Amateur photographer to have a 4k video still on its cover
- Thread starter JohnN
- Start date
Or this.
Wobble - o - grams are going to be the next big thing.
Like something out of Harry Potter
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't see anything wrong with pulling a still from video if it suits the purpose. IMO, recording video in order to pull a still makes no less sense than using a 24-36MP camera to put 1024x pics on the web...
As technology advances in one area it also improves in the other. Still cameras will always be better for stills and video cameras will always be better for video. Do you always need "better?" Probably not.
As technology advances in one area it also improves in the other. Still cameras will always be better for stills and video cameras will always be better for video. Do you always need "better?" Probably not.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
As always... because your results will be crap, unpredictable, and beyond your control. Just as when you take a thousand ill conceived stills on holiday and end up with 10 "keepers". It's sh*t photography.. that's why.
The fact is though.... what people aren't realising, is we're comparing apples to oranges. Those who have studied motion picture realise that there's a difference in discipline required when making moving image that doesn't translate to still imagery and vice versa very well unless used cleverly. Moving image has a whole different "grammar" than still image. People are merely thinking technically in this thread, and on that level, sure, video grabs will have uses... as grabs... a convenient way of getting a still image for news, publication etc. It's just a really, really stupid way of making still imagery though.
Then there's the elephant in the room: What exactly is the point, when what you want is a still image?
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Or this.
Wobble - o - grams are going to be the next big thing.
You mean GIF files... the staple diet of internet memes since the 1990s?
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
"Stupid" is absolutely no barrier to someone determined to use it.
I mean, what couldn't be shot with it, long exposures aren't cutting it, I don't see there not being a feature or work around for that.
What control is lost ?.. presumably all controls currently available on a camera will be there, except extremes of shutter speed which will be determined by frame rate, I guess....I dunno.
Its ridiculous I know, but I don't see a stone wall it ain't never gonna happen because...?, besides it being ridiculously stupid nonsense.
Its exactly the direction the capturing of images is going, first it was pictures without film, then memory capacity, then ridiculous iso, then HD video, now HQ mirrorless compacts, you can't stop the bus just because its leaving a comfort zone.
ianp5a
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,719
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope. But as you asked, wobble or wiggle -o-grams pre date GIFs and even digital photography. But who knows what other retro stuff the kids will all be raving about soon. I suspect there have been more instagram type faded 70's pictures made now, than in the 70's!You mean GIF files... the staple diet of internet memes since the 1990s?
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably not. Doesn't make them any less stupid though.
It's got nothing to do with comfort zones. If it did, I'd still be shooting film. It's all very well saying "there'll be a workaround for that", but unless that workaround is a time machine, then any photography that uses 1/20th or longer is just not going to be possible with video and no amount of technology can solve that. What is this workaround you speak of? LOL. How can you make a 30 second exposure using video? Let's talk about flash shall we? Highly useful for stopping action as well as allowing all manner of effects. Can't use that either. Want to shot something like this? Tough.. you can't.. not without MONSTROUSLY powerful continuous lighting, and where you gonna get the power for that in the middle of a forest, or a beach, or anywhere else inconvenient. Let me guess... there'll be a workaround for it?
You just haven't thought this through. Video can NOT replace still photography... because it's not still photography.
No one has still answered the main question. Why? What is the advantage? Why would you prefer to do this?
OP
JohnN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,359
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think these discussions have been very interesting and informative (when people aren't being mindlessly protective), video will be useful for some situations and for others still makes much more sense.
I think we live in exciting times where there isn't just one way to achieve a goal but many and we can choose our own path.
I think we live in exciting times where there isn't just one way to achieve a goal but many and we can choose our own path.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
We've had that for decades... it' called high speed photography. Whether you use video or film is irrelevant... still been around for decades. As I said, I'm not saying video isn't useful. It just CAN'T replace photography.
NO one's being protective.. just sensible. Video will have MANY uses we've not considered, yes. It will not replace photography... which seems to be where some people always take these threads (of which there have been a couple in the last few months).
Last edited:
Carlh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,261
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We've had that for decades... it' called high speed photography. Whether you use video or film is irrelevant... still been around for decades. As I said, I'm not saying video isn't useful. It just CAN'T replace photography.
thats what I meant bud - unless its popping off 500 frames a second, video isn't going to be replacing stills for a long time yet
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably not. Doesn't make them any less stupid though.
It's got nothing to do with comfort zones. If it did, I'd still be shooting film. It's all very well saying "there'll be a workaround for that", but unless that workaround is a time machine, then any photography that uses 1/20th or longer is just not going to be possible with video and no amount of technology can solve that. What is this workaround you speak of? LOL. How can you make a 30 second exposure using video? Let's talk about flash shall we? Highly useful for stopping action as well as allowing all manner of effects. Can't use that either. Want to shot something like this? Tough.. you can't.. not without MONSTROUSLY powerful continuous lighting, and where you gonna get the power for that in the middle of a forest, or a beach, or anywhere else inconvenient. Let me guess... there'll be a workaround for it?
You just haven't thought this through. Video can NOT replace still photography... because it's not still photography.
No one has still answered the main question. Why? What is the advantage? Why would you prefer to do this?
Givvover Pooks, 1/20th is just 1 frame from 20fps video, you could apply the same rational for a 30 second exposure although video @ 2fpm is hardly video, but that's not the point, the point is we only need 1 frame at any shutter speed to qualify as a still, the rest you can chuck away just like millions of other people do everyday.
1/500th provides a far stiffer challenge.
Flash, just set the thing recording and flash your arse off whenever you feel like it, ok its hardly Richard Avendon and would be akin to shooting a stills camera but still a long way from "it can't be done", of course it can be done.
I'm not posting to be controversial, I genuinely believe it is technology within reach and likely to become very popular, whether it will replace stills photography or not, I dunno, but nothing you've said is cast iron nail in the coffin pushin up daisy's never gonna happen impossible.
Why ? god knows, the crap we were talking about 10 years ago yawl said would never happen in a lifetime, happened 5 years ago.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly.. it's not HARDLY video... it's NOT video. You're then taking stills, with a video camera. So why use what is essentially a compromised still camera in that instance?
No it doesn't. Many video cameras can shutter at much faster than that.
Clearly you've never tried to do this I take it
I disagree. Subscribe to this thread, Let's have a bet. Set yourself a date for when you think this will be popular, and when it happens, post in here. I'll give you £50 when it is. If by your date it's not... you owe me £50.
Let's leave it there,
Porsupah
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 191
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed, we're beginning to see such on the big stage - for example, the iPhone 5s offers 120fps at 720p, whilst the 6 bumps that up to 240fps.
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Isnt Video just made up of a series of stills though
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep.. essentially. Like I said on another post.. if someone released a SLR that can shoot at 24fps... no one would consider using it as a video camera. they'd just switch to live view.... and use the video camera function
Appropriate tools for the job etc.
Video grabs will have uses, but replacing still cameras will not be one of them.
As I said... time will prove me right, so we'll just have to be patient and see won't we.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Accidental double post.
4wd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,224
- Name
- North York Moors
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At web size e.g. 1024 pixels as posted in here quite a bit, you'd already often be hard pressed to easily tell if it was a frame grab even from 1080p video.
I've grabbed acceptable stills from Drift Ghost footage, you can even crop them a bit.
I've grabbed acceptable stills from Drift Ghost footage, you can even crop them a bit.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Dunno... you can kind of tell (all 1200 pixels across)
The other thing is... when film making, you're shooting in a different way. I mean.... this image...
...as an image, is pretty dull, but as a transitional scene in the video, it works perfectly. You simply shoot different things, in a different way, as the very temporal quality of a moving image has it's own way of delivering narrative.
As usual in here, no one considers the critical aspects of photography, or film making... only the technical.
Also... if shooting seriously for moving image, I'd probably be keeping my shutter speeds around 1/50th, so anything moving will be almost useless for a still.. as below... just the guy moving his arm is blurred, but when played as video, this actually makes the movement smooth. Even if I could have shuttered at a much higher speed, his arm would have almost strobed when it moved.
In short... when film making, you work in a different way.
The other thing is... when film making, you're shooting in a different way. I mean.... this image...
...as an image, is pretty dull, but as a transitional scene in the video, it works perfectly. You simply shoot different things, in a different way, as the very temporal quality of a moving image has it's own way of delivering narrative.
As usual in here, no one considers the critical aspects of photography, or film making... only the technical.
Also... if shooting seriously for moving image, I'd probably be keeping my shutter speeds around 1/50th, so anything moving will be almost useless for a still.. as below... just the guy moving his arm is blurred, but when played as video, this actually makes the movement smooth. Even if I could have shuttered at a much higher speed, his arm would have almost strobed when it moved.
In short... when film making, you work in a different way.
Last edited:
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The biggest difference, and the biggest weakness of video stills IMO, is lighting.
"Ideal" lighting for video is different from ideal lighting for a still, even to convey the same idea/feeling. And even if the video lighting is "acceptable;" finding a frame with an ideal pose would be pure luck.
Well, unless maybe if you're taking a video of someone being "photographed"... (which is how every 1/2 decent "example still" I've ever seen was taken)
"Ideal" lighting for video is different from ideal lighting for a still, even to convey the same idea/feeling. And even if the video lighting is "acceptable;" finding a frame with an ideal pose would be pure luck.
Well, unless maybe if you're taking a video of someone being "photographed"... (which is how every 1/2 decent "example still" I've ever seen was taken)
Last edited: