Naldo

It was suggested to me recently that most photography could be easily replaced by a 4K video camera instead. Portrait, Landscape, Sports, even Macro. Just extract single frames from the video. True??

I have my doubts, but am very curious? (Serious answers only please. . . caustic sarcasm not needed)

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

4K video only yields 8MP stills. Hardly a worthwhile endeavor when stills today run from 20MP to 50MP depending on camera.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Single frames from 4K video are 8MP images so they may have less resolution than single images from the same camera. It also depends on whether your camera can set the iso, shutter speed and aperture when you take 4K video.

My dslr's only shoot 2K video, so while I can set the iso, aperture and shutter speed for video, the individual frames are only 2MP. On my bridge cameras, I can take 4K video but the cameras set all the parameters when shooting video, so I will likely get a slow shutter speed (probably 1/60 sec) so this would be a problem if there is fast action in the picture.

The advantage of using video frames as stills is you have so many frames you can get unexpected shots that you could not get otherwise. 10 seconds of video at 30fps is 300 frames. So it can take time to look at all of those.

I was fooling around, shooting 4K video of my 2K TV screen which had a news report on the California fires and found this image when I looked at the stills.

Now that they have introduced 8K video, individual frames will be 32MP. All of the above applies, so if you have a camera that lets you set aperture, iso and shutter speed with 8K video, it indeed may change photography forever. If you consider sports , weddings, fashion, news photos, etc., having those unexpected gems in the frames may be a game changer.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It depends on the application and the subject. I sometimes record video of a process and extract a still for a training manual. But if the subject is moving, quickly, I have two challenges.

First, SMOOTH video relies on a relatively slow shutter speed of 1/48, 1/50, 1/60... for 24, 25, or 30 fps. The blur “fills in” the time between frames. But stopping fast action for a still photo requires a fast shutter speed. If I use that much faster speed required to stop action, the video will look fluttery or jerky!

In those situations, I’m glad I have a hybrid camera that records decent stills and video, separately.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

It also depends on if you are using video for the sole purpose of extracting stills. In that case having jerky video wouldn't matter because you are only interested in the stills.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Like so many things changing believe we might get there but not yet today. Maybe when we go to 8k video (happening today), then 16K, then maybe 32K it could happen.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

True, but I cannot see a scenario where I would use pure video to do that. I’d use 4K photo mode. (GH4)

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Probably not in our lifetime. 16K video would have 132MP still frames. 32K video would have still frames over 500MP each.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I have been saying this is the future of photography since 2006. Still not there, but getting closer all the time. I've been capturing still frames from video since 1999.

Naldo

Very interesting replies

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Yeah, had same thoughts when I use to go make a sandwich while waited for a few 100 KILObyte photos to download on a 2,400 baud modem over a phone line. <grin> The next new, big thing can always be right around the corner.

And "in our lifetime" obviously depends where on that lifetime we are located.

User ID

Already happened, and is now up to 6K,
at least that is fact with my Lumix G9. I
expect 8K is just around the corner.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I started with a 300 baud modem, but it was all just text based message boards. Computer technologies have the ability to double every few years. My first Sun server 30 years ago at work came with a 750MB hard drive that weighed 80+ pounds and was a foot square by 36 inches long and the drive cost $100K. The server was about the size of a large refrigerator. It took two of us to slide the hard drive into the rack. Today the 16GB card in my camera weighs less than an ounce and has 20 times the storage, a price performance increase of 200,000 times in 30 years.
But advances in computers does not relate to optics. That's why my 1959 Leitz microscope is as good as a new Leitz microscope 60 years later. And the cost adjusted for inflation is about the same for both microscopes. That's why in the last 18 years I have advanced from a 4MP camera to a 20 MP camera. A price performance increase of 5 in 18 years. A 500MP consumer camera is not around the corner, but if you want to wait for it go ahead.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The technology just is not there yet. A single frame off a 4K is about 8 MP. Not good so far. But someday technology will get there. 5 years? 10 years? Who knows.

Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

Maybe would be okay for your snap shots. Not anything else.