Amateur photographer to have a 4k video still on its cover

JohnN

JohnN

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Funnily enough I was only discussing yesterday the possibly of using stills from 4k video, then I see a story on that very topic.

Apparently it will offer up a 8meg image which while not huge is still useful enough.

What's also amazing to me is that the technology is here and readily available, they used the Panasonic GH4 but if rumours are true Olympus will be adding 4k to the EM1 in a few days via firmware!

Here's the link
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...-its-first-ever-cover-image-on-4k-video-33704
 
Last edited:
Not again.....


LOL
 
That it's crazy to suggest that it will replace still photography any time in the foreseeable future, and probably not even beyond that... as discussed at length in the other thread.
 
Ah, I did a search, but not as far back as July - still if this article proves just one thing its that 4K can produce an image that is suitable for a magazine cover.

I think the speed at which technology is moving it will become a reality and not in the distant future but now - if you take a quick look at 4K you'll see its not really that new a technology but went mainstream in 2013 - 8K is due for release in 2017 with a resolution of 7680x4320, so is 33.2 megapixels enough?

Okay thats just resolution and theres much more to an image than that - but if you actually watched the video on their page you'd have seen they basically did a photoshoot, but instead of snapping they filmed, now I would imagine getting the exact frame might be tedious but theres no denying that they got the shot.

Now managing file sizes could be fun and currently the frame capture rate will be too slow for any sort of action, but thats where technology advancements come in - and it wont just be the big studios that can afford it either after all look at the work GoPro did mimicking bullet time from the Matrix - even with just one and a ceiling fan :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff on that other thread BTW - just a shame that despite all the well reasoned (and the just plain - it'll never happen naysayers that thought Babbage was a fool) arguments they still have produced a magazine cover from a 4K still.
 
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, or indeed would want to. They only did it to make a point, but I'm left wondering what the point is.

No raw, so limited processing options. Compressed lossy format. impossible to use long shutter speeds. 8MP is still pretty crappy. Even as little as 10 minutes of 4K video would require huge amounts of storage. You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame.

If you want a still image... why not just take a still image? It's useful if you want a still from what was otherwise a video production, sure, but it will not replace still photography simply because it's not still photography and can't do all of the things still photography can, and it would be just as silly to suggest that if anyone released a DSLR that can shoot at 24fps, it would therefore replace video cameras. It wouldn't.
 
It will happen. 8k is what we really want for high res, but even 4k is more than plenty for a4 magazine. I couldn't care less about another convention being broken as long as my EF collection doesn't become obsoleted by mirrorles EVIL
 
I have to say I agree with much of what you say - certainly the storage and time taken to track down just the right image would be a pain.

Now I'm not really interested in video so don't know that much - but weren't magic lantern doing some work on raw video and direct streaming to media - which at least helps with the storage issue.

As to why use video, I can see why - imagine if that shot from the Olympics with the lightning strike had been just half a second later, with streaming video of suitable quality that would never have been missed.

BTW David - I see now why you said "not again..." ;)
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
It will happen. 8k is what we really want for high res, but even 4k is more than plenty for a4 magazine. I couldn't care less about another convention being broken as long as my EF collection doesn't become obsoleted by mirrorles EVIL
Click to expand...
lol, sorry - I've a decent DSLR and have been playing with an O-MD - sure its not as good, but its not that far off - certainly I'd say it was up to my old 500D and better in parts, so again just a matter of time.
 
For web use, frames from HD video are frequently used. So this seems a logical progression.
Why would you want to? Because if you were filming when a particular moment happened, you will likely have the shot.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, or indeed would want to. They only did it to make a point, but I'm left wondering what the point is.

No raw, so limited processing options. Compressed lossy format. impossible to use long shutter speeds. 8MP is still pretty crappy. Even as little as 10 minutes of 4K video would require huge amounts of storage. You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame.

If you want a still image... why not just take a still image? It's useful if you want a still from what was otherwise a video production, sure, but it will not replace still photography simply because it's not still photography and can't do all of the things still photography can, and it would be just as silly to suggest that if anyone released a DSLR that can shoot at 24fps, it would therefore replace video cameras. It wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I agree,plus i don't see the world in the moving image i see in still moments :)
 
daugirdas said:
It will happen.
Click to expand...

"No raw, so limited processing options. Compressed lossy format. impossible to use long shutter speeds. 8MP is still pretty crappy. Even as little as 10 minutes of 4K video would require huge amounts of storage. You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame."

What part of that makes you think it will happen? LOL

It will be used for news grabs, and perhaps snapshots from wedding videos, or sports coverage. That's it. Resolution is immaterial. It's simply not a practical way of producing still images. Simple as that.
 
It's about "amateur" photography. I'm sure they are not suggesting that all photography will go that way. I am able see all types of photography being useful. Not just my preferred type.
Besides, it is already happening. LOL.
Pookeyhead said:
You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame.".
Click to expand...
I whap the slider across til I get near, go back a bit, choose the best frame and press save. A few seconds only, with just a basic video player.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
"Resolution is immaterial.
Click to expand...


Did I misread or didn't you start of with its only 8meg as an argument against.

Anyway as had been said it is happening, will be interesting to see what happens when those with a real eye for these things start doing it.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:

Did I misread or didn't you start of with its only 8meg as an argument against.

Anyway as had been said it is happening, will be interesting to see what happens when those with a real eye for these things start doing it.
Click to expand...

The real eye is with the photographer,not just pointing a camera at the subject reeling of loads of video hoping to catch the shot you want :(
 
How would that change for video?

Whats the difference between pressing the button to start and then stop than it is to press one for a single shot?
 
Sometimes a crucial moment is hard to predict. So a high continuous shooting mode on cameras is useful.
 
JohnN said:
Anyway as had been said it is happening, will be interesting to see what happens when those with a real eye for these things start doing it.
Click to expand...

Agreed completely. I never said it wasn't interesting, or valid, or useful. It just won't replace still imaging. I personally can think of many uses for it actually.
 
No raw, so limited processing options. Compressed lossy format. impossible to use long shutter speeds. 8MP is still pretty crappy. Even as little as 10 minutes of 4K video would require huge amounts of storage. You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame.
Click to expand...
Lots is shot in 4 or 5K at the moment. LOTS.

Storage is cheap.

The 'definitive moment' is one issue.

Lighting precision is another. In film production, compromises are made because the characters, camera etc move through the scene. Stills, way more precise, controlled, and frankly, better.

Shutter angle is another one. At 25fps,, 180 degrees shutter speed is 1/50th second. Not really v sharp to pull a still. Any faster shutter and you lose light and it gets a bit juddery.

Some things, yeah, stills being pulled from footage are being used. But I'm not exactly selling my cameras in fear of my job disappearing to a frame grab.
 
Pookeyhead said:
"No raw, so limited processing options. Compressed lossy format. impossible to use long shutter speeds. 8MP is still pretty crappy. Even as little as 10 minutes of 4K video would require huge amounts of storage. You would have to hunt through the entire video footage looking for that one definitive frame."

What part of that makes you think it will happen? LOL

It will be used for news grabs, and perhaps snapshots from wedding videos, or sports coverage. That's it. Resolution is immaterial. It's simply not a practical way of producing still images. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Red shoots 6K RAW footage. Several high profile pros are already using it. Not sure it could be more obvious than that...
 
I don't suppose you could link to some of their work, I'm curious to see what they're doing.
 
For a modicum of retrospection, consider this rec.photo thread, "Future of Photography.. ?" from 1990:

"Seeing as how 2001 is just a little over a decade away, I was wondering what
our resident sages/crazy people thought might be happening in the realm of
photography/imaging/etc.(?) in ten years (and the intervening period).

Will film still be popular? What percent of consumers, and serious shooters,
will be using electronic imaging devices instead, and will we 'lose' many
folks to video cameras? Will home imaging (/editing/printing/..) computers be
commonplace?"
 
daugirdas said:
Red shoots 6K RAW footage. Several high profile pros are already using it. Not sure it could be more obvious than that...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think is obvious. This does not mean it will replace still imaging cameras.

Yes... it looks fine...

http://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/RED-DRAGON-redlog-Phil-Holland.jpg

...although still a bit crap compared to the still output of even low end DSLRs


However.... How is working in this way going to replace still photography. While it will be possible to get usable stills from video, it's only useful if you are shooting video anyway. Why would you choose to shoot video when you want still images? I'm just not seeing the advantage. I get it with sports, news, events etc, but when you are setting out with the intention of creating a still image, why would you want t shoot video?

All very well mentioning the Red system, but that's a fairly specialist piece of equipment designed for motion picture use. Why would anyone use this when all they want is a still image which is MUCH better catered for with any DSLR?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
All very well mentioning the Red system, but that's a fairly specialist piece of equipment designed for motion picture use. Why would anyone use this when all they want is a still image which is MUCH better catered for with any DSLR?
Click to expand...

Lol, about as portable as an 80s ghetto blaster! No I think I'll stick with mirrorless for light

BTW thanks for the still, personally it does nothing for me, probably the processing.

I also agree, sports, media etc it makes a lot of sense but if its for fashion or product shots or indeed anywhere where you have control of the subject and environment then yes, just use stills. After all if you want to fill a square hole, get a square, don't buy an oversized circle and whittle it down to fit.
 
JohnN said:
BTW thanks for the still, personally it does nothing for me, probably the processing.
Click to expand...

yes.. that's a still from the final production, and they've obviously colour graded it to hell and back.
 
Pookeyhead said:
That it's crazy to suggest that it will replace still photography any time in the foreseeable future, and probably not even beyond that... as discussed at length in the other thread.
Click to expand...


In THIS thread, has it been suggested that frame grabs from video will REPLACE still photography?
 
Nod said:
In THIS thread, has it been suggested that frame grabs from video will REPLACE still photography?
Click to expand...

Just pre-empting the obvious outcome of such a thread.
 
SanDisk have just released the biggest ever SD card with 512Gb. So storage space is no longer a problem. So from now on I'm just going to shoot video! Hey if you've spent £500 on that sucker, you got to fill it somehow.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
SanDisk have just released the biggest ever SD card with 512Gb. So storage space is no longer a problem. So from now on I'm just going to shoot video! Hey if you've spent £500 on that sucker, you got to fill it somehow.
Click to expand...


Really? 6k uncompressed raw video will fill that in no time at all :) You neglect to mention it's also $800.

However... that's still not the problem. No one is seeing the elephant in the room, which is: Why shoot video when you intend to create stills? All this is interesting, and a useful development for those who need to grab high quality stills from video, but that's not how still image makers work. Despite the quality, you couldn't do anything using long shutter speeds for example. That's not something that will be fixed with technology either.... a 30 second shutter speed will always require 30 seconds - the end. There's a whole list of reasons why this isn't a viable alternative to using a still camera. It's good, and it adds flexibility in certain situations, but it ends there.
 
ianp5a said:
The BBC article said $800 (£490). And I wrote £500. Nothing neglected there.
Click to expand...


Apologies.... missed that. 6k raw video will still chew it up and spit it out though, even it was 50p :)
 
I'd better rush out and buy several of them then before the price drops. My camera records 1080p anyway.
 
helpfully, RED do a handy 12 pack of memory cards. http://www.red.com/store/products/red-mini-mag-12-pack


Lots of fashion photographers shoot with HMI lighting rather than flash anyway. Lots also have lookbooks filmed for online too. Eliminating the stillls camera for a lot of bits and grabbing a frame wouldn't be too much of a step, and indeed probably happens.
 
daugirdas said:
Red shoots 6K RAW footage. Several high profile pros are already using it. Not sure it could be more obvious than that...
Click to expand...
You can het 4K RAW from a Magic Lantern on a 5D Mk III with great results too.
 
David, I know you feel that AP is somehow beneath you but the article in next week's edition is quite interesting and points out ways in which it (taking stills from 4K video) is very useful.
 
Nod said:
David, I know you feel that AP is somehow beneath you
Click to expand...


And how would you know that? I love it when people make assumptions about me.

Besides, I'm not saying it's not useful... never have said that. I'm just pre-empting the "it will replace stills" argument, and also dismissing it as nonsense. There will always be things it can not do, as previously discussed in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
lol

I'm struggling to put it together Pooks, to shoot video in stead of stills when you want stills seems a bit excessive on the face of it, but that's exactly the way things have gone.
Formats aside, its a throw away society, if you have billions of bytes to use conveniently, why not shoot a gig of footage for an 8mb still, its free memory, re-usable, so take what you want and throw the rest away.
How long is it since the transfer from film to digital saw the early adopters citing limitless digital frames v 36 frames of a film camera, as a top 5 reason to make the switch.
There doesn't appear to be an economic factor to consider but, you know what people are like, video stills are the new still stills..lol.
 
Video can add an extra dimension

PA260093-long.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top