Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Will you choose a Still from Video in future?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  46104 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
3 Jan 2013 - 5:54 PM

I think the link in Jack's OP blows those comments out of the water - as I said above, the idea would not be to set out to make a video and grab some stills, but to use the video function photographically and take the best frame. The article also makes the valid comment that it does not replace the skills of a photographer but offers a different tool. When the Canon D30 was released its 3MP was considered by many to be equal in quality to all but the highest resolution film, so given a 4K (about 8MP) sensor video it will not be long before we have the same option at consumer level. What an option that would be.

Now if I could find a camera that used GPS and Google maps to guide me to the best angle for a great composition on a landscape that would be something Grin

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
3 Jan 2013 - 5:54 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KevSB
KevSB  101403 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
3 Jan 2013 - 6:22 PM

At some events I use purely video, But still send the Frame Captures for use in a Magazine, and they are published, not quite the qualty of stills but the magazine excepts them

User_Removed
3 Jan 2013 - 7:49 PM

It only suits certain photography. For example you can't do a one second exposure at f16. The longest you can open your shutter for is 1/24 of a second as then it's time to take the next image

User_Removed
3 Jan 2013 - 7:56 PM


Quote: Capturing fast movement needs perhaps 1/1000 second so 24fps would not be fast enough i guess this would be approx 1/30th sec ?

1/24s

You can still use fast shutter speeds like 1/200th of a second (shutter stays closed for remainder of frame time) but you can't go slower than 1/24s and maintain 24fps

duncan clarke
5 Jan 2013 - 9:10 PM


Quote: Capturing fast movement needs perhaps 1/1000 second so 24fps would not be fast enough i guess this would be approx 1/30th sec ?

1/24s

You can still use fast shutter speeds like 1/200th of a second (shutter stays closed for remainder of frame time) but you can't go slower than 1/24s and maintain 24fps

Actually, from what I've read (I don't do video) the practical limit for shutter speed is half the frame rate. As such, for 25fps (PAL) you can use 1/50s or faster.

The issues I would have with using this process are:

1) Quality - Video, as a moving medium looks best when the frames are smoothed in to each other. Leaving the shutter open for as long as possible to capture motion blur smooths the transition between the frames. This does not however create good still images.

2) Number of frames - Each shot, rather than a handful of images to sort through, will have hundreds. This is fine in terms of storage, but a nightmare in regards to the time you would need to check every image and assess the best to use.

3) Timing - When I shoot a frame, it is important that I capture it at the right time. I don't want it "about" there. I don't want it 1/12 of a second before and after. With high FPS, you can get close, but judging a single frame will get it right.

I can't see a good reason to use video unless you're talking about very specialist situations or for very lazy point and shoot snaps. OK for the masses who keep their camera set to full auto at all times, but if this is the case, expect the number of instagram images posted to be huge as these are also the people IME that post every shot they take rather than selecting the best.

mikehit
mikehit  46104 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2013 - 2:41 PM


Quote: Actually, from what I've read (I don't do video) the practical limit for shutter speed is half the frame rate.

That is if you do not want to compromise video quality - if you use a really fast shutter speed on video, the moving image becomes disjointed. But if your intention is to get a stills sequence, that does not matter.


Quote: I can't see a good reason to use video unless you're talking about very specialist situations or for very lazy point and shoot snaps.


People used to say the same thing about 35mm format when it was introduced (not good enough quality, apparently and why settle for something inferior), about AF, about zoom lenses ('move your feet for god's sake!'), and about digital (get it right in camera - in fact some still harp on about that).

User_Removed
6 Jan 2013 - 3:01 PM

Duncan I can remember early VHS camcorders that had a high speed shutter switch and the video produced when you turned that on didn't look smooth. When you hit pause you got a much clearer 'still'. You could analyse stuff in slow motion better too. They promoted it as being useful if you wanted to analayse your golf swing, diving style etc.

I really think that some sports photographers will move to video in the future to have their pick of the frames as the athlete jumps etc.

At the minute I'm not convinced. Next time you are watching some well-made high def stuff, eg an Attenbrough documentary, hit pause. IMO the picture doesn't look as nice as it does when it's moving, you start to notice various artefacts that you would hope to avoid when shooting normal stills.

duncan clarke
6 Jan 2013 - 8:08 PM


Quote: Actually, from what I've read (I don't do video) the practical limit for shutter speed is half the frame rate.
That is if you do not want to compromise video quality - if you use a really fast shutter speed on video, the moving image becomes disjointed. But if your intention is to get a stills sequence, that does not matter.

I was referring to the lower limit of shutter speed. You will not 1/24 sec shutter on a 24 fps video. That leaves no time for the shutter to open/close, to reset the CCD or to read/write the data. As you say 50% of the fps is the ideal speed for video, not sequence photos but it is still a fairly hard limit on how long you can keep the shutter open.


Quote: I can't see a good reason to use video unless you're talking about very specialist situations or for very lazy point and shoot snaps.

People used to say the same thing about 35mm format when it was introduced (not good enough quality, apparently and why settle for something inferior), about AF, about zoom lenses ('move your feet for god's sake!'), and about digital (get it right in camera - in fact some still harp on about that).

Each of the above are compromises, as is the suggested option. However, some are better than others. For example:

35mm - weight & cost are a HUGE benefit. However, for top quality MF or even LF are still used. You could go one further and say who needs an SLR when an iPhone is good enough? It's all about your personal balance of the benefits. Most snappers are closer to the iPhone than the SLR. Does that mean that we should all use iPhone?

AF - speed, ease of use. For most situations, this is of benefit. However, having had a lens that was stuck in AF mode, I REALLY feel that the assumption that it is "better" is ridiculous. At my level I would rather have a lens/camera stuck in MF than AF. Again, using the iPhone one thing that really bugs me is not being able to focus it on what I want to.

Zoom - quality vs composition flexibility. Moving closer with a prime is NOT the same as using a zoom. The composition does change with the focal length. Foreshortening on a longer focal length can not be replicated by moving your PoV. Also, shooting moving objects and being able to change the FoV on hte fly is absolutely imperative in many situations. The loss of quality associated in using zoom vs prime may be noticable in some cases, but the "move your feet" argument is a strawman.

Digital (I assume you are referring to post processing) - again, a strawman as film also uses post processing to get the best out of the images. The reason that this is still an issue ("still harping on") is that you really can't replicate DoF, motion blur, colour accuracy, blown highlights etc in software. Some things can be improved in post, but really it is not only more efficient to get it right in camera but it is better because post is there to tweak an image, not draw it.

The point here is that for the majority of happy snappers, all of the above are worth the compromise. This is partially because of convenience, part ignorance, part laziness (or more fairly, not interested in spending hours taking a single image). None of them however should be considered to be the natural choice for all photographers, or for all situations. There is still a place for a Medium format, manual focus, prime lens with chemical (or no) post processing. This is not due to being a luddite, but using the appropriate tools for the job. 24 fps still shooting will benefit most who are willing to compromise the quality for the convenience, but not me, and I feel, not for others who don't need this facility.


Quote: Duncan I can remember early VHS camcorders that had a high speed shutter switch and the video produced when you turned that on didn't look smooth. When you hit pause you got a much clearer 'still'. You could analyse stuff in slow motion better too. They promoted it as being useful if you wanted to analayse your golf swing, diving style etc.

I really think that some sports photographers will move to video in the future to have their pick of the frames as the athlete jumps etc.

At the minute I'm not convinced. Next time you are watching some well-made high def stuff, eg an Attenbrough documentary, hit pause. IMO the picture doesn't look as nice as it does when it's moving, you start to notice various artefacts that you would hope to avoid when shooting normal stills.

Of course, I had not considered the compression issues. To get 4K at 24 fps you are going to need a lot more lossy compression than you would ever see in a RAW file of the same resolution. As I said, it would make sense for some situations where quality (and part of that being the timing) are of less importance but for me I can't really see it being something that would benefit my photography.

As for the sports photography, it really depends on the sport and your experience. For the sports I shoot, I know exactly at which point I want the shot so I shoot one frame at that point. I have tried using sequences only to be very disappointed when the frames are fractionally too early or late for the best shot. There will obviously be many situations where this tool will be a huge benefit, but not for the photography I do. That I believe was the original question - whether I see myself using it. Majority yes, me no. Much like how most use compact/phone cameras where I carry 20kg odd of camera gear...

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.