LEGALDR Loc: Southern California

After the passage of some time, I found myself reading the Operating Manual of one of the cameras in my arsenal. I don't shoot movies with my DSLR and so reading the "Recording Movies" topic was a new experience. I discovered that the camera records movies at 25fps. What was even more interesting was that the camera has the capacity to capture a still picture from a movie. Using this technique, my camera fps has just jumped from 6fps to 25fps. Query? If I pull an image from a movie does this still qualify as DSLR photography? Is this a commonplace activity? What say you?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

What is your ethical problem?

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

.....the chip on the shoulder I think!
All he has to say is "this shot has limited resolution/etc/etc...because it was pulled from a vid clip shot with my Bla/bla/bla Super DSLR top of the line "Arsenal Favorite " !

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

I believe he is asking if it is misleading (a lie) to refer to a video frame capture as a DSLR capture.

My answer: No, there are NO ethical considerations here. Who cares?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Even if the camera didn't have the feature of extracting a still picture from a recorded movie file, one can always do it later on the computer with appropriate software.

Concerning the issue of ethics... probably no less ethical than shooting in regular burst mode.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

You have betrayed us all! You are leading the trend away from still photography as a one-chance-to-get-it-right art. You are embarrassing everyone who is too lazy to learn video techniques. You are following the future of photography and leaving your friends, your colleagues, your peers behind.

Just kidding. You are an innovator. Get yourself a 4k capable camera and to heck with the naysayers.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Actually, I believe you have misinterpreted the "facts" - in video mode the capture process is a bit different than still (thus the different frame per second rates) - some kinds of "shortcuts" are taken in video mode since each time-slice is not that drastically different than the adjacent ones. So while It's possible to grab a single shot from the movie mode, you might find the quality a bit lower, particularly for higher resolution needs like large prints.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Several DSLR cameras that shoot video allow the extraction of stills from the video clip but, the quality of the extracted image is not as good as an image not shot in video mode so no, your camera is still 6 frames per second max for still images and if the camera in question, the one shooting video is a digital single lens reflex camera them yes it is still a DSLR. Many DSLR cameras shoot really good video but it is limited to 29 minutes and 59 seconds max continuous for a single video file. This way the DSLR doesn't qualify as a true video camcorder.

blackest Loc: Ireland

not ethical but practical,

A google search shows

"4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) and is one of the two resolutions of ultra high definition television targeted towards consumer television, the other being 8K UHD which is 7680 pixels × 4320 lines (33.2 megapixels)."

Assuming you have a 4k capable camera, at 300 dpi 12" by 7" seems a reasonable size. However there is likely a fair bit of compression in the video frame that may mean the IQ isn't comparable with a still image. It would be interesting to see the difference in actual pictures. What about shutter speed? would the video have frames of 1/25th of a second duration? Hand holding at that shutter speed is quite likely to be blurry, less noticeable on a wide angle lens.

So i'm guessing for a moving subject, sharpness might be an issue. What this thread needs is some pictures but it is likely having a fixed shutter speed is going to lock one side of the exposure triangle (at a low speed at that) which would limit creativity compared to a still shot.

1080p i think is 1900 by 1080 which might look ok at 6 by 4 in a print. But pictures are needed :)

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I would bet that most DSLR owners on this forum do not use movie mode on their cameras. Or rarely use it. I'm one who never uses it, despite up to 29 minutes maximum allowed time. If taking movies on a DSLR are more important than taking stills, perhaps one should invest in a camcorder designed exclusively for taking movies. The Nikon D500 shoots 4K video. I haven't read not one thread saying how great it is, yet. However, I know it shoots great stills.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The captured "still" from a video is usually a much smaller file and more that likely not RAW. Ethics problem? I seriously doubt it! Image quality problem? More than likely!

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The entire Australian TV series Twenty something was shot with Canon 1D IV cameras. In April of 2010 the entire season finale of the TV show House was shot with a EOS 5D II.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Maybe some rules issue if you're submitting to a contest?

If you're referring to just saying, "Here's what I shot," for me it falls into same category as doing post-processing. Some care, some don't.

Here's a great discussion topic:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-406776-1.html

-

Silverman Loc: Michigan

Wow, to much stuff.

Quixdraw Loc: x

What is the difference between "spray and pray" burst shooting which many use, and running a movie clip and lifting a frame as a still. Other than possibly image quality issues I can't see a difference. I don't use either of those options, preferring the one shot at a time approach. If either method interested me I wouldn't hesitate. Regardless of method, the photographer pulled the trigger and captured the image.