Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I saw this link a few days back and it suggests that in time many photographers may in some cases choose to shoot video instead of stills as it got 24 frames each second to choose the best from.
Its based on the EOS 1Dc camera having 4K resolution images available available from each frame.
Whilst mostly not relevant for flash style shooting, it could be great for wildlife and wedding etc.
Might you see yourself in 10 years shooting videos and then selecting/processing the best frames instead of shooting stills.
As a hobbyist part of the fun is actually getting the right moment in camera, but for paid work at one-off events a 24fps stream maybe a more reliable method of nailing that shot?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
No, not for me.
Its irrelevant for my style and approach to photography.
It may be appealing and a convenient form of capture for many though.
I've never been a fan of video so not for me either.
I have been doing video as well as stills for years (about 50/50). One of the issues with video, even 4K video, is shutter speed. What is an ideal speed for video may not be ideal for a still photo.
But I'd certainly be interested to experiment!
I think this is an obvious development (I've been saying for years that it will happen). Many video-capable DSLR/MFTs allow you to take a still while shooting but this interrupts the video for about a second - the next logical step is to permit ununterrupted video and from there take stills from video.
Quote: It may be appealing and a convenient form of capture for many though.
That's the sort of comment that film-addicts make about digital or medium format bods say about 35mm ("it makes me slow down and think") - the practical side is that when video stills get the quality that 3MP cameras achieved in 2000, it will become a popular way to take pictures.
We have already seen discussions in this board when a professoinal said they bought a Nikon 800 and don't bother taking portrait-orientation shots because he can use the high resolution to shoot in landscape format and crop and still get high quality images. Some called it lazy, some called it 'unprofessoinal attitude' - the fact is that when he presents the final image I doubt anyone can tell.
I don't understand the point you are making Mike. Are you disputing that stills from video might be appealing to some or even convenient for others or are you agreeing with me?
Sorry, John - I quoted the wrong comment!
Not only will stills from video will be very appealing to many people, I think many who currently poo-poo the idea will also come to use it - after all, there is no practical difference between 20-frame-a-second stills (achievable by an inceasing number of mirrorless cameras) and continual video so the option would be appealing as long as the price differential is not too high: I am thinking of action/wildlife photographers who like high frame rates or at a wedding where you want to catch at least one frame where no-one is blinking.
So one questions is: with mirrorless designs, are we there already?
I wouldn't see the point of taking video if what you want is stills.
Seems a bit lunatic to me.
However, if you want video, but you'd like some stills as well, then I've already done that. It's the only way of doing both at once.
If cameras generally improve, then you do have the option of having your cake and eating, getting your video clips, and being able to select some stills afterwards. My frames aren't really that good for stills at the moment.
But again, if you really want stills, there is usually no point in amassing video files and then ploughing through the frames afterwards.
The exception might be if you concentrated on fast action sports, or something of that nature, but I'm not sure it would be the best method then. Especially bearing in mind the comment from CB re shutter speeds. I am new enough to video that I still get confused on that point, but it fits with what I think I know.
I agree with Keith. If you shoot some video you might want to grab some stills at some point, but if you mainly want photographs, you will shoot stills.
Photography is one thing, film making is another. They can mix, obviously, but they are different techniques and skills. I'm not sure many photographers would seriously look at video as a way to shoot
I read Jack's OP as using video mode as a high-speed frame rate (not as selecting the best from from a sequence that was created as a video in itself). In that respect video tehcnique vs still technique is not relevant.
I'm not sure many photographers would seriously look at video as a way to shoot
To repeat my questions above, what is the difference between shooting video and shooting stills at 10 fps (or more ifyour camera can do it)?
I hadn't really though about shutter speed in the OP. But landscapes at small apertures could mean 2 frames per second;
Capturing fast movement needs perhaps 1/1000 second so 24fps would not be fast enough i guess this would be approx 1/30th sec ?
So slow moving subjects are also a requirement for this to be practical, until high speed video camera's are available.
To repeat my questions above, what is the difference between shooting video and shooting stills at 10 fps (or more if your camera can do it)?
Whilst not always the case, generally video is used to capture something moving, or you are panning/zooming the frame to get movement. Still photography is the still frame, so to me it would seem a little pointless in capturing video footage of something you wanted a still frame from. Obviously there would be events like motorsports where you might want to grab a frame, but in reality if you wanted a 'better' shot you would set up the camera for that (aperture, shutter speed, iso, etc) to create the desired exposure and depth of field.
While it can be argued that a still or video frame might look the same, generally they are recorded differently (at least if you compare a good quality photograph and video footage)
I am guessing that video would have little use in landscape photography with small apertures because there would be no benefit - if you panned on a landscape the image would be blurred and you would never get a viable single frame.
High shutter speed and '24fps frame rate' are not mutually exclusive - there are other factors such as buffer capacity, write speeds to the card and (on moving-mirror DSLR) time to move the mirror out of the way: even at a shutter speed of 1/4000 sec my 7D is limited to 9fps in RAW, the pellicle mirror Sony cameras are similar and mirrorless MFTs are not much better. Shooting in JPEG helps sustained high rates for DSLRs, and enables higher frame rates in MFTs.
I recall recently reading a comment about how the recording rate and playbeck rate can be quite different: if I recall correctly the recording rate was measured in hundreds of fps, but the playback rate (the one that I quoted because that is what matters) was 24 fps, 30 fps or whatever. It was the first time I had seen that mentioned but perhaps that is the important factor.
Quote: they are recorded differently
Are you referring to the way the photographer uses the camera or the way the technology creates the image?
By the way the photographer (or videographer) uses the camera and frames a scene. If you pause a film, it doesnt quite have the same punch as it did while it was playing (usually), while the production stills normally have a lot more depth to them
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar