CineTOGrapher?

Is it just a matter of time before video screen shots are used for wedding photography? We've been giving each couple 10-15 screenshots the day after and a couple have commented about not needing a photographer. How often to brides get big prints? Or is it all about Facebook, blogs, and email?

I know there is no replacement for a full resolution raw file.. But could that change with 4k and(or) raw video? Can 100,000 frames to choose from produce better 'moments'?

After turning down all photography gigs.. We were talked into one for next month. The only thing we'll shoot(photography) will be the formats. Everything else will be screenshots. I searched online and couldn't find another wedding shot this way.

Here's some examples of recent screenshots
http://www.facebook.co​m …=1&ref=notif&no​tif_t=like

4K certainly would give the necessary resolution for large prints but who the hell wants to scan (as you say) 100,000 frames for "the moment?"

I know I dont want to go through 100k frames individually! It takes about an hour to pull 15 screenshots from about 10,000 frames and process them. In our case, we go through each clip anyways.

I dunno, call me old fashioned but there's something much more satisfying about capturing the moment in one shot than "lucking" into it by just rolling continuously.

Even at 10fps, you need to be in the moment. At 30-60fps, you just need to point the camera.

Yea.. I agree with that to a point. It's like the ultimate spray and pray! That is until we had a somewhat inexperienced wedding photographer(about 5 weddings) shoot with us. There is a huge difference in composition and finding the light. It was night and day. With photography..there is some leeway with composition because you can crop. With video..not so much. Same with WB and exposure. Video is unforgiving!

Drozz119 wrote in post #14598031
Yea.. I agree with that to a point. It's like the ultimate spray and pray! That is until we had a somewhat inexperienced wedding photographer(about 5 weddings) shoot with us. There is a huge difference in composition and finding the light. It was night and day. With photography..there is some leeway with composition because you can crop. With video..not so much. Same with WB and exposure. Video is unforgiving!

Nah...

All you need is a ton of RAM and the time to wait for something to render...

After Effects can fix a lot of issues!

A Red Epic costs about $40,000 body only
seems reasonable for wedding photog/videogs to just switch over now

Check out this video:

http://fstoppers.com/h​asselblad-vs-red

Drozz119 wrote in post #14597937
How often to brides get big prints? Or is it all about Facebook, blogs, and email?

Welp, I guess there may be some brides out there that only care about using their wedding photos for FB, but that's pretty f'ing sad. I wonder what their grandchildren will think?

It's difficult to judge by the samples you posted on FB, because FB kills the quality. What do the high res files look like? What is the max res you can get?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14598036
Nah...

All you need is a ton of RAM and the time to wait for something to render...

After Effects can fix a lot of issues!

That it can! And your right about the render times..wow!

fotojennik wrote in post #14598463
A Red Epic costs about $40,000 body only
seems reasonable for wedding photog/videogs to just switch over now

Check out this video:

http://fstoppers.com/h​asselblad-vs-red

Nice! 40k is pretty steep! Hopefully the canon 4k is a little cheaper.

timnosenzo wrote in post #14598568
Welp, I guess there may be some brides out there that only care about using their wedding photos for FB, but that's pretty f'ing sad. I wonder what their grandchildren will think?

It's difficult to judge by the samples you posted on FB, because FB kills the quality. What do the high res files look like? What is the max res you can get?

Yea.. I guess each bride is different. I think we've looked at our wedding pics twice in 20 years...and both times were so my kids could laugh at my mullet!

They're 1920 pixels. They dont look too bad on the computer. I think a 5x7 is the printing limit. We tried some 8x10's and they were ok but I wouldn't give them to a client.

Yervant did this a couple of years ago from 5DII footage, made an album from it an all. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't awesome. It wouldn't work for my style of photography, I use strobes a lot, you can't easily get that amount of light out of constant lights. Pretty much anything involving anything other than fill level of lighting is out. To me, lighting really takes an image from good to great.

So sure, at the low end, maybe. Then again wedding videographers aren't really big on posing, so you'd get quite different results than a photographer would.

I could never get used to film and select a great image from the film himself and then start processing it etc etc ... like the guy said, it slows down your workflow hard time. You can't make the difference between camera and DSLR but it would feel so weird to film instead of getting the right shot in a second.On a wedding I can get over 700 shots done. I don't see myself scrolling into over 100000 frames to find 10 great shots I like.

This would be like shooting a wedding with the 1DX at 12fps, putting it together in a flip book, and asking if this suffices as cinematography.

Anyone who actual values talented cinematography will not sign up for this. Same goes for anyone who actually values talented photography.

Who values either these days? Most people just want some decent photos and don't much care how they get them.

tim wrote in post #14607390
Who values either these days? Most people just want some decent photos and don't much care how they get them.

that's true ... look at all those family photographers taking pictures with entry level dslr's or some of them even have 5D mkII's. In the mean time... I'll stay taking pictures... because I love it.

tim wrote in post #14607390
Who values either these days? Most people just want some decent photos and don't much care how they get them.

Really? Tons of people value great photography. A small, but growing, number of people are starting to really value great cinematography.

The problem, however, is that it takes great photography to grab the people who really value great photography -- and most of us are lacking in that. In fact, I'd argue that more people are willing to pay for great photography now than before the digital age.