Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: soboyle on August 27, 2008, 11:42:42 am

Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: soboyle on August 27, 2008, 11:42:42 am
There is a lot of talk about convergence of still and video camera technologies, and now there is the inclusion of video in Nikons new D90 camera body.
So what is the big deal about this convergence, what am I missing?
It will be handy to have a built in video camera occasionally, one less thing to carry on vacation and family outings, but I'm no more likely to spend time as a fine art photographer taking videos than I was in the past. Are there new video markets opening up that I haven't heard about? Is it just the convenience?
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: glennchan on August 27, 2008, 01:17:02 pm
For journalism, it would be possible for a cameraperson to shoot video.  And then for print publications, stills can be pulled from that video stream.  The Red One digital cinema camera is getting close to that goal.  Certainly stills from a video stream are good enough for web/online publications.

As far as still cameras go, I don't know.  You could record video and then you don't have to worry about capturing something at the right, exact moment.  With a high speed camera you wouldn't have to do a lot of trial and error to get the right timing (e.g. shooting a bullet through an apple).

You could also do motion blur effects if you could shoot video... or remove all the people in the scene by doing a really long timelapse.

2- It's probably just the convenience of having two devices in one for consumer use.  Many people's cell phones have still and video camera functions.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: MarkL on August 27, 2008, 02:20:17 pm
Fine art, landscape etc. are probably the last places where this will raise it's head if it ever does. For sports, photo journalism etc. with fast moving subjects/situations it will be useful.

Right now a huge amount of people are still stitching together frames from their dslrs to get sufficient resolution at a reasonable price so I think digital has a very long way to go  in still photography yet.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 27, 2008, 05:13:43 pm
Quote
There is a lot of talk about convergence of still and video camera technologies, and now there is the inclusion of video in Nikons new D90 camera body.
So what is the big deal about this convergence, what am I missing?
It will be handy to have a built in video camera occasionally, one less thing to carry on vacation and family outings, but I'm no more likely to spend time as a fine art photographer taking videos than I was in the past. Are there new video markets opening up that I haven't heard about? Is it just the convenience?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Folks whom shoot stock will now be able to collect revenue streams from stock clips.

Not having to tote a video camera and support.

Even in landscape or fine art, a few minutes of that spectacular scene would look great on my HD set to share, or to sell.  Turn a dial, push a button.  You got it.

I doubt it would replace my video shoots with an XH-G1, but I'd know I would use it if the opportunity arrised at a photoshoot, and it was handy.  Even for note taking, or documentation, or getting a rare candid interview, etc.  

Finally, not everyone associates a pro level DSLR as a video cam.  Emagine the possibilities.  The subject is yaking away at liberty as your making adjustments, unawares that your rolling footage.  OK, not nice, but you get the point.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Pete Ferling on August 27, 2008, 05:19:25 pm
I should also add that capturing video is only half the issue.  Editing HD is whole nudder ball game.  Not for underpowered desktops and the faint of heart.  If you want to do it right, professionally, you could be looking at another $5K in software and hardware.

Michael mentioned an article that I believe will deal with that.  Even as a videographer I would be curious to see his take from a photographers perspective.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: michael on August 27, 2008, 06:35:40 pm
Agreed Pete. Editing is one of the biggest hurdles that newcomers have to handle.

Also, AVCHD, which almost all new consumer camcorders use, is a total horror in this regard. One of the dirty little secrets of present-day video. I'll have more on this next week.

Michael
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: RobertJ on August 27, 2008, 06:49:34 pm
IMO, this is NOT a video and still convergence.  

This is a DSLR that can shoot 12MP stills, and 720P video.  Which I LOVE.  I'm very excited, because I love video, and I'm sure from now on, many DSLRs from all companies will include some sort of video mode.  

But IMO, video and still convergence would be if a 12MP DSLR still camera can also shoot video that is recorded in it's full still resolution (12MP video resolution, like the RED).  Obviously, we're not going to see that so soon, and definitely not in a consumer DSLR.

Some day...
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Tony Beach on August 28, 2008, 12:01:42 am
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29096021 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=29096021)
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: michael on August 28, 2008, 08:24:28 am
With all due respect to Thom, shooting stills and video simultaneously is not what its about. It's being able to shoot stills and video with the same camera that appeals to newspapers that also have web sites.

In fact, many are now sending their reporters out with cameras like the Canon G9, that can shoot both stills and video simply and easily. The quality of both is good enough for both newspapers and the web.

But, when one can shoot 12MP raw stills and 12MP raw video, both with a hybrid DSLR video camera, the game will change. This will come within 12 months. It'll be a new ball game.

Michael
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: kaelaria on August 28, 2008, 08:58:14 am
I can't count the number of video devices I have owned.  All but one were 'convergence' devices.  The only one I used with any regularity was my camcorder, and that was very infrequent at best.  

I think the biggest market for such devices are right now, kids.  I think the biggest advantage the D90 has is the lens selection and ISO performance.  I don't know any kids that will have a Nikon lens collection or tote it all around to take skateboarding vids.  

I think it's a neat idea that gives nice looking results - but I think it's a solution to a non-existant problem at the moment.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on August 28, 2008, 11:39:27 am
He has already been quoted, but I believe David Pogue, amongst others, got it right today. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/28/technology/28pogue.php?page=1)
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: lovell on August 28, 2008, 05:57:43 pm
Quote
He has already been quoted, but I believe David Pogue, amongst others, got it right today. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/28/technology/28pogue.php?page=1)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sure, David Pogue got it right for Uncle Joe, Aunt Betty and other snappers that care little about making a wonderful photograph.

Michael is right on in this issue.  Video capabilities on a DSLR is a gimmick, and maybe a "kewl" thing, but still a gimmick.  

I'd rather have a still camera optimized for stills, and a video camera optimized just for video.  The camera worflow, and the ways one composes is often very different between still and video.   In addition, the editing and mastering of video is a skill that takes monumental time, resources, and intelligence to master and do right.  This part of video is often minimized.

Heck, if they're going to add video to DSLR's, why stop there?  Why not add an MP3 player too?  Games would be kind of neat too...perhaps GPS to help you drive to the photo shoot, tape recorder too...did someone mention cell phone capabilities, anyone?!?
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: The View on August 28, 2008, 08:16:40 pm
Interesting would be a system of camera body, lenses, and different backs for different tasks like normal light, low light, video.

What's most difficult would be the lens. A professional video lens doesn't just have an autofocus. It's judged not only by its image quality, but also on how you can control focusing and zooming (when you follow a moving subject, for example, and have to constantly reframe).
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: AndyF2 on August 28, 2008, 09:08:50 pm
This seems like two photographic tools in one body, which is perhaps not a convergence.  But looking at the other end of the image creative process where the work is shown, there is also a new display medium that needs something to show.

We used to have movies on screen or TV, and printed still images framed on the wall.  Two separate things.  Now, we have framed flat panels.  A bit small, but getting larger, thinner, and colour gamut will come last.  They're nice for desktop slideshows.  Once they're up to 11x17 and about the thickness of frames, you have a display that becomes suitable for showcasing collections of still images, and time series images (trying to avoid "movies" or "video clips").  

There will unfortunately be cute sunrise sequences and infinite loop waterfalls, but this also allows higher end work, anywhere from a minute to an hour long.  Either for the attractiveness of images being shown, or exploring an idea.  Owners of the display frames may choose to have the entire work run through, but they'll also be able halt it any of the image points.  Because those points are attractive, or the series explored an idea and that's an image worth thinking about further, or to them the key image.

To support that type of composition, and especially a frozen moment in the series, all frames would need to be as good as a single DSLR image.  So now with one camera, one can work in both still and time series styles of work.  It seems to be a convergence of tools, but the type of work is not converging, it's supporting a new kind of image composition.  

Andy
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: NikosR on August 29, 2008, 01:08:47 am
This http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc.../25446/D90.html (http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.html) (click on the D-movie demo button) looks quite impressive for a 'composition' produced solely with a still camera and home software. I'm sure it took lots of effort.

I'm sure this clip alone will sell the camera, regardless of the fact that most people who will get it will never be able to produce something like it.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on August 29, 2008, 08:58:29 am
Quote
But, when one can shoot 12MP raw stills and 12MP raw video, both with a hybrid DSLR video camera, the game will change. This will come within 12 months. It'll be a new ball game.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is that statement based on fact or speculation, Michael?
If its the first, what can you tell us?

Me, I'm all for hybrids. I'm a minimalist when it comes to gear and I allready know Final Cut pro.
I just hope these hybrids will support decent stereo sound. As long as the D90 (and others?) only record mono their video capabilities are gimmicks at worst or severely crippled tools at best.

Besides, how long can you record video on the D90? Does anyone know? Nikon doesn't speak of it.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: NikosR on August 29, 2008, 09:10:57 am
Quote
Is that statement based on fact or speculation, Michael?
If its the first, what can you tell us?


Besides, how long can you record video on the D90? Does anyone know? Nikon doesn't speak of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In 720p HD 24fps, multiple 5min clips until your card fills up. In lower resolutions clip limit goes up to 20min.

Pls. don't ask me why the 5min limit because there are long discussion going on about this. Reason given by Nikon seems to be EU import duty issues regarding videocams. Other reasons speculated are filesize limitations and sensor heat issues.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: michael on August 29, 2008, 09:19:43 am
Don't judge a person's eventually ability to run in the Olympics by their first steps as a toddler.

Also, remember Moore's Law.

Michael
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on August 29, 2008, 11:05:30 am
Very true, and this is "still" a still-camera. One can hardly call this a hybrid video/still camera.

And 5 minutes isn't all to bad. I'm guessing one can film for eg. ten minutes, but the camera breaks it into two connecting clips?

regards,

Mike
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: NikosR on August 29, 2008, 12:52:27 pm
Quote
Very true, and this is "still" a still-camera. One can hardly call this a hybrid video/still camera.

And 5 minutes isn't all to bad. I'm guessing one can film for eg. ten minutes, but the camera breaks it into two connecting clips?

regards,

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. Max continous shoot is 5min but reportedly you can resume shooting for another 5mins after a second or so. So, if you want to record, for example, a continous unedited speech by a politician you are out of luck.

Of course I see no reason why you would want to do that   If all political speeches where dictated by law to be recorded only using the D90 all of us would be better off... Seriously, this is limiting but not to the extend people would think. It depends on the application.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on August 29, 2008, 04:31:17 pm
True.

I hope this is bait thrown out into the pond by Nikons marketing boys.

Give us film-like video (with focusing, lage sensor and decent lens-choice), make us see we kinda like it and then come out with a film-still hybrid to rival the RED cinema system.

It would be a bold but good move, I think. It makes sense for a still camera maker to extend into the motion capture field.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: RobertJ on August 29, 2008, 05:28:23 pm
So the Nikon is not a professional Sony 3CCD 1/2" 1080P HD cam, but the look of the video images are better, IMO, because of the much larger sensor size, and the lenses available, even despite the fact that it records in (compressed?) AVI format (this will probably change in future DSLRs).  I'm talking about the *potential* that DSLRs have for producing videos.  We're not there yet, but:

For fun, I can see myself shooting a long or short film with this thing, or a future Full-Frame 5DII that records in 1080P.  I'd discard the sound recorded by the camera and use another source/other equipment for sound, do some professional editing, and you've got yourself a pretty nice looking film... or should we call it "video"...

For the amateurs, yes, it's good for shooting shaky videos with terrible sound, but look at what you can achieve with a hybrid DSLR with video mode if you take some time and effort, and have the skills to create something like I described above.

I think/hope Michael is right.  This is how it's going to be in just a few months.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Nick Rains on August 30, 2008, 03:55:05 am
I have a colleague here in Brisbane who shoots weddings with a DV 'strapped' to his Canon. He films his whole shoot from his own POV and then edits it all together for a video/stills hybrid. His clients love it, and thus it makes him money. A still camera that could do both at the same time would be quite useful.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on August 30, 2008, 04:37:59 pm
RED is stepping up to the DSLR plate with their upcoming Monstro sensor which they will implement in "another camera aimed squarely at the DSLR market".

This is getting to be an interesting ballgame. Especially if Nikon and/or Canon would thrown down the gauntlet by making a similar motion capture device. I applaud the coming of a hybrid still/motion camera. It will be an interesting tool.

The next months/years should get mighty interesting.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: BJL on August 30, 2008, 08:31:42 pm
Quote
RED is stepping up to the DSLR plate with their upcoming Monstro sensor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What do we know about Monstro, or even the 5K Mysterium X sensor of the upcoming Red Epic?

As far as I can tell, both will be in Super 35mm cine format like the Red One which is 13.7x24.4mm. So about the same area as a Canon EF-S sensor but a "wider" shape. (I hope people are not misreading "35mm" as meaning the 24x36mm of still cameras; Red clearly talks of the cine format "Super 35mm" for the coming Epic as well as the current One.)
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on August 31, 2008, 05:47:40 pm
Quote
What do we know about Monstro, or even the 5K Mysterium X sensor of the upcoming Red Epic?

As far as I can tell, both will be in Super 35mm cine format like the Red One which is 13.7x24.4mm. So about the same area as a Canon EF-S sensor but a "wider" shape. (I hope people are not misreading "35mm" as meaning the 24x36mm of still cameras; Red clearly talks of the cine format "Super 35mm" for the coming Epic as well as the current One.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, details are sketchy at best. I hope it will be a full frame 35mm dsrl (or greater) but the most fascinating thing is that still camera makers are going into video and vica versa.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: BJL on September 01, 2008, 06:08:28 pm
Quote
Well, details are sketchy at best. I hope it will be a full frame 35mm dsrl
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On sensor size the details are not the slightest bit sketchy. RED talks consistently about Super 35mm format, which is a flavor of cine-camera 35mm, which always means about 24mm frame width, historically because film goes through a cine-camera vertically.

You have to leave the still camera meaning of 35mm format behind when you read about cine-cameras!
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Yoram from Berlin on September 02, 2008, 03:59:22 am
I just got back from Burning Man, where a lot of stuff happens that shouldn't get back to the normal world unfiltered, lest people who don't understand see someone "in action."

Recently a lot more people have brought cameras, and just as many have been uploading to Flickr, YouTube, and other sharing sites.

As of this year, video cameras had to be registered with the "media people" but SLRs were still ok provided you were only shooting for yourself and not commercially.

It is hard to bring a camera to a lot of events these days as it is - my fear is that the inclusion of video will lead to the exclusion of (big) cameras from even more places and events - whether it is Burning Man or something less controversial and innocuous.

...but of course, it's not just SLRs... a lot of P&S cameras are ramping up their quality, too...
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on September 02, 2008, 06:38:30 am
Quote
On sensor size the details are not the slightest bit sketchy. RED talks consistently about Super 35mm format, which is a flavor of cine-camera 35mm, which always means about 24mm frame width, historically because film goes through a cine-camera vertically.

You have to leave the still camera meaning of 35mm format behind when you read about cine-cameras!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know the difference between Super 35mm and 35mm in stills. I'm just thinking that it wouldn't be interesting for RED to put their widescreen S35 sensor in a still camera.
If they are smart they will make a 2:3 ratio 35mm cam or larger.

These are the guys that should bring MF down to a reasonable price like they did with the RED system in film equipment.

I don't think it will be a S35 system, just because they will make film cameras this way with this upcoming sensor tech.

Plus, how the hell would they compete with in a market filled with aps-c sensors? It would be stupid, just do something different than everyone else and its a guaranteed bang.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: BJL on September 03, 2008, 11:31:39 am
Quote
I'm just thinking that it wouldn't be interesting for RED to put their widescreen S35 sensor in a still camera.
If they are smart they will make a 2:3 ratio 35mm cam or larger.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am confused by what you meant by "full frame 35mm" in your previous post, and by what you mean by "a 2:3 ratio 35mm cam or larger" above, because in between you talk of "their widescreen S35 sensor".

To get his straight: RED's talk of "S35" is shorthand for Super 35mm, about 13.7x24.4mm; not what anyone means by "full frame 35mm" around here. There is absolutely no hint of RED making sensors larger than are useful for its cine-cameras and the cine-35mm format lenses on which they rely. For one thing, RED offers only a few lenses, relying mostly on the large selection of cine-camera lenses out there from other makers, and those are all for cine-35mm formats, not 24x36mm still camera format. (And no, relying on Canon or Nikon SLR lenses is not a viable approach for cine-camera.)


Is that Super 35mm of 13.7x24.4mm, or a 3:2 shaped variant, the format you want in a RED DSLR?
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Mike W on September 04, 2008, 06:35:46 am
Quote
I am confused by what you meant by "full frame 35mm" in your previous post, and by what you mean by "a 2:3 ratio 35mm cam or larger" above, because in between you talk of "their widescreen S35 sensor".

To get his straight: RED's talk of "S35" is shorthand for Super 35mm, about 13.7x24.4mm; not what anyone means by "full frame 35mm" around here. There is absolutely no hint of RED making sensors larger than are useful for its cine-cameras and the cine-35mm format lenses on which they rely. For one thing, RED offers only a few lenses, relying mostly on the large selection of cine-camera lenses out there from other makers, and those are all for cine-35mm formats, not 24x36mm still camera format. (And no, relying on Canon or Nikon SLR lenses is not a viable approach for cine-camera.)
Is that Super 35mm of 13.7x24.4mm, or a 3:2 shaped variant, the format you want in a RED DSLR?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear JBL,

We are on the same page: I know perfectly well that the Red camera's (excl. the scarlet) use full frame super 35m format sensors: 13.7x24.4mm.

My point regarding the RED DSRL is that if RED wants to sell people their DSRL they are stepping into an already crowded market. I think pro photographers prefer the 3:4 aspect ratio of medium format over the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame still camera's (being 24x36mm).
I also think a lot of them prefer a 24x36mm sensor over a cropped sensor (close to super 35mm in dimensions).

So my point is; if RED wants to sell these people still cameras they need to do more than give us  a sub-24x36mm sensor that they offer in their cinema systems. And it needs to be at least a 3:2 aspect ratio to be marketable to pro photographers.

Personally I hope they will bring a medium format camera to the market; something with a high pixel count (22mpx-40mpx), capable of high ISO (it' a cmos, no biggie then) and a modular system like the RED cine offering. They could really shake things up in this market segment.

Of course they need to get lenses....and this will be a dealmaker or breaker for their DSLR offerings, I think.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: BJL on September 04, 2008, 03:58:44 pm
Quote
So my point is; if RED wants to sell these people still cameras they need to do more than give usĀ  a sub-24x36mm sensor that they offer in their cinema systems ...
Personally I hope they will bring a medium format camera to the market;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Given that the mainstream roughly "APS-C" format sensors outsell 24x36mm by about 20 to 1,  and that RED already has a sensor of roughly that size, and that 24x36 in turns outsells larger formats by a huge margin, I would say exactly the opposite: the most profitable market for RED is a DLSR using its Super 35mm format sensor in a camera that also does very nice video on the side.

If anything it is the 24x36mm and MF markets that are getting too crowded: there are almost as many brands in 24x36mm (three lens-mount systems and three sensor makers) and DMF (three lens and body systems sharing two sensor makers) as there are in the smaller DSLR formats (five systems and five sensor makers, or six of each counting Sigma/Foveon) but these larger format systems and sensors are chasing far, far fewer customers and far smaller total revenues.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: Atlasman on September 19, 2008, 03:58:13 am
Quote
Even in landscape or fine art, a few minutes of that spectacular scene would look great on my HD set to share, or to sell.  Turn a dial, push a button.  You got it.

It definitely opens possibilities in expanding our product.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: trainzman on September 22, 2008, 09:03:02 pm
Good for wedding photographers you say. Hmm, how is that going to work?

Say you're at a wedding, carefully composing and taking single images. An interesting action sequence appears to be about to happen so you start doing video. Spectacular single images present themselves, do you press the shutter to capture them, interrupting the video or pull them off the video later?

If stills from the 21megapixel FF sensor will be as good as single shots, why other than memory space would you not shot only video and extract stills as you need them from the data stream? If not, the photographer / videographer  is going to be one busy fellow, switching back and forth. Sure hope he doesn't miss any decisive moments.

And as has been mentioned elsewhere, also very busy after during post production. Editing all that raw data into something watchable will not be done as fast as they were made.

Does anyone have any numbers as to the ratio of making vs editing time for stills as compared to video images?
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: jjj on September 23, 2008, 06:28:56 pm
Quote
If stills from the 21megapixel FF sensor will be as good as single shots, why other than memory space would you not shot only video and extract stills as you need them from the data stream?
For the same reason you have  a stills photographer on a film set. Film/video is shot at a low shutter speed so individual frames tend to be unsharp compared to a stills camera that can shoot at higher shutter speeds.

Quote
Does anyone have any numbers as to the ratio of making vs editing time for stills as compared to video images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A chap I often work with can edit and output video at a phenomenal rate. You just have to look at how quickly news can be edited and output to see that video can be dealt with rapidly.
Stills can be done quickly or very time consumingly depending on the amount of post processing work needed. Moving images are no different in that respect. So it would be very hard to give hard and fast times taken to do either.
Title: Still and Video convergence
Post by: trainzman on September 23, 2008, 07:38:54 pm
Quote
For the same reason you have  a stills photographer on a film set. Film/video is shot at a low shutter speed so individual frames tend to be unsharp compared to a stills camera that can shoot at higher shutter speeds.

...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On a traditional film/video camera perhaps but this beast (5DMkII), which shots video at 30 frames per second is capable of taking a still frame in 1/8000 of a second. Could the individual video frames not be taken at a higher speed but spaced out so only a total of 30 are recorded in one second? Perhaps I don't understand the technical aspect of this video recording.