Do you think cameras will eventually be obsolete in certain situations?

What i meant by this question is looking at how amazing video recording is becoming and how amazing slow motion video looks, do you think one day soon cameras will play a much smaller role in certain situations?

While watching sports the other day this thought came into mind. They showed a slow motion video replay of a play and i thought why cant they just pause it and then use this paused capture as a photo.

I know there will always be situations were a camera is needed but im sure today you can probably take a paused capture and then use that as a photo.

What do you guys think about this? Do you think this will eventually be possible with the quality of video improving so much? Do you think this can eventually be done?

Thanks, Al.

You mean still cameras? As something is still taking those videos.

Most video is taken at small resolution, I find video to be quite boring honestly.

I don't know if it's because I hate editing though.

This came up about a month ago in another thread, and I think that you are right to some extent. In action photography, we are close. But for landscapes and other non action situations, why bother taking 30 shots a second when 1 will suffice?

Here is what I responded to the other thread.

CallumRD1 wrote in post #15184143
I think that we are closer to this than people realize. Take the 1DX, for example. It can take 12 fps raw files. Now imagine if the processing power of the camera was doubled, probably by putting in a very powerful mobile processor or a low power multithreaded computer processor. We could theoretically get 24 fps, not too bad for video. If you take another small jump and assume that the processing power required to get to 30 fps could be fit inside a 1D body, then we would be looking at 30MB raw files at 30 fps, or about 900MB/Second of data to transfer to the storage device. No memory card can come close to this, but mSATA SSD's can reach around 500MB/Second writes. So if two of those were put into the camera in RAID 0, a logical volume of approximately 1,000MB/Second write speeds could be created in capacities up to 1024GB as of now. This means that you could have 18MP video at 30fps with full raw files containing just as much information as a still would hold, just limited to 1/30 sec or faster shutter speeds. Or the camera could shoot in JPEG an not break 200MB/Second, allowing a set of 2 CF cards in RAID 0 or a single mSATA SSD to handle the information. This could literally be just around the corner, as the hardware required to do this is around now, it just needs packaged in a very small space, probably a 1D body, and some very good code written to execute it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15350178
You mean still cameras? As something is still taking those videos.

Yes still cameras..

CallumRD1 wrote in post #15350191
This came up about a month ago in another thread, and I think that you are right to some extent. In action photography, we are close. But for landscapes and other non action situations, why bother taking 30 shots a second when 1 will suffice?

Here is what I responded to the other thread.

Excellent explanation. I was hoping to not be the only person thinking this and agree that it mite be closer than some believe.

Of course there will always be situations were a still camera is always more useful to use than video but for moving situations like sports I think in the future we will eventually not see many standing in the sidelines with the white lenses.

I'm not so sure this isn't happening to a degree now with still cameras. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't picture (sorry!) a photographer for Sports Illustrated on the sidelines at an NFL game as shooting isolated single frames. I bet he's firing away at his subject at max frame rate, loading up the memory card and then transmitting it all back to the photo editors for them to pick out that one best shot of the catch of the game, (or the best Lambeau leap:rolleyes.

Even with today's high frame rates there would still be a lot fewer images of the winning play than there would be in a video. I mean jeez let's give the photo editors a break. Besides, as someone already mentioned, video is taken at lower resolution. I don't know whether that is true or not, but have you ever noticed when they show a freeze frame from an instant replay, particularly slo-mo, the terrible noise in the frame. Then they hit play again and the noise disappears.

Here is General Photography Talk for things like this...

I'm in the broadcast since 1991.
Still picture and motion pictures are not going to be the same for a while.
But with less people coming to see film on the big screen and more media going to internet, it is not so big deal anymore to post 600 pixels picture at news web side. And almost any picture will do on iPhone.

I definitely think still cameras will be a thing of the past.. like albums and VHS. When this happens... maybe not in my lifetime, but with nano-technology..crazy s**t can and will happen. Eventually, you'll probably be able to capture an image.. with your eyes, and transmit it to your cellular device/computer/whatev​er. No.. i'm not high or drunk!

Photography is indeed changing. I-phones and tablets are taking better and better pictures. Stills can already be pulled from video. Resolution and sensitivity are on the increase. It's part of what makes it fun and keeps it interesting. Where it will end up is anybodies guess. 3D, holograms,laser video and who knows what else are all out there. So I don't really see an end. Just change.

Mike

MikeWa wrote in post #15350588
Photography is indeed changing. I-phones and tablets are taking better and better pictures. Stills can already be pulled from video. Resolution and sensitivity are on the increase. It's part of what makes it fun and keeps it interesting. Where it will end up is anybodies guess. 3D, holograms,laser video and who knows what else are all out there. So I don't really see an end. Just change.

Mike

It's been possible to pull stills from video for years. Your average still from video today though is still just being pulled from HD which is size-limited at 1920 X 1080 which yields roughly a 2.5Mb still image.

Yes, there is 3K and 4K but nobody in their right mind is going to want to have to store (let alone cull) that much data just to get one high-res still.

Still Photography isn't going away anytime soon.

Frames from video have been possible for a long time as others have said. I don't see demand for higher resolution still cameras decreasing because of frame grabs yet. In fact camera makers seem to be moving more toward full frame cameras.

I'm not sure why this is even questionable. Motion pictures are an extension of still photography, not the other way around. The only reason it seems flipped the other way now is because of the way we figured out shortcuts to the process such as interlacing for TV and data processing techniques to reduce processes so a whole frame doesn't have to be refreshed constantly to fool the eye into thinking it is a moving video. As the tech improves so that we don't have to rely on such crutches, then it will be back to how film worked in video - bunches of frames of stills making a video.

Still imagery will never be replaced completely.

No matter how well technology comes in pulling stills from video, the craft of the single frame shot will remain superior in capturing the moment.

For weddings, the single perfect image in an 8x10 on the wall will always be remembered more than the 45 min wedding video that collects dust in the case.

For sports, more single frame shots are used in advertising than video clips (magazines, billboards, etc.).

Technology has come a long way, but 'stills' won't fade out over video.

colodually wrote in post #15350822
Still imagery will never be replaced completely.

No matter how well technology comes in pulling stills from video, the craft of the single frame shot will remain superior in capturing the moment.

For weddings, the single perfect image in an 8x10 on the wall will always be remembered more than the 45 min wedding video that collects dust in the case.

For sports, more single frame shots are used in advertising than video clips (magazines, billboards, etc.).

Technology has come a long way, but 'stills' won't fade out over video.

The OP is not talking about video replacing stills for events like weddings...but instead stills being pulled out of the video. I think the resolution of video needs to improve. I can see this happening sometimes in the future. After all, we all get excited when fps increases past 10fps. Why stop there and not boost it up to 24fps?