Are we turning into videographers?

[tylercooney]

Are all action photographers eventually going to be videographers with the ever increasing frames per second of digital cameras? The technology has to be in the foreseeable future that will allow 20-30 FPS at high resolution. This won't happen tomorrow or next year, but sometime? What do you think?

[JC4]

I hope not. The art of catching the right moment and conveying the action in a single image(even if it is one of several in a burst) shouldn't be lost.

[The Hardcard]

It's another division that gets blurred by digital technology. Hell, I am interested in that announced Casio. At an admittedly very low resolution: 300 fps! Could be a poor videographer's "bullet time" tool.

[cosworth]

I fail to see how 300 fps or even 10 fps helps me when I'm shooting at 1/8th and timing the perfect shot. Heck even 1/125th and timing things right FPS isn't on the horizon for me.

Photography is the basis of video. Movies are considered "photographed". Ever heard of principal photography? It's not new, but photography has the flexibility I want over video.

[Michael_Lambert]

Now what about when you look into the HD world, i have a couple of people who do underwater HD video recording and they have "Captured" some amazing moments by pulling the frame from the HD format. Some frames that i think could rival some high end DSLRs.

[Zilly]

erm jason i think youll find the principal photograph is incharge of any still used in the movie matte work extra. principal cinematographer is incharge of all things film based

film and photography are too very diffrent things stuff only links up in post processing and thaats about it

[Zilly]

Now what about when you look into the HD world, i have a couple of people who do underwater HD video recording and they have "Captured" some amazing moments by pulling the frame from the HD format. Some frames that i think could rival some high end DSLRs.

apart from their "soft" and half the size of a dslr image

[FlyingPhotog]

Just becuase a SLR is capturing frames at 30fps it's still a non issue until those frames are or can be broadcast. 30fps on a still camera is not the same as live from a video camera.

Also, video technology is not stagnant. All of the major broadcast companies are advancing their technology as well. Panasonic has a 1081i system that (in optimal light) runs at 2000 frames per second. Even for night baseball it can shoot at 300 fps.

However just like still photography, bandwidth and storage are also issues for these high-end camera systems. The aformentioned Panasonic system's record loop is only 22 seconds long. This requires you to play back wanted material to another recording device (videotape or a hard-drive based system) and is not entirely unlike having to dump your shots off CF to your computer.

Your question makes it sound as if you think ENG shooters should be worried about the advance in FPS capabilities of still cameras but from my experience in Sports TV, still shooters should be the nervous ones. Eventually (and granted it will take a while) once the dust begins to settle in the HD world and everything is 1080p or higher, "photo" credits (for sure in daily newspapers and maybe in weekly magazines) are going to start saying "Image Courtesy of FOX Sports" or "Frame from ESPN" a lot quicker than your local 6pm news will be saying "Footage Courtesy of Getty."

Carry On...

[tylercooney]

I not really worried. I don't think that we as photographers will die out or get pushed aside by videographers. I'm not disputing that it may happen someday, but I was just curious what other people thought about these two mediums coming closer together.

[lungdoc]

I honestly think that 90% of sports photos could be had with sufficiently high quality video frame capture. Most are essentially documentary in nature and if you have a dozen high-quality video cameras recording say an NFL game I believe you could satisfy the needs of almost all the newspapers and magazines for coverage photos. Obviously there are some types of shots that don't lend themselves to this arrangement; but if I were relying on sports shooting for my income I'd be worried.

[The Hardcard]

I fail to see how 300 fps or even 10 fps helps me when I'm shooting at 1/8th and timing the perfect shot. Heck even 1/125th and timing things right FPS isn't on the horizon for me.

Photography is the basis of video. Movies are considered "photographed". Ever heard of principal photography? It's not new, but photography has the flexibility I want over video.

Well 300 fps for me would be for making a video, not obtaining a photograph. The point I was making is that we may be approaching the point (probably still down the way a few years at least) where a single device can provide top quality still images and top quality video.

And frankly, timing for the perfect shot is a marked skill. Just as photography itself allowed people to capture scenes without having the talent and training required to draw and/or paint.

Given AF and metering systems that can keep up and the ability to transfer and store enormous amounts of data, there will be the ability to build a camera that can generate 300 high-quality images per second. Maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years, it is a matter of time.

But when it does occurs, it will allow someone who doesn't know how to time the perfect shot to capture the same moment nearly every time.

[bacchanal]

From the rumors floating around, it seems like the merge between dslrs and video is maybe a generation or two away. If that's true or what that means for the industry, I have no idea.

[gjl711]

Isn’t there really two different types of photography? One to capture an event as it unfolds, that is to freeze a single moment in time. The other is to capture the artistic interpretation of an event, which is to evoke an emotion. The first I can see benefiting by video. The higher the frame rate, the higher the likelihood that you catch exactly the moment you were after. No more timing and luck. The other, the artistic I don’t see video helping at all. In that case it’s all about light, DOF, bokah, color and composition. A high frame rate is not going to service that part of photography. I think that there is room for both and both sets of tools will improve to do their respective jobs.

Maybe one day when all display media are geared to motion, much like the newspapers and pictures in Harry Potter the still photo will go by the way of the dinosaur, but that day is a long way off. I got to wonder though, when photography first came into popularity, did the artists lament because there would no longer be a need for painting? Certainly a camera can catch an event much more effectively than a painter after all. But we still have lots of folks engaged in painting.

[Zilly]

you all still missing the point that video by its very nature is not sharp enough for a print publication (any respectable one anyway) to run

[FlyingPhotog]

you all still missing the point that video by its very nature is not sharp enough for a print publication (any respectable one anyway) to run

It's done quite often now. Why wouldn't it only get better as video quality improves?

[Zilly]

because to take a still from video it will be soft and fuzzy. if you watch a animation that has no raytraced motion blur put on no matter what speed you watch it at the video wont look natrual it will look too sharp. for video to work it has to be soft. there for you could never use video grabs for still photography. also video is such a small formate even big hd dosnt come close to the res of stills photography you only get the sort of size you need when u start talking about cinecameras with there astronomical price tag

[lungdoc]

you all still missing the point that video by its very nature is not sharp enough for a print publication (any respectable one anyway) to run

Perhaps at present with most standard Hi-def equipment, but if you look into the cameras even currently available from such as Red (www.red.com (http://www.red.com)) with 60 fps 12 megapixel and 12 bit RAW; I believe your assertion will be incorrect.

[gjl711]

you all still missing the point that video by its very nature is not sharp enough for a print publication (any respectable one anyway) to run
I agree, your basing that on today’s technology. Video is advancing much faster than DSLR technology as there is way more money in the video business than SLRs. As some had mentioned, a 12 mp frame at 300 fps is going to give some very nice shots. At least as good if not better than today’s SLR technology.

[bacchanal]

Isn’t there really two different types of photography? One to capture an event as it unfolds, that is to freeze a single moment in time. The other is to capture the artistic interpretation of an event, which is to evoke an emotion. The first I can see benefiting by video. The higher the frame rate, the higher the likelihood that you catch exactly the moment you were after. No more timing and luck. The other, the artistic I don’t see video helping at all. In that case it’s all about light, DOF, bokah, color and composition. A high frame rate is not going to service that part of photography. I think that there is room for both and both sets of tools will improve to do their respective jobs.

Maybe one day when all display media are geared to motion, much like the newspapers and pictures in Harry Potter the still photo will go by the way of the dinosaur, but that day is a long way off. I got to wonder though, when photography first came into popularity, did the artists lament because there would no longer be a need for painting? Certainly a camera can catch an event much more effectively than a painter after all. But we still have lots of folks engaged in painting.

Additionally, by nature, it is harder to process video images. It's harder to make the pounds/blemishes melt away or to clone something out in video.

[Croasdail]

because to take a still from video it will be soft and fuzzy. if you watch a animation that has no raytraced motion blur put on no matter what speed you watch it at the video wont look natrual it will look too sharp. for video to work it has to be soft. there for you could never use video grabs for still photography. also video is such a small formate even big hd dosnt come close to the res of stills photography you only get the sort of size you need when u start talking about cinecameras with there astronomical price tag

What video have you been working with. 1080 p renders some wonderfully sharp images printed. Good enough for 8x10/12s.

[sfaust]

Additionally, by nature, it is harder to process video images. It's harder to make the pounds/blemishes melt away or to clone something out in video.

If you are trying to do all the frames, then yea, this is correct. But I think the point being raised here is can a single frame from a stream of video be used as a replacement for a still image. In those circumstances, that single frame can indeed be processed exactly the same as any still image could. Just bring it in Photoshop and have at it.

And I agree, a HD, or 1080P image, is just as good as a still image of the same size. The broadcast cameras use very high quality images, good front end and processing systems, and can deliver stunning images in video, which are well suited for stills as well.

With major sporting events being covered my cameras all over the field with multiple views, the chance of being able to pull out several excellent images, and from different angles, is very high. A still photographer trying to catch the 'moment' gets one angle, and if he did his job right, one or two really good images. If he missed the moment, well, he might have a shot just before, or just after. Depends on the speed of the action.

As a business, I can't see the networks not taking advantage of this technology to start supplying the images to the media. They already own the rights to the games, and from the contracts sports photographer complain about having to sign, all the rights to the stills as well. If they can start capturing high res stills at 30 frames per second from multiple angles of all the action during a game, why would they hire photographers other than to do editorial portraits of the players, and other creative images. But for documenting the action, the high speed high res cameras would do so much better.

With ultra high res video, all they would need is a guy back in their multi-million dollar edit suites grabbing the best frames from the best angles, and supplying them to the media. They already have the bandwidth and storage, and they can do it real time and have it out to the media within a few minutes of the play. Plus, they already bought and paid for the rights, might as well capitalize on it! But with current technology, even 1080P, the images just aren't there yet. What you need is something like a 1DsMkII pumping out 30 frames a second during the whole game.

And that time is almost here. Look at all the buzz around the Red One cameras. Its almost a 1DsMkII at 30 frames a second. Specs are 12MP, 60 frames a second, 12bit, 4520x2540 res. Its $17K, which is only twice the cost of a 1DsMkIII, and more than 10 times less expensive than the cameras the networks are using. This will have a large impact on the industry. http://www.red.com/cameras

Ignoring the allure of 'catching the moment', and think of this just from a business viewpoint. If you could capture the action at 60fps with a 1DsMkII, don't you think you would have a distinct advantage over those guys shoots 8FPS or less. Not only are you guaranteed to capture the defining moment if you just pointed, focused, and held down the shutter, but you would also have a larger selection of defining moments to give to your magazines. Not just one or two, but 10 or 15. And editors like choices!

The magazines could care less about whether a photographer can capture the moment in one frame. They just want a photographer that is consistent in capturing the action and giving them the choices they want so they can sell their magazines. Assuming equal quality images, the more choices an editor has, the happier they will be, the more callbacks the photographer gets. And I don't know of one photographer that doesn't use all the FPS he can get during an action moment. And even at 8FPS, you can get the start of an action, and the end of an action, but miss the action itself. With 60fps, thats not going to happen unless you are shooting flying bullets :)

If I were a sports magazine editor buying media, I would hire the guy that always brings me 10-15 images of an action sequence for my selection, over a guy that can only give me one or two. Its a no brainer for me.

IMO, action sports photographers have a lot to worry about in the next 5 years.

[FlyingPhotog]

^^^^^

FWIW, Final Cut Pro HD and/or HD Avid systems are installed in the trucks on site. Super easy to pull stills from HD video. Major stumbling block is that the TV crew is there to do the TV broadcast and has bigger fish to fry than becoming competition for the AP or SI.

The waters have become muddied somewhat by things like re-airs, alternate distribution paths, boxed "Best Of" DVD sets and the like but ultimately, usually, the sport in question actually owns the rights to the "images, pictures and accounts" of the game, match, race, etc...

[Padreous]

Its actually going to be the other way aroundWith HD becoming more and more popular, the demand for higher resolution video, in addition to existing and ever increasing demands for image capture from this acquired footage, will make photography redundant.. eventually. This year alone we filmed about half a dozen weddings in HD where the clients only wanted some low res 3mp stills taken from HD footage which they were extremely happy with. As for catching "that" moment, this can be done alot easier with video than stills, with faster frame rate recording and high res images which can give a DSLR a run for its money. Eventually, there wil lbe no brainer companies vying to sell this element alongside their video and hapless clients will eventually fall for it. There IS a difference between the 2.. two very different forms of art, however more and more theyre becoming intertwined to a point of becoming the one.