Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Steven Draper on May 06, 2008, 08:27:03 am
-
I also think that not only is it about technology, it is about demand and market advantage. I think that more and more people are wanting "movement" as part of their "experience" of image work.
Not trying to detract from wonderful still photography, it still has an important place and always will, but for some applications the ability to present quality stills and film from, captured from the same camera will be brilliant.
Of course it will be down to vision of the person behind the camera, and how its edited, but I'm very excited about the future.
Thanks Michael for highlighting these products.
-
I only hope that there will still be room for the contemplative, careful photographer who spends time to take a single frame or a few frames. In the right hands, I don't doubt the new convergent technology will be hugely useful. It's the weekend equipment geek hosing down a scene at 100fps that fills me with dread
And will wedding photographers ever again have an excuse why they did not capture that "magic moment" that Aunt Mabel so clearly remembers but which nowhere appears in the wedding album???
Quentin
-
I am a sports photographer, so this is an issue I've been interested in for some time. Obviously my fear is that once the skill of timing an action photo is obsolete, then the market would be given over to anyone who can point a video camera's lens, and the subsequent footage would be mined for high-quality stills. As, of course, Michael suggests in this article.
However, as of now I still see two obstacles to that fear becoming reality:
1) Shooting at 100 fps, or even 30 fps, would produce an awful lot of high-res images to sort through. Even when I was shooting the 8 fps of the Nikon F5, I hardly ever did rapid-fire photography at sports events (I shoot mostly pro tennis). The reason was that that strategy produced mostly junk. I found that if I was selective about my shooting and skillful with my timing, I'd end the day with just as many good photos, but with much less work to do weeding through the bad stuff. (Not to mention that I felt better, as an artist.)
The analogy isn't exact, but it makes my point: If I spend a six-hour day shooting stills at a tennis tournament, I'll end up with about a thousand photos to sort through. Shooting video at just 30 fps, even selectively, I'd end up with tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands. Which batch would you rather sort through? On deadline, which batch would you rather HAVE to sort through quickly?
I understand that advancing technology will make that issue easier to deal with, and might even, someday, make that latter task somewhat palatable. But my second point is an even bigger hurdle.
2) Marketing restrictions. Major league sports events get a lot of their money from TV rights. And the TV networks that pay for those rights ban others from making video of the games. In fact, the restriction against shooting video is listed right in the terms of the credential applications.
I saw this in effect first-hand a couple years ago. I was shooting at the US Open tennis tournament, and the photographer in the pit next to me was asked to leave because he was using a still camera that had video capability. He wasn't shooting video -- he was just using a camera that looked like it could.
In that environment, it's impossible to imagine the pit filled with a hundred photographers aiming video cameras at the athletes. The TV network paying tens or hundreds of millions dollars is not going to allow scores of world media outlets to shoot video of those events.
This is an issue that might change as technology transforms the market; perhaps if every photographer one day shoots video to obtain stills, then maybe the TV networks will be forced to make a concession (surely with hefty legal penalties for misappropriation). But the financial interest on the networks' part will slow that change very dramatically. It would take a long, long time for them to let that happen.
-
I think stills that are captured as today, a single moment in time, are very different to moving images and will have a place in the future. Just as Black and white images and film still have an important place in the digital, colourful world of today.
To be noticed a still image needs to have a "lot more" than moving visuals do. (at the moment) But I believe a still image offers a bigger window for the viewer to explore or experience elements and emotions that go beyond what can be seen. I always maintain, It's not what I can see in a "still image," its where the image takes my mind that differentiates the great from the good. Moving visuals can do it for me at the very very highest end, but not so often.
But there are times when having the ability to produce both simultaneously would be advantages, if you know what your doing, both in things like weddings, sport, wildlife etc and artistically.
It will impact with things like stop motion filming, a lot of which is carried out with still cameras and also stitched images which may become easier. (not saying that makes them better!)
-
I am a sports photographer, so this is an issue I've been interested in for some time. Obviously my fear is that once the skill of timing an action photo is obsolete, then the market would be given over to anyone who can point a video camera's lens, and the subsequent footage would be mined for high-quality stills. As, of course, Michael suggests in this article.
However, as of now I still see two obstacles to that fear becoming reality:
1) Shooting at 100 fps, or even 30 fps, would produce an awful lot of high-res images to sort through. Even when I was shooting the 8 fps of the Nikon F5, I hardly ever did rapid-fire photography at sports events (I shoot mostly pro tennis). The reason was that that strategy produced mostly junk. I found that if I was selective about my shooting and skillful with my timing, I'd end the day with just as many good photos, but with much less work to do weeding through the bad stuff. (Not to mention that I felt better, as an artist.)
The analogy isn't exact, but it makes my point: If I spend a six-hour day shooting stills at a tennis tournament, I'll end up with about a thousand photos to sort through. Shooting video at just 30 fps, even selectively, I'd end up with tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands. Which batch would you rather sort through? On deadline, which batch would you rather HAVE to sort through quickly?
I understand that advancing technology will make that issue easier to deal with, and might even, someday, make that latter task somewhat palatable. But my second point is an even bigger hurdle.
2) Marketing restrictions. Major league sports events get a lot of their money from TV rights. And the TV networks that pay for those rights ban others from making video of the games. In fact, the restriction against shooting video is listed right in the terms of the credential applications.
I saw this in effect first-hand a couple years ago. I was shooting at the US Open tennis tournament, and the photographer in the pit next to me was asked to leave because he was using a still camera that had video capability. He wasn't shooting video -- he was just using a camera that looked like it could.
In that environment, it's impossible to imagine the pit filled with a hundred photographers aiming video cameras at the athletes. The TV network paying tens or hundreds of millions dollars is not going to allow scores of world media outlets to shoot video of those events.
This is an issue that might change as technology transforms the market; perhaps if every photographer one day shoots video to obtain stills, then maybe the TV networks will be forced to make a concession (surely with hefty legal penalties for misappropriation). But the financial interest on the networks' part will slow that change very dramatically. It would take a long, long time for them to let that happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a very sensitive subject and both sides of the isle are going to be very passionate in their responses.
Personally, my heart and soul and a major part of my life investment is in still photography and I'd be quite happy if every lcd and crt screen in the world just blanked out, like some M. Night Shyamalan movie.
It would improve my standing and my bottom line and I'd bet at that point print editorial would pay a hell of a lot more money.
The thing is that's not going to happen. Steve Jobs is not going to roll up I tunes and make it music only, You tube will only expand and don't think for a moment people aren't in board rooms all over Hollywood and NY trying to find a way to make a buck off of all the new content that will be coming down the tube, or trying to find ways to protect their current income streams.
Yes, you are right, if you go into an NFL game or the Osaka Track and Field Event with a shoulder mount eng, the guards will snap it up and put it in storage, though they can't and won't stop the 75,000 people in the stands from running their still and video cell phones and casios and putting the content online 2 hours after the event.
That may not be legal, but it would take all of the lawyers in hell (a lot of lawyers) to track it down and and get it removed and once on the web, it seems nothing is ever removed.
Right now we are in the early stages of this and there are still a lot of obstacles keeping still and motion production apart, but if your a professional photographer it won't be long until your estimates have a section called moving imagery and whether you produce and shoot it or not is really not relative because it will be part of the process.
The trick to all of this is to find a way to make creative content that merges the two disciplines and as Michael points out, that ain't easy. Just a small chipped 16x9 frame looks a hell of a lot different than a 645 medium format vertical and even if the two frame formats were identical, (which I guess it will all be horizontal someday), you still have to have a different mindset about moving vs. still.
Both are very compelling, but both require a different thought and though at the very high end Hollywood theatrical level the two will probably be separate for some time, in the advertising and editorial world they will merge faster than any of us think possible.
In the end someone, probably some high school kid is going to surprise all of us and shoot something that is beyond the traditional restraints of still or moving and once he/she appears on 12 dozen morning shows and gets a 40 million dollar deal with Warner Bros., then everybody is going to start buying a Casio or a Red.
Regardless of whether any of this comes to pass I do know one absolute truth. My largest monthly hardware expense is not in paper, ink, cameras, lenses or lights.
It's in hard drives and server fees.
JR
-
At the moment I'm shooting as many short videos as still pics, but I only edit the stills. I save the best video clips and file them by subject etc. Someday there may be a reason to work with some of the videos, but in any case, they make a handy reference library for certain things not covered by stills (particularly because of the add'l property of sound). My only gripe is I wish there were two shutter buttons for still and video, instead of a "mode" dial. With two shutter buttons, the operation would be nearly seamless.
-
I only hope that there will still be room for the contemplative, careful photographer who spends time to take a single frame or a few frames. In the right hands, I don't doubt the new convergent technology will be hugely useful. It's the weekend equipment geek hosing down a scene at 100fps that fills me with dread
Personally, my heart and soul and a major part of my life investment is in still photography and I'd be quite happy if every lcd and crt screen in the world just blanked out, like some M. Night Shyamalan movie.
The thing is that's not going to happen. Steve Jobs is not going to roll up I tunes and make it music only, You tube will only expand and don't think for a moment people aren't in board rooms all over Hollywood and NY trying to find a way to make a buck off of all the new content that will be coming down the tube, or trying to find ways to protect their current income streams.
Both very valid points. I remember watching a movie some years ago with Martin Sheen and Richard Dreyfuss... 'The American President' IIRC. In the movie there was an election going on and Richard Dreyfuss played a senator who was launching a barrage of personal attacks against the president (Martin Sheen), who said nothing in return. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a political debate, but there was a line in the movie where one of the president's aides told him that the people of the country were so thirsty for a message from the president that in the vacuum they would 'drink the sand'. And Martin Sheen's response was that the people would drink the sand because they didn't know the difference.
To Quentin, I'd like to think that people will always appreciate a quality image, no matter how it's captured or presented. Since I don't make money from my images, photography to me is very different from those who do so professionally. Shooting landscapes for me takes on a meditative aspect, it becomes a holistic experience that goes far beyond clicking the shutter.
As James pointed out, with YouTube and other streams we've become so inundated with content, much of it mediocre or worse, that we've come to expect this lack of quality as a new standard. "Yes it's lousy, but it's all there is." I don't believe that's true, but like a gold panner working a mined out claim, one has to sort through a lot of sand to find the few traces of gold hiding in there. One thing for sure, this new technology is not going to go away. We may welcome it or abhor it, but it's here to stay. Our choice may be simply how to deal with it. My stepson works in the movie industry, mostly doing rigging and lighting, but he's also done camera work for some independent films and is working his way to be a director of photography some day. He has several hundred feet of 16mm film but is thinking of selling his camera and lenses because there's so little demand for it anymore.
Mike.
-
However, as of now I still see two obstacles to that fear becoming reality:
1) Shooting at 100 fps, or even 30 fps, would produce an awful lot of high-res images to sort through. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suspect it'll be easier than it might seem because you won't be looking at each and every one of those frames. For sports, you'll scroll through until you find the part of the action you want, then step through just those frames where the peak of the action is captured.
-
I suspect it'll be easier than it might seem because you won't be looking at each and every one of those frames. For sports, you'll scroll through until you find the part of the action you want, then step through just those frames where the peak of the action is captured.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For a learning experience only, I've taken a few 1 minute high def video clips and scrolled through them as if I was editing a still session and it's alot easier than any web browser, dam system, or post processor I've used for editing.
In fact it's so bloody easy it's silly and though I don't know if I'll ever be a fan of handing over 120 fps to a client, I'll bet you anything the client will like it.
Now once again, don't take this as I've tossed away my still cameras and am now ready to shoot only video.
That's just not an option for what I do and what my clients expect, but if there were 100 fps still cameras and the "take" was in one singular scrollable clip like a quick time movie, man or man would the editing be easy.
JR
-
My stepson works in the movie industry, mostly doing rigging and lighting, but he's also done camera work for some independent films and is working his way to be a director of photography some day. He has several hundred feet of 16mm film but is thinking of selling his camera and lenses because there's so little demand for it anymore.
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm a former film DP. I worked for several decades on features and TV out of Vancouver. If your stepson can still sell the camera, I'd advise him to do so. Just as in still photography, in the motion media world, film has a limited future.
The singular advantage film has over digital media is it's accessibility over time. Big budget producers still prefer film due to it's capability as an archival storage medium. Who knows if some reader technology will be available to decipher current codecs in 2050? I'm sure many of us have Zip disks, Bernoulli disks and Syquest tape carts that are useless now.
-
Convergence cameras are obviously on the way, but I think they'll mostly be used for amateur shoots and in a very limited way for professional stuff; in other words, they won't be that big a deal.
If you look at a movie while it's being made, you'll notice that there's a lot more machinery around than cameras -- it's not there because the cameraman or director likes machinery, it's there because they need it. They need dollies, lights, incredibly high-quality zooms that can costs tens of thousands of dollars, and on and on.
Without it, you get a film that might look something like the Blair Witch Project, which was big in its time, but that hasn't been often replicated (I know about Cloverfield) because people generally like steady horizons, consistent lighting, high-quality sound, etc. You perhaps could plug a generalist machine like a DSLR into that, and somebody probably will, but machines become specialized for a reason -- specialized machines are usually better for a specialized job.
Take weight. Weight doesn't mean as much in a movie camera as it does in a still camera, because a movie camera is almost always going to be mounted on a dolly, to smooth out or lift or twist the shot; that won't change because the camera is a DSLR -- you'll still have to make those moves. But because you *can* have the weight, then you can build in all kinds of other stuff into the camera -- electronic enhancements that you wouldn't have room for, or a weight allowance for, in a DSLR. Even armor, to protect the memory and lenses.
So, convergence will probably mean most to amateurs who want one camera instead of two, and people like wedding photographers and fashion people who need a quick cut of a runway presentation, where the lighting is fixed and the point of view is narrow and unmoving. They'll also be good (if the frame quality can be maintained) for people who are shooting action, but just want to clip a frame (sports photographers, wildlife guys.)
But serious movie/video cameras will remain as specialized machines.
There are some objections to convergence cameras that I really don't think are that serious as problems -- quantity of footage being one of them. If you shoot a sports event or a wedding and you're looking for a sequence or even a single frame, I suspect you'll just look at a computer screen, with the film running at (say) two or three times normal speed, and when you need to pick a sequence, you'll just click it with a hand clicker made for the purpose, to mark the sequence. You will also be able to mark sequences as you shoot them. That kind of thing will be worked out quickly, I think.
JC
-
Think of Ansel Adams,
Extreme quality is still appreciated! But extreme quality is not for everyday pictures.
On the other hand, how many really large prints do we do that are intended for critical viewing? I'm not a pro, having photo just as a hobby, but I have quite a few stitched panoramas, like 20kx4k, they are very hard to show. I have a few pictures printed in 70x100 cm from 67 Velvia, they look gorgeous. I have place for about 5 of those in my living room...
I still think that motion and still photography are different. Sometimes obviously not much different. Lets say sports, you can capture the action at it's peak with a well made still photo. If you can shoot 30 or 60 FPS at high res I guess that you are guaranteed to have both peak action and fluent motion. So here the technologies converge.
If you are photographing a vista you would probaby do some zooming in and panning in video, while when shooting still the aim would be a single well composed picture telling the whole story.
One issue, I have shot a lot of "semi panoramics" recently. I really enjoy doing this, but it's more like engineering than art.
You find your motiv, that's art.
- Mount pano head
- Set level
- Find correct exposure
- Shoot a lot of pictures with overlap
There is not a lot of art in this, it's more craftmanship.
The panoroma is then merged, tonally corrected and cropped. Still more craftmanship than art.
Finally we present it, the best way I have found is to present it as a movie, with zooms in and out and panning across. Much like it would have been done with movie equipment.
Erik
I only hope that there will still be room for the contemplative, careful photographer who spends time to take a single frame or a few frames. In the right hands, I don't doubt the new convergent technology will be hugely useful. It's the weekend equipment geek hosing down a scene at 100fps that fills me with dread
And will wedding photographers ever again have an excuse why they did not capture that "magic moment" that Aunt Mabel so clearly remembers but which nowhere appears in the wedding album???
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Convergence cameras are obviously on the way, but I think they'll mostly be used for amateur shoots and in a very limited way for professional stuff; in other words, they won't be that big a deal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, I understand what you are saying, however, the example given is too narrow a definition of professional in the convergence market.
There is plenty of scope for a converged camera within a professional environment. Consider markets such as online sales (e-bay, amazon, etc...) where a short 30 second film of an object/demonstration conveys so much more information than a still image every can. Is the person making this no less professional (or in need of lighting, composition and directing skills) than a feature film director?
An often quoted example in the convergence space is journalism - whether that is citizen journalism where everyday people capture events on their cellphone camera (still or moving), or 'professional' photographers making syndicated still and moving images for newspaper/print, web, broadcast news, blogs and online newsclips.
The success of a convergence camera will depend less on its fine art capabilities and more on its ability to meet real world needs in communication.
-
The success of a convergence camera will depend less on its fine art capabilities and more on its ability to meet real world needs in communication.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that it will also depend heavily on the availability of light and easy to use viscous tripod heads enabling simple 2 axis smooth paning while retaining a form factor close to what photographers are willing to carry around alone.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What's missing in these estimations of limits with amateur cameras for the future is items like stabilization. Stabilization was not available in the old days and so amateurs with handhelds got unprofessional-looking video. In the future, amateur cameras will be able to pan, zoom, and so on much as if they were on a professional film platform.
-
Good morning:
Received a link to the following:
http://download334.mediafire.com/gfmxjjojt.../SDredvs.35.mov (http://download334.mediafire.com/gfmxjjojtngg/cymm9gneepj/SDredvs.35.mov)
from my son this morning - warning, it's a 39MB download. The audio doesn't seem to work, but it's a comparison between the RED camera and 35mm film. More than that I can't tell you. Here's Chris' comment:
"interesting that film has over 5 stops and the red has under three.
also on a 64:1 lens the red has HUGE depth of field, everything is in focus!!"
Mike.
P.S. I wasn't sure whether to post this on this thread or the one on the RED camera, so I'll add it to both...
-
That link comes up w/ an error for me.
-
What's missing in these estimations of limits with amateur cameras for the future is items like stabilization. Stabilization was not available in the old days and so amateurs with handhelds got unprofessional-looking video. In the future, amateur cameras will be able to pan, zoom, and so on much as if they were on a professional film platform.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, maybe, but my view is that pro looking paning and zooming is next to impossible done handheld. I have tried extensively with various levels of full HD video cams recently, and it is really hard. All these cameras (Canon and Sony) did of course feature the latest VR technology , but it only helps to a certain extend.
The only thing that really helps are inertial devices, but these work thanks to their... weight...
In my view good tripod heads are the only option, but anyone having used a video tripod + viscous head knows that these devices can currently not realistically be carried in the field by a single person. This becomes a team work.
Regards,
Bernard
-
That link comes up w/ an error for me.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=194245\")
Try this one: [a href=\"http://www.mediafire.com/?cymm9gneepj]http://www.mediafire.com/?cymm9gneepj[/url] You can click on the link to the .mov file from there.
Mike.
-
In my view good tripod heads are the only option, but anyone having used a video tripod + viscous head knows that these devices can currently not realistically be carried in the field by a single person. This becomes a team work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure where you are coming from on this one Bernard. I have a tilt pan video tripod with viscous resistance to give smooth movements as you describe. It is marginally heavier than my photo tripods and a bit bulkier (principly because it is designed to carry a much heavier load) but not so heavy/bulky that it isn't transportable (with camera) by one person.
If the market for convergence cameras takes off then the market for supports and accessories will develop as a matter of course.
-
Not sure where you are coming from on this one Bernard. I have a tilt pan video tripod with viscous resistance to give smooth movements as you describe. It is marginally heavier than my photo tripods and a bit bulkier (principly because it is designed to carry a much heavier load) but not so heavy/bulky that it isn't transportable (with camera) by one person.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Glad to hear that, I must have overlooked some options then.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Interesting article.
Ok so it might appeal to action shooters, but then who needs 100fps anyway?
Bit OTT really. Nothing wrong with new technology, but its a lot less important than many think. We all love gadgets, but again, it is what you do with it that counts.
A pal recently said to me
"digital has ruined photography", ala everyone is at it..working and amateur. Cameras are overloaded with features and gimmicks. I dont agree with that really, its just made it easier for people to get into. Same with software..its helped us all do things, that only few did in years past. If and how you use these tools is what really matters. And we dont all have to do the same thing, or work the same way.
Still not sure I see a huge place for video and stills to share the same platform, I would not want to dig through high quality video to use a still shot, that would indicate to me, that I was lacking in ability. The quest for more features goes on, but for most of us, its not really something to pay that much attention too.
-
Filing just one or two short videos with a stills collection can be very illuminating, since the videos contain information not in the stills, particularly sound. Seeing Ansel Adams' work is one thing, but seeing the interview video makes all the difference in understanding the real person. This isn't just an art thing - a couple of videos from a wedding or modeling shoot can be useful - note the 'extra features' included on so many multimedia products. Were it not for the LLVJ series, the still photos by Michael & friends would not have reached nearly the audience they have, and without those videos as study aids, the photos would not be nearly as interesting (excepting those folks who go to a gallery in person featuring those particular prints).
-
People still keep overlooking the fact that when using moving images as opposed to still images, you use a much lower shutter speed. So if you want nice sharp pictures, you cannot simply frame grab. [high shutter speeds are not usually practical as they give a strobing effect]. The film industry has for decades used a capture medium that is almost the same as the still photographers they employ, i.e. 35mm film, the difference being it's horizontal, not vertical. So why then do they also have stills photographers that they have to run the scene again for, using up very expensive and usually limited time? Simple, a still image can be much better quality even when using the same capture medium. Not only do you have the benefits of sharper images, you can also do vertical shots. Landscape 16x9 movies aren't so good for magazine covers.
The other issue is that the shots one captures for editing together later add a dimension not present in still images, so if you want to tell the story of a scene in a single image, then you may have to conflate the shots that make up a scene. So if you are going to the effort of having to rejig, why not use a more specialised camera to do a better job? This applies to advertising/videos/features/tv, where you use professionals.
As for the amateur and certain professionals [papparazzi for example] who simply wants to shoot video and simply grab a frame as he/she machine guns away, they'll be very happy with a convergence camera. Until it come to the cost of media storage. And these cameras will sell, but if you want to get the best tool for any job, hybrids are not the way to go.
And before James innacurately has a go at me again for 'traditional' thinking. that's not my stance. At times, it annoys me that I cannot do video with my DSLR, like I can with my pocket camera. But even if you have cameras that can shoot high quality 20MP images at 100fps, that doesn't mean, that you will get better shots than by using a DSLR more sparingly. Thinking is the major part of getting the shot, which is often overlooked.
If you want the best quality/usuability, then you will always use specialist equipment. Though by deliberating and intelligently using a lesser quality can be good, if it serves the story being told with movies or creates the right mood for stills. Besides creating moving and still images requires a lot of very different skills, even if the technical stuff may be very similar. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to do both, but most of us cannot.
I just remembered trying to do both video and stills simultaneously back in the mid 90s [gosh I'm so very traditional! ] when documenting an event. I decided it was in fact a damn nuisance as I needed to be in different places to capture the best angle for each media. A convergence camera wouldn't have made any difference to the real problems of trying to do a good job of both video and stills.
-
People still keep overlooking the fact that when using moving images as opposed to still images, you use a much lower shutter speed. So if you want nice sharp pictures, you cannot simply frame grab.
I understand your points and what you say is true... but that doesn't mean these cameras do not and will not have their place. They may not have their place for you and that is understandable.
I think some overlook that the combination of stills and motion has more uses than a print or narrative cinema.
Obviously this combination will not be for everyone, it may be for a very few, it may be for more down the road, who knows... But because it's a still, certainly doesn't mean it has to be printed at 16x20", just because it's motion doesn't mean it has to be cinema quality.
If your goal is high quality gallery prints, use the right tool. If your goal is a blockbuster, use the right tool. However, I see a whole 'nother use (uses) for these "hybrid" cameras, that goes beyond gallery prints and blockbusters. While retaining good quality (probably better quality than what was accepted as high quality from a DSLR, less than a decade ago).
Just my opinion.
-
I was talking with one of the Syracuse, NY Post Standard photographers about exactly this issue in August '07 at the NY State Fair.
1. For news photographers it really is going to video for the web then being able to grab some high res. stills from that video.
2. I see this as just an other tool that photographers can use.
a. Sure some folks will "spray and pray." Like when I am trying to capture a bird in flight.
b. But there are other times when I pull out the tripod and take my time composing the shot, playing with fill light and reflectors.
c. And there are other times when I like to do a series of time lapse photographs like a moon rise or sun rise.
-
a. Sure some folks will "spray and pray." Like when I am trying to capture a bird in flight.
"Hose it down with Eastmancolour", I heard one big-time Hollywood cameraman say one day.
-
I understand your points and what you say is true... but that doesn't mean these cameras do not and will not have their place. They may not have their place for you and that is understandable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I said they'll have their place, but the point I made will limit their use
quite considerably and is always overlooked, when people get excited about convergence.
-
Sort of reminds me of a T-shirt I saw the other day: DUREX Connecting People. How much more convergence do you want? Or need?
Rob C
-
As technology grows and the mfr's finally provide two shutter buttons instead of a "mode" switch, the next hurdle will be control over separate perspectives and settings for the stills shutter button and the video shutter button - i.e. stills orientation may be governed by how you hold the camera, and video employ its own logic.
-
I understand your points and what you say is true... but that doesn't mean these cameras do not and will not have their place. They may not have their place for you and that is understandable.
I think some overlook that the combination of stills and motion has more uses than a print or narrative cinema.
Obviously this combination will not be for everyone, it may be for a very few, it may be for more down the road, who knows... But because it's a still, certainly doesn't mean it has to be printed at 16x20", just because it's motion doesn't mean it has to be cinema quality.
If your goal is high quality gallery prints, use the right tool. If your goal is a blockbuster, use the right tool. However, I see a whole 'nother use (uses) for these "hybrid" cameras, that goes beyond gallery prints and blockbusters. While retaining good quality (probably better quality than what was accepted as high quality from a DSLR, less than a decade ago).
Just my opinion.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=194562\")
If you walk south down broadway, from Union Sqaure to City Hall you will see more ink on paper advertising than anyplace in the planet. Bus Shelters, Cabs, Store Fronts, outdoor, handouts, newstands, newspaper machines and so many flyers that is looks like a ticker tape parade.
Then if you just squint a little you can easily see how the majority of this can be replaced by some kind of thin film digital screen, lcd or hand held device.
Look, I'm not saying still photography is dead, at least I hope it's not because it's how I make 95% of my income, but it just stands to reason that when the first Gap, Lucky Jeans or Walmart buys into electronic point of sale vs. standard ink on paper then the dominos are going to fall and once the requirement is a digital still, it stands to reason why not multiple digital stills, heck why not just multiple images period?
Today over lunch I noticed 5 people at the counter reading. Three were interacting with a pda or Iphone. The other two was a mother reading a childrens book to her daughter.
For the next two weeks we're in production for a lifestyle campaign where people are running, jumping and flying through the air. It's a still campaign, no moving digital imagery is requested, but don't think I wouldn't love a 5k Red that autofocused shot at 100fps, at 1000th of a second, if only for the stills.
I'm not a run and gun guy, though I do shoot a lot of data and I'm as comfortable shooting this with a Phase [a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/sports/pictures/rr_sports_0066.jpg]http://russellrutherford.com/sports/pictur...sports_0066.jpg[/url] as I am shooting this http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictu...ashion_0073.jpg (http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0073.jpg) with a Canon.
I am aware of how moving footage looks at high shutter speeds, but don't think some software engineer can take frenetic 1000th of a second 100 fps footage and smooth it down to look like standard 30 fps video, because if there is a call for it, the software will come.
I also know that the disciplines and technique from still to moving can be quite different depending on the intended use and medium.
That doesn't mean that all productions are that disimilar and it also doesn't mean those areas of cross over don't get closer every day.
I hate to say this but if we do get more "convergence", if we do begin reading the NY times on thin film recyclycable screens, if the windows of Victoria Secrets becomes a 12' lcd screen and the next Rocky 12 is shown on a digital projector it won't be art that drives the medium, it will be commerce.
It will be the cost of printing, paper, ink, distribution and delivery, vs the cost of downloading.
Now to also set the record straight, I've shot a lot of "parallel" productions and sometimes it's as easy as running a second camera over my shoulder and somtimes it's virtually impossible to do both well.
For still advertising, what I can do with a still camera and three profoto heads takes a 500 lb dolly, tracks, 200 amps and a crew of six to professionally produce a moving sequence. . . . sometimes.
When I started my career I was fortunate to be offered the position of a (then) large budget movie production shooting the stills for advertising. It was a wonderful 5 month gig in Montreal, Paris and London. One of my "requests" was to not shoot with a blimp and on most scenes to have the ability to redirect the talent into what would tell the proper story in a still vs. what was framed and shot for the screen.
The director was kind of enough to allow this and it had it's benifits, not in costs, but in the final product.
So I guess what I'm saying is I know the difference between the two disiplines and respect what it takes to make each work.
Regardless, if there is actually more convergence, especially in advertising the final deciding factor will be the return on investment.
If you have the abiltiy to shoot and direct both moving and still imagery and combine the process, you'll probably be more in demand.
It's really that simple.
JR
-
The video portion of this, though very limited, added only about 15 minutes total to the two sessions.
Total time in cutting, quick color grading, titling and output was probably 4 hours max.
http://russellrutherford.com/greendayfinal.mov (http://russellrutherford.com/greendayfinal.mov)
JR
-
I said they'll have their place, but the point I made will limit their use
quite considerably and is always overlooked, when people get excited about convergence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would limit their use in the way you see them being used, by today's standards.
Grabbing frames from the motion and making it a still, yes it may (or would/does) cause issues.
However, using the same interface to shoot a still with its demands and shooting motion with its demands with a level of quality that the job demands, if offered from one device--would have potential to be useful, at least the way I see it.
-
"So if 5 seconds are recorded, 150 frames are as well. The still photographer or editor can then later choose the frame that is best."
Would one really be able to consider themselves a "still photographer" at that point? I think not. I hope these new cameras come with a noose attached because the last thing I want to experience is more editing time. Photography is easier than ever, but people still need more automation in their cameras and less involvement with the picture taking process? Good God, no wonder the younger generation is going back to Holgas and snapping up used Hasselblads.
-
It would limit their use in the way you see them being used, by today's standards.
Grabbing frames from the motion and making it a still, yes it may (or would/does) cause issues.
However, using the same interface to shoot a still with its demands and shooting motion with its demands with a level of quality that the job demands, if offered from one device--would have potential to be useful, at least the way I see it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Misreading/missing the point, true convergence is film once, extract high quality stills later. Which is what some UK newpapers are already wanting to do. And frame grabs of 1/5oth sec images are not good. Movies don't do sharp and moving that well, which is acceptable in moving pictures though panning usually shows the medium's limitation in this area.
A device that can do both has been here for many years already. They are normally dismissively referred to as P+S cameras. But are more than good enough for most people. I carry one all the time and as for quality, some of the most popular shots in my A3 portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II [2.1M!] Not in movie mode though!
I am aware of how moving footage looks at high shutter speeds, but don't think some software engineer can take frenetic 1000th of a second 100 fps footage and smooth it down to look like standard 30 fps video, because if there is a call for it, the software will come.
A higher frame rate will ease the problem, but that exacerbates the already challeging storage issue and then you have problems mixing with/playing at 30fps. Another way to do it is to make each frame look more blurred/less sharp.
I hate to say this but if we do get more "convergence", if we do begin reading the NY times on thin film recyclycable screens, if the windows of Victoria Secrets becomes a 12' lcd screen and the next Rocky 12 is shown on a digital projector it won't be art that drives the medium, it will be commerce.
In one sense, we already reached that stage, as the web has allowed moving images for advertising on web pages for a long time and once it was realised how annoying/counterproductive it can be it was scaled back. Sometimes just because technology allow one to do something, it doesn't mean that it will take place as expected.
For still advertising, what I can do with a still camera and three profoto heads takes a 500 lb dolly, tracks, 200 amps and a crew of six to professionally produce a moving sequence. . . . sometimes.
Isn't that [refering to another similar discusion] exactly why I said moving sequences were usually much more cumbersome/slower to produce compared to stills.
One of my "requests" was to not shoot with a blimp and on most scenes to have the ability to redirect the talent into what would tell the proper story in a still vs. what was framed and shot for the screen.
The director was kind of enough to allow this and it had it's benifits, not in costs, but in the final product.
That's exactly how I insist on doing stills being done. The main issue is the 1st AD, who all too often regards the still photographer as a useless nuisance. Usually they are the 1st ADs who ignorantly think 1st ADing is someting to do with directing as opposed to set management. A stills photographer may be completely irrelevent to the making of a film, but absolutely essential when it comes to selling the film and as marketing is more important than content these days....
If you have the abiltiy to shoot and direct both moving and still imagery and combine the process, you'll probably be more in demand.
It's really that simple.
In some ways, I'm sort of excited by this side of things, as film was my first and longest lasting passion and I just happened to discover by accident, I was quite good at photography. The major benfit of stills is that I don't need a crew to produce good work, not so with film.
I learnt to write scripts for the same reason, I don't need anyone else, it's very cheap and more importantly I learnt the most important aspect about film making as result of writing, how to tell a story.
-
I just remembered trying to feature request [and was loudly shouted down by LR 'purists'/traditionalists] that Lightroom was able to include all file types in it's database/DAM section. The reason - one of the things that made LR very frustrating for me as a photographer was the fact that it wouldn't download all the files from one's memory card as it always left any movies shot on my compact camera. Not to mention I can't add sound files or text notes relating to shoots to the DAM section.
Now with photographers talking about using video as well and possibly instead of still cameras, Adobe needs to realise LR will have to accomodate new ways of working with regard to imagery and how photographers will use/aquire imagery. One thing that is neat in the latest iMovie [2008?] is the abilty to scrub through the thumbnails of the clips, it would be ideal for LR if it acknowledged movie formats.
-
I just remembered trying to feature request [and was loudly shouted down by LR 'purists'/traditionalists] that Lightroom was able to include all file types in it's database/DAM section. The reason - one of the things that made LR very frustrating for me as a photographer was the fact that it wouldn't download all the files from one's memory card as it always left any movies shot on my compact camera. Not to mention I can't add sound files or text notes relating to shoots to the DAM section.
Now with photographers talking about using video as well and possibly instead of still cameras, Adobe needs to realise LR will have to accomodate new ways of working with regard to imagery and how photographers will use/aquire imagery. One thing that is neat in the latest iMovie [2008?] is the abilty to scrub through the thumbnails of the clips, it would be ideal for LR if it acknowledged movie formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In CS3 - Extended, you can correct (color time) grade, filter, and do almost anything you can do in standard photoshop on moving imagery, including hdv.
Then output the corrections in the correct codec, size and fps.
JR
-
In CS3 - Extended, you can correct (color time) grade, filter, and do almost anything you can do in standard photoshop on moving imagery, including hdv.
Then output the corrections in the correct codec, size and fps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And what has that got to do with Digital Asset Management in LR ? Oh yes, nothing, nada, zilch!
You really, really need to start reading posts before replying to them.
BTW, regarding PS CS3 Extended's video abilities, didn't I inform you about that very thing in the RED thread, so not sure why you need to tell me about that?
-
Just back from an extended gentleman´s lunch (mine, not another guy´s) down at the beach where I had a philosophical chat with one of the waiters about doctor´s orders: mine (doctor) tells me that I mustn´t go over a single glass of cabernet sauvignon per day if I wish to continue my days on top of the earth rather than admire it from a different perspective. His, the waiter´s, not the doctor´s reply was that he quite understood my problem but that perhaps I should take it to mean a single glass in several bars. I argued that a more honest take would be to opt for a somewhat larger glass in the location in which I found myself and save the expense of moving from bar to bar.
Which, of course, seems to be at about the philosophical level to which this thread has suddenly arrived. Pity we couldn´t have discussed both themes at the same time; would have made for a better understanding all round. I´m sure the waiter would have enjoyed it.
Rob C
-
I have very little patience with numpties online repeatedly not bothering to read posts correctly before responding. James has lots of interesting things to say, but unfortunately seems to have not quite enough time to read other's posts before replying. Hence the irritated response.
-
Hey, it´s all flying at 30,000 ft above my head anyway; I´m still fighting with the problems of getting that perfect print digitally down on paper...
Rob C
-
The emphasis in these convergence threads seems to be on expensive, high-end video cameras that produce images of such a good quality that individual frames can be used for perhaps 'decent' stills.
I've often wondered why APS-C and FF 35mm DSLRs can not be adapted to provide a movie mode as P&S cameras usually do, and offer higher quality video in line with the capabilities of their big, low-noise sensors, which are actually higher resolving and have better low-light performance than most (or all) high-end video cameras.
The obvious obstacle would appear to be the mirror. One can't expect a mirror to flip up and down 30x a second. However, the development of LiveView has removed that obstacle, has it not?
-
Hey, it´s all flying at 30,000 ft above my head anyway; I´m still fighting with the problems of getting that perfect print digitally down on paper...
Rob C
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=195756\")
To take this away from the technical for a moment and just look at marketing and advertising in a different non traditional way, I suggest everyone that produces artistic content for any form of commerce to read this short article.
[a href=\"http://tinyurl.com/68t5vp]http://tinyurl.com/68t5vp[/url]
The author is not advocating anything other than an open thought process to identifying, marketing and selling goods and though the article does not go into the details of high tech, web play, or mention much about traditional advertising, he does make one major statement about how under the line and over the line mindsets should be erased.
I know right now most of my clients (ad agency and direct) are searching to find a balance or better put, a way to "converge" their traditiional advertising assembly lines (and streams of income) with new ways to attract and engage a consumer.
Or as this author states, every client is looking at ROI, regardless of the media.
This is just the beginning of the process and whether we like it or not, in advertising, theatrical even fine art, the only person who's final say maters is the consumer.
Another point the author makes is a lot of marketing success happens on the street level, usually regional.
Ask any fashion merchandiser which option they would prefer . . . 12 free pages in vogue on 6 extra POS displays in Walmart, JC Penny, or Neiman Marcus.
I think you'd be surprised at the answer.
What plays well in Manhattan may not resonate in Des Moines and this is where tradtiional media falls down and this is where new technology can offer a quickly adjustable form of visual content without delay, that is tailored to each specfic market.
In my view, what I think you will see happen is a change in priorities.
Televsion marginalized print and radio, and major advertisers moved to the model where 70% of the budget goes to broadcast. Now there is a rethink were the budget goes where it has the most effect and I believe the days of the big budget tv spot are coming to an end.
Where convergence comes in is the word ROI. What works for the web should work for TV and should work for print because they all are going to share the viewership.
JR
-
I read the article, James, but it strikes me that Mr Roth might just be flying a kite.
I was in advertising photography and out of it long before you - sadly - and I seem to recall that agencies were not all that sure of anything much even then. The difference, perhaps, was that what they would say in private they didn´t come out like that and say in print. But then, lots of things didn´t come out and I think we were all a sight better off for it!
I can´t remember a time when anyone honestly expected to have any measureable take on whether or not advertising did or did not work; the best one hoped for was brand recognition and, in the more local sense (as Roth says) the idea was that you might advertise something in the local press as a hook to get folks into the department store. That´s an area where I had some great clients and times: we´d shoot some boutique-style clothes but it didn´t really matter squat if any of them sold, the deal was to bring Mrs Client indoors to see the rest of the shop. I´m obviously not considering the advertising related to second-hand cars, records or other stuff that fills the personal pages of local papers in this post; that´s all a different world but it does seem to work out quite well.
I have to agree with you about the reluctance to spend money buying space in Vogue (for example) as a couple of the same clients for whom I did local advertising pics were also sometimes involved in buying into promotions in that very magazine and I did the shots in both cases, but I have to say that the self-motivated ones were always better than the promotional packages for many reasons, not least of all that the deals were so indebted to airlines, tourist boards, hotel groups etc, that the poor old product was in danger of coming off second best... not the case at all with editorial, where a different set of accepted rules seemed to hold sway, with the pictures being numero uno. I find that curious. Why did they want their pound of flesh in the promo deals but not when providing hospitality for editorial? Perhaps the answer isn´t to do with the providers at all, but to do with the difference in psychology (strength?) between a magazine´s space marketeers and an editorial department. But I digress.
I don´t buy that using internet advertising will be any new final solution; most of the time adverts are blocked, if possible, and serve as little more than intrusions into whatever one happens to be doing online. Far from engendering good relations, they annoy. That can´t be good for ANY brand! Of course, I might just be out of touch, as is anyone who takes the non-accepted direction, but I see them as being even more intrusive than TV commercials after their second showing. After all, you can at least use their running time as a toilet break from whatever you happen to be watching. (I say toilet break where others might think of a cup of tea; problem is, one inevitably leads to the other and programmus interuptus multiplied by two.)
Perhaps the truth is that if you know what you want, then the computer gives you the opportunity of finding it without wearing out your shoes, but that requires an interested client in the first place.
I sometimes wonder how good or otherwise websites are for selling art. It seems to me that all one can do is to judge from one´s own set of ideas, and I would find it very hard to buy anything I have not first seen in the flesh; perhaps websites are more of a route for those of us who can´t get into a gallery and enjoy its prestige and position in the market. That is certainly not how I´d see it if I were selling wedding photography - for that, I think it (a website) allows a prospective client a good idea of what the photographer can do, but sorry, I don´t rate that quite in the same league as art. Even though an artist might do weddings, but let´s not go there. Please? I´m just trying to illustrate a point.
In the end, maybe the photographers should just stop beating their heads on the wall about where it´s all going: take the work you get, do your best and trust in your gods.
Rob C
-
Nearly everyone here assumes that convergence means that the video frames have to be suitable as high-quality replacements for still photos. Why? Image quality is relative, and changing all the time. Why can't we just get better cameras that enable both high-quality stills and medium-quality frames making up a video, but unlike today's cameras, make the selection of shooting mode more transparent so it becomes as natural as visualizing the task in one's head?
-
Nearly everyone here assumes that convergence means that the video frames have to be suitable as high-quality replacements for still photos. Why? Image quality is relative, and changing all the time. Why can't we just get better cameras that enable both high-quality stills and medium-quality frames making up a video, but unlike today's cameras, make the selection of shooting mode more transparent so it becomes as natural as visualizing the task in one's head?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a matter specialisation. You can't have it all. You either get a top-of-the-line videocam with decent still capability, or you get a top-of-the-line still camera with decent video capability.... at present. Who knows what the furure will hold!
-
It's a matter specialisation. You can't have it all. You either get a top-of-the-line videocam with decent still capability, or you get a top-of-the-line still camera with decent video capability.... at present. Who knows what the furure will hold!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually those are the perfect choices - the former for my neighbor and the latter for me. Then make sure I have transparent operation so I don't have to manipulate a "mode" dial and I will be happy.
-
In the end, maybe the photographers should just stop beating their heads on the wall about where it´s all going: take the work you get, do your best and trust in your gods.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with a lot of this with the exception of trust the gods part, because by the time PDN or Time magazine says "this is the way it is", it's usually too late.
Your right though, produce the best work you can, move forward, don't look back, don't fixate on the future, but be prepared.
JR
-
Another perspective, here:
http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot...-selection.html (http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/2008/05/selection-selection-selection.html)
Mike.