4K Video vs single-frame photography
Apr 19, 2019 10:57:48 #
Vincejr wrote:
Maybe would be okay for your snap shots. Not anything else.
I have made very nice 10x8 prints from my 4K Photo captures on a Lumix GH4. 8.2 MP is plenty for such images. At my former employer, we used 8.2 MP cameras to make millions of portraits.
The megapixel myth is real! Humans can’t see more than about 240 PPI at the normal viewing distance for an 8x10. Having more pixels IS nice when you need to crop...
Apr 19, 2019 11:08:15 #
Apr 19, 2019 11:09:02 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
Vincejr wrote:
Maybe would be okay for your snap shots. Not anything else.
Please forgive me, what’s a snapshot again?
Apr 19, 2019 11:12:05 #
Apr 19, 2019 11:29:43 #
Vincejr wrote:
Why does anyone want a still camera to take video. I don't know why.
My still camera doesn't take video.
Apr 19, 2019 12:05:27 #
Vincejr wrote:
Why does anyone want a still camera to take video. I don't know why.
There is no such thing as a still camera that isn't, technically, a video camera FIRST. The sensor is an analog device that can provide a signal to a video processor just as easily as it can send it to a still image processor or raw file.
The primary reason I use a hybrid camera is to avoid carrying both kinds of equipment! I can travel with ONE system instead of two, since much of what I do includes both stills and video. I also like the fact that I have ONE investment in body and lenses, ONE set of filters, ONE set of KNOWLEDGE and fine muscle memories, ONE recording medium... the list goes on and on.
I was a still photographer long before I used my first video camera as an AV producer in the 1980s. So I prefer the form factor of an SLR over that of a camcorder. Ever since Panasonic put all the right tools in their GHx series cameras, having just one camera for both stills and video has been a reality. It's an ideal solution for me.
Apr 19, 2019 14:03:37 #
Naldo wrote:
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)
I have my doubts, but am very curious? (Serious answers only please. . . caustic sarcasm not needed)
4K video doesn't have the bit depth of photographs, at least in the Sony world; thus, it lacks the dynamic range of images.
The above said I do shoot 4K video of lightning with reasonable success and have extracted frames from 4K video where my lighting was not great for single (sharp) images.
bwa
Apr 19, 2019 14:34:45 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
Vincejr wrote:
Look it up they been in photography for many years.
There no such thing as a snapshot! And if their was how would it differ from say a pic or photo? Do you know?
Apr 19, 2019 15:05:34 #
bwana wrote:
4K video doesn't have the bit depth of photographs, at least in the Sony world; thus, it lacks the dynamic range of images.
The above said I do shoot 4K video of lightning with reasonable success and have extracted frames from 4K video where my lighting was not great for single (sharp) images.
bwa
The above said I do shoot 4K video of lightning with reasonable success and have extracted frames from 4K video where my lighting was not great for single (sharp) images.
bwa
Nice work.
Apr 19, 2019 15:15:20 #
davyboy wrote:
There no such thing as a snapshot! And if their was how would it differ from say a pic or photo? Do you know?
The typical 'photography as art' supporter would probably say:
Snapshots are simple exposures that record events or scenes without regard to lighting, composition, moment, or even something as simple as squaring up the horizon. They're what the typical "point and shoot 'er" citizen takes. Any sort of image will suffice.
Pictures are better than snapshots but not at the level of photographs. They may involve a little better attention to detail.
Photographs are generally regarded to involve some degree of planning, thought, precision in execution, lighting design or choice, compositional wizardry, precisely decisive moment, suitable exposure and color... They satisfy the soul. They're a joy to admire. They could make money for the photographer.
Apr 19, 2019 15:41:26 #
burkphoto wrote:
Nice work.
Thanks. It is fun sitting on the deck watching Mother Nature's shows...
bwa
Apr 19, 2019 18:22:08 #
burkphoto wrote:
It depends on the application and the subject. I s... (show quote)
This is the reason why extracting stills from video is not optimum, in the sense of anything being close in terms of IQ. It's less about the mp, its about freezing the subject. It is a great if the other option is nothing:-)
Attached is an extract from a Gopro Hero6. 8meg file. Poor quality picture due to the lens and sensor are not very good but I will take this very low Quality pick over nothing at all :-)
Better result if shooting 4k from my 5dDmkiv but still not as good as a photo from my 5D where I control everything.
(fyi, my son did survive the jump)
Apr 19, 2019 19:07:09 #
`
You're too pessimistic.
A 6K still from my Lumix G9 is 18MP, and
the 6K frame rate is 60FPS. The native rez
is only 20MP, so 18MP is nearly full rez :-)
So 8K is surely already a done deal, at the
prototype level, but will be intro'ed for use
only when competitive marketing demands
signal that the time is ripe. 6 to 18 months
seems about right in today's marketplace.
There's an earlier post fantasizing that 8K
would be 500MP. Clearly pure hawgwash :-(
.
billnikon wrote:
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.
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.
You're too pessimistic.
A 6K still from my Lumix G9 is 18MP, and
the 6K frame rate is 60FPS. The native rez
is only 20MP, so 18MP is nearly full rez :-)
So 8K is surely already a done deal, at the
prototype level, but will be intro'ed for use
only when competitive marketing demands
signal that the time is ripe. 6 to 18 months
seems about right in today's marketplace.
There's an earlier post fantasizing that 8K
would be 500MP. Clearly pure hawgwash :-(
.
Apr 20, 2019 12:05:44 #
User ID wrote:
`...
There's an earlier post fantasizing that 8K
would be 500MP. Clearly pure hawgwash :-(
There's an earlier post fantasizing that 8K
would be 500MP. Clearly pure hawgwash :-(
Nobody said that... Here is what was said.
Bobspez wrote:
Probably not in our lifetime. 16K video would have 132MP still frames. 32K video would have still frames over 500MP each.
Apr 20, 2019 14:46:05 #
Vincejr wrote:
Because when you travel, especially internationally, and want both still photos and video clips (where they are applicable) it is much more CONVENIENT and FASTER to have one good camera do both versus lugging both. Just a matter of which button to push.Why does anyone want a still camera to take video. I don't know why.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.