Have you ever paused video playback and was disappointed at seeing motion blur? Why not set shutter speed fast enough to remedy the motion blur you say? Well that's fine for still frames but people complain of weird unnatural looking motion when there is no motion blur since standard frame rates are no where near fast enough to mesh well with human persistence of vision. Instead of compromising one way or the other, my dual system simultaneously saves stills with minimal motion blur along with the video frames. During playback, pausing the video will give you the still version so you can see with pleasure.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 35 minutes later[^][v]#1,265,610
That sounds cool. Only problem is your video files are going to be basically double the size, probably more, since the still frames will need to be contain more high frequency detail, and will thus be less lossy compressible than the video frames.
Your camera will also have to record at least 240fps to capture frames with minimal motion blur.
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,265,629
@1,265,610 (B)
ahh you see, the video frames can be shot with normal shutter speed which gives the natural looking motion blur that people seem to prefer for video, which mitigates the need for a huge frame rate. the coincident still frames provide the lower motion blur for paused video viewing.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,265,649
How will you split the incoming image while maintaining quality? Or will you have two lenses and not care about one image being at a very slightly different angle to the other?