that camera's four or five years old.

[iacas]

And look at the video I shot. You said you'd see a 2.4 foot blur of the club, yet you clearly don't. Look at the image below and the ball isn't even blurred for a foot. If this was 150 MPH of ball speed, 4" of blur would equate to a shutter speed of roughly 0.0015 sec, or faster than 1/600th of a second.

I take that back. I measured in Photoshop and the ball blur is nowhere near four inches. It's not even four inches total, and that would include the front to the back of the ball. Call it two inches, and double everything: now it's 1/1250th of a second or perhaps 1/1500th.