[Anthony]

I am trying to provide numbers which make sense and are usable.

for photos, which is a single frame, I set the camera at its minimum delay interval then start a timer and provide constant motion. The camera will snap away for say 60 seconds. I then simply subtract the time stamps I capture from each other and call this "Photo Recovery Time". seems straight forward. what this means to me is "How fast can the camera snap photos when constant motion is present".

Now for video.... Suppose a camera's smallest video clip is 5s and its smallest delay interval is 5s. So when I provide constant motion I will capture a series of video clips each with a time stamp captured as the first frame.

What I have done thus far is substract a clips time stamp from the subsequent one over and over and study this. If consistent I will average the differences and report this.

What I am reporting then is the time elapsed from frame 1 of a clip and frame 1 of the following clip.

So, in my example above, lets say the video trigger time was 1s, it records 5s, then delays for 5s, then has some overhead of 1.5s. I might report that the Video recovery is 12.5s (If this was actually the difference in the time stamps records on frame 1).

However, if we already know that there is a trigger time and a record time and a delay time, would we rather (for video) see only the overhead of 1.5s? and then report the video recovery as 1.5s ?

I don't even know if I can be this precise.

Suppose I compute this number 12.5s but I know the record time was 5s and the interval was 5s. I could subtract 10s from 12.5s and report 2.5s.

I need your thoughts on what would be most useful for you. I have the results but I want to make sure it is useful data.

your thoughts ?

[LibbyLA]

I don't use video that much, but for me, knowing the length of the video and the time from the start of one video to the next would make sense. That would tell me how fast I could expect the camera to respond. It doesn't really matter to me what the breakdown of that time is.

But my opinion is much less important than that of the guys who use video a lot.

[Anthony]

So it seems I may have an answer... People do not need Video Recovery time....

[Roscoe]

I think it's an important element.

[johnnydeerhunter]

I would say recovery time is the time from the end of one video to the beginning of the next. This may change with video length and time to save and could make reporting this number difficult

[Anthony]

John,

I like your idea. Take the time stamp on the first frame of clip X and subtract the time frame on the last frame of clip X-1.

call this the recovery time.

[red sled]

Just yesterday I was studying the video recovery time of one of my cameras. I was comparing the time stamp from the end of one video to the beginning time stamp of the next video. It would appear simpler with less calculations, but perhaps my method is flawed. I record video about 90% of the time vs photos.

[Anthony]

Update: I recomputed all video recovery times for this year and updated the reviews based on this discussion. for some reason I like the previous style which tells me how fast I will get a video at best, instead now it tells me "down time" between videos. Either will work I suppose.