End of "Still Photography"?
Nov 2, 2014 09:25:22 #
Ranjan
Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!
Djack41 wrote:
Cameras will soon shoot 6k video. This allows anyone to shoot a video and every frame will produce 30 mp files. Will this end still photography, as we know it?
Probably not, but it sure might divert more Research and Development dollars into developing super-high density memory cards and petabyte, exabyte, zettabyte and yottabyte storage drives (?)!
Nov 2, 2014 09:28:09 #
Djack41 wrote:
Cameras will soon shoot 6k video. This allows anyone to shoot a video and every frame will produce 30 mp files. Will this end still photography, as we know it?
Have you seen some of the results?????? :shock: :thumbdown:
Still pictures will always have a certain effect that video doesn't.
Some 4 decades ago i saw an AV presentation in the form of a slide show with audio sound track synchronized to the projector.
The results surprisingly were Superior to a video and was very compelling watching.
The same thing can be done today only much easier with software such as Power Point.
Nov 2, 2014 09:33:30 #
I agree with jgordon. Video and still photography are two different ways to express art, if you will. As informative I could pic Video but artistically I think still photography is more effective...and demanding.
Nov 2, 2014 09:35:41 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Not for me. I have zero interest in video :)
I agree, 100 % :thumbup:
Nov 2, 2014 09:41:07 #
ebbote wrote:
If I wanted to shoot video I would have bought a video camera, which I have no interest in doing.
In almost 70 years, I have never shot one frame of video or movie film -- and I never will. A wasted, probably expensive feature on most cameras. Buy a video camera or use your phone. A still camera without it would be welcomed by most still shooters!
Nov 2, 2014 09:45:54 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Not for me. I have zero interest in video :)
Ditto!
Nov 2, 2014 09:50:36 #
I know my bridge camera will do this, pull a still shot from a video. I have done this previosly with good results. I tried it during a thunderstorm and was able to catch a few good lightning catches. Nothing worth posting it was a trial at the time.
Nov 2, 2014 09:55:01 #
No it won't. But, hopefully, it will end home video as we know it. IMO, there are few things worse than home videos. People think they are Steven Spielberg and that their kids and pets are movie stars. The person making the video is usually the only willing audience for this crap.
Nov 2, 2014 09:55:20 #
n3eg wrote:
I am waiting for that day. I started out in elect... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: You nailed it.
Nov 2, 2014 10:00:11 #
pecohen wrote:
Somehow this brings back to me a visit I made to an art museum about a year ago...
:thumbup: :thumbup: :D
I stand corrected...
Nov 2, 2014 10:01:06 #
BCheary has a post today on Chit-Chat, Seat 22 Trans Siberian Odyssey which is video of that trip condensed into 3 minutes. Everybody should watch the video. It reminds me that while we prefer photography, we are ignoring a great tool that we have at our disposal. If future cameras allow us to take such high res. video that we can capture excellent photos from it, why not use it? If we're taking video of a grandchild, we just might end up with a priceless photo. Sports videography may provide outstanding photos as well. It could be interesting.
Nov 2, 2014 10:05:34 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Not for me. I have zero interest in video :)
I agree! Besides, who wants to look at probably many hundreds, of frames to find "the best" and then extract it for PP, & then do the PP? Sounds like a huge time expenditure with few good results!
Nov 2, 2014 10:06:01 #
SteveR most of these folks are so far back in the cave that they have no idea about using video to capture a stills.
or the software that is out there to do it. They hear video and get all funny on ya. I have often used the video side of my camera. To capture action shoots that I know burst won't cover. If this 6K comes down in to price that is with in reach. We'll see.
or the software that is out there to do it. They hear video and get all funny on ya. I have often used the video side of my camera. To capture action shoots that I know burst won't cover. If this 6K comes down in to price that is with in reach. We'll see.
Nov 2, 2014 10:44:24 #
Bill Houghton wrote:
I think what the OP is saying or trying stating, i... (show quote)
You will certainly get quantity. However, what will the quality be? Right now, we spend time on getting exposure, composition and lighting just right for a single shot. I fear that gunning 30 FPS will just product a lot of throwaway images and few usable ones. The other factor involved here is the time it will take to go through all that video to find the few usable images. Once again, the point is made that a lot more than just "megapixels" go into making a great photo. Just as huge megapixel sensors have not destroyed the market for "lesser" cameras, I doubt that this one factor will do much more than create one more video format that few will have either content or a player for...
Nov 2, 2014 10:47:07 #
It is often assumed that video capability adds significantly to the cost of a camera, passed on to the consumer through a higher price tag. But with printed circuit boards, the additional cost is marginal. Nowadays, even the cheapest digital toy cameras have some kind of video capability.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.