Mark0159 wrote in post #17245113
yes, if I was a working pro I would rely on a hack to get features out of my camera that the manufacture didn't put in to place. I don't think so. I wasn't aware that you know the finer points of camera development and have the required programming skills to know that it's just a small hack.
If you were a working pro you'd know you use whatever works and gives you the result you want, not whatever the manufacturer tells you you can have straight off the shelf.
The leap from going from film to digital isn't that big and it's much smaller than going from still photography to film photography. You would find that as digital photography taking off working photographers were already scanning photos in to photoshop and making changes. Digital is going straight from camera to photoshop by removing the film work flow.
Going from messing with darkroom chemicals, enlargers, doing a manual unsharp mask to doing everything on Photoshop? That's a huge change in workflow.
However sorting out 3,596 single frames compared to a few hundred for a shoot is completely different. (just in case you are wondering that's 1 minute of footage shooting at 59.95FPS) If your a working photography you would want to make sure that you are covering all your bases. If you where shooting at 1/1000 you may find that 20fps or even 30fps may not give you the frame your after. more frames the more chance you have got to select the correct single frame.
30fps will give you a much better chance of getting the exact moment than 14fps. And one minute of footage will give you a lot of bursts - 60 1-second bursts (14 frames on a 1Dx) or 120 0.5-second bursts (7 frames on a 1Dx). Only that, instead of 14 frames, you're getting 30, and instead of 7 frames you're getting 15.
If your going to do a wedding and your client wants a nice picture for the wall, you are going to be shooting video all day. that's 215760 still frames your going to have to look.
1. I am specifically talking about high-speed, high-frame-rate action photography (sports and wildlife), not weddings or other general photography.
2. I was also specifically talking about using an 8k-capable camera as a still camera to capture the exact moment, in the manner of an action still photographer. In other words, shooting half- or one-second bursts at the right times, not taking 5 hours of video and selecting single frames from that. Using the same shooting style, you'd end up with around twice as many frames as you would with a 1Dx, not 200000 or whatever. Not that shooting video and taking individual frames as stills would work anyway. The shutter speeds for video vs action stills are very different. You'd either get blurry stills or choppy video.
so what's the point in shooting video just for stills. if your doing a wedding, why have two cameras shoot video for stills and then do another season for the video footage. You would want to capture both at the same time. choppy video isn't going to cut it.
The point is, you're not shooting 'video' for stills. You're shooting stills at 25fps to capture split-second moments. The videographers can worry about the video side of things. And you probably wouldn't use it for a wedding either. It replaces dedicated action stills cameras (D4s, 1Dx), whose full 14fps capability isn't needed for a wedding, not general-purpose or ultra high-resolution stills cameras.
Sony is making a DSLR which can shoot 32MP images at 25 or 30fps. If the 1Dx2 (or whatever the replacement for the 1Dx is called) could do that, many action photographers would be jumping for joy. But call the same thing 'video' and, suddenly, it becomes a terrible, useless thing?
yep why shoot in 8K when 12k just around the corner. it's all about data, memory, transfer rates and time. as a working photographer your time is money. that 1 hour of video footage is 6.1 TB of disk space. the camera has to process that, write that too a card. you have to take that card and transfer from your PC and then load in to your video editor. Everything may be getting faster but at the same time file sizes are getting bigger.
A few years ago, they said the same thing about the 1Ds2's 16MP. Then the 5D2's 21MP. Then the D800's 36MP. They said it about 1080p. Then they said it about 4k. Now they're saying it about 8k.
Your computer, storage and other parts of the workflow are just as much a part of your photographic system as your camera and lenses. They need to be kept up-to-date too. The technology is there.
it sounds good to get stills from video and call it a day. For some that's fine. However there is always going to be still photography.
I'm a landscape photographer. Of course I know that.
But it doesn't matter *how* you get the stills. What matters is that you do get them, and that they are of as high a quality as possible.
Photography power is that the decisive moment, a single frame of something without the knowledge of what became before it and what came after it. it's power is different than video. with video you can see a series of events unfold but you take a photo from that event and that's even more powerful. people will stop and look at a photo longer than the video itself. Photography gives us the ability to see something we wouldn't normally see in a way that we can't see it.
A single frame taken from a video clip isn't video. It's a still image. It doesn't move. You don't see a sequence of events, just a single image. Just like a 32MP image taken by a 'still' camera shooting at 25fps isn't video, but a timelapse taken at 1 frame every 5 minutes by a camera on a tripod becomes a video once you put it all together.
When I hold the camera up to my eye I just don't want to record video I want to record that single frame.
If only I had your perfect reflexes.
When you see a lion leaping on a gazelle, you want an image of a split-second event. Trouble is, it takes time to go from seeing the event to pressing the camera button. Average reaction time is 0.3-0.5 seconds. By the time your finger has actually pressed the button, the event is long over. That's why action cameras can currently shoot at 14fps. And that's why 25fps would be even better - there's less chance of the key moment being caught between two frames.
Like any technology you have to ask yourself how to you want to capture the images that you want. I know I don't want to shoot video to capture a single frame. I'm not in making videos, I'm in to making photographs. While the technology may merge and give us the ability to do work this way I would question how many people would.
I make still images as well, not video. I use whatever technology and whatever techniques that will give me the final image I want. For long exposures, particularly of star trails, image stacking is a wonderful thing. One could argue that's basically using a video sequence (albeit shot at a very slow frame rate) to produce a final, single still image.
