Video - why?

[Jonathan Cross]

I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika.  I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film.  I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine.  Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled.  Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.

I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.

Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image.  The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all.  The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
 
What do people who shoot videos do with them?  I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public.  I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall.  I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations.  What would I do with a video?  I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once?  How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008?  It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video.  Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
 
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future.  This is a use for stills.  For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence.  Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’.  How many people have the means of viewing them now?  This is not a problem with prints from that era.  Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used.  There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images.  How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?

Can someone explain what I am missing, please?

Jonathan

[Justinr]

I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika.  I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film.  I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine.  Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled.  Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.

I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.

Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image.  The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all.  The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
 
What do people who shoot videos do with them?  I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public.  I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall.  I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations.  What would I do with a video?  I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once?  How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008?  It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video.  Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
 
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future.  This is a use for stills.  For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence.  Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’.  How many people have the means of viewing them now?  This is not a problem with prints from that era.  Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used.  There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images.  How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?

Can someone explain what I am missing, please?

Jonathan

Hallelujah to that Jonathon and this should be written in the stars -


Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image.  The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all.  The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.

It's something I've often pondered and I do ask myself just how many people actually bother to watch a Youtube presentation all the way through? I don't even bother opening them anymore and immediately move on if a company, organisation or even individual insists on taking up my time by explaining itself through the medium of video.

[pegelli]

Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, .......  ?

I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.

You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.

[Justinr]

Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, .......  ?

I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.

You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.

I think it more an elitist attitude to expect or often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.

[Rhossydd]

why question them?

I think there's a degree of annoyance that too much emphasis is being put on adding video features to still products, at the expense of stills features.

Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.

[pegelli]

I think it more an elitist attitude to expect or often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.

I never expect or demand anybody to watch any art form, just do what you like and don't be bothered by stuff you don't like.

[Rhossydd]

often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.

Some people seem to think that posting videos is a better way of conveying information than just writing about it.
I find that most video reviews or instructionals are terribly produced and ponderous, basically a waste of time.

[hjulenissen]

I think there's a degree of annoyance that too much emphasis is being put on adding video features to still products, at the expense of stills features.

Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.

It is really hard to judge (for the general user) how adding video to the 5D series affects its still qualities and ergonomy and price. Ultimately, Canon knows best what they are able to, and they take their best shot at making a product that will or will not prove popular among possible customers.

It may well be (as some say) that adding video to a current stills-oriented product adds only (say) $10 to the component cost, and that the added sales means that there is more volume to share the start-up costs among.

It is also plausible that having video (and/or LiveView) as a requirement adds constraints to sensor (readout), the software development team, etc that negatively affects the possibilities that would have been available to a stills-only project.

I have hardly used the video function in my DSLR camera. I use the video function of my ("stills") compact camera regularly.


Even a camera like the 5DmkIV will probably sell to many non-professionals, or even "non-enthusiasts". Regular people with an interest in "good pictures" and the economy to buy such a product. If the dual pixel AF is all what they say, perhaps this group will be able to produce better family videos now.

-h

[Justinr]

I never expect or demand anybody to watch any art form, just do what you like and don't be bothered by stuff you don't like.

I'm not entirely sure that the OP was questioning the video as an art form, I was certainly not referring to them in that context in my reply.

[hjulenissen]

Some people seem to think that posting videos is a better way of conveying information than just writing about it.
I find that most video reviews or instructionals are terribly produced and ponderous, basically a waste of time.

Agreed. Having to watch a video in order for some dude to finally get to the point of how to service my printer seems like a massive waste of bandwidth and attention compared to a well thought-out diagram and text.

-h

[pegelli]

I'm not entirely sure that the OP was questioning the video as an art form, I was certainly not referring to them in that context in my reply.

I have also never seen any demands "Watch my Video", no problem if you don't like Video (I don't either) but some people like to make them and others like to watch them. What's the problem with that? Life's too short to bother about what other people like and do, but that probably contradicts with expressing my opinion here

[stamper]

Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, .......  ?

I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.

You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.

Agreed. Ironically in the past day or two there is a couple of threads about old time film shooters buying some film and using their film cameras again, that has been gathering dust, and using it as an excuse to bash digital. A form of elitism.

[Justinr]

Agreed. Ironically in the past day or two there is a couple of threads about old time film shooters buying some film and using their film cameras again, that has been gathering dust, and using it as an excuse to bash digital. A form of elitism.

Why should noting that film still has value be considered elitist? Is it only an elite that recognizes or appreciates that it can be more expressive than digital at times? Are those who are totally committed to digital so sensitive about its shortcomings that they have to invent some great divide to justify their unswerving loyalty?

[Rob C]

Why video? That's a good question, as I have never made a video in my life. My single effort with motion happened via a small amateur film camera that my father-in-law lent me in order to shoot some 'family' film when my wife and I went off on honeymoon. What the hell do you do with people in motion? I ended up shooting some minute or so (just to keep the guy happy) of his daughter stepping from one small rock onto another at the water's edge. She felt and looked embarrassed and I felt the same: no purpose. However, she did not wave! which I thought showed great promise.

Decades later, that piece was collated with some other family stuff and put onto a DVD and a copy sent over to me. I find it uncomfortable viewing and can no longer watch. It's one thing looking at photographs of a deceased loved one, but film is something else, best avoided unless you also feel like playing lots of torch songs (only for the over-sixties) and cleaning out your tear ducts.

Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense. But for me, none at all. I haven't even used the function on the cellphone.

I, along with most of us, have no idea at all how much it costs to incorporate these functions into a stills camera and I wish that, instead, we could have a digital product functionally similar to a 500C/M that simply offers the original 500 series possibilities at a price to which I could happily stretch - around the price of a D810 or whatever. I'd even be happy with the new X1 D at around that price; no way I'd pay more for anything photographic anymore. Unlike those pretty models, no, I don't think it's worth it. For me. Of course, I speak without a commercial objective anymore, which makes it a totally different ballgame.

The more I think about it, the more likely such dreams could materialise if companies collectively stopped chasing their tails trying to make new all the time! We already have more stuff in any camera than we have any need or desire to use: make the same models over many years, sell at accessible prices and folks will start to buy again - I expect. Constant, expensive change makes buying feel very silly: you get no sense of investment in equipment anymore - just a sense of throwing money away needlessly.

Rob

[Justinr]

Agreed. Having to watch a video in order for some dude to finally get to the point of how to service my printer seems like a massive waste of bandwidth and attention compared to a well thought-out diagram and text.

-h

Indeed, I suffer something similar on a reasonably regular basis where I am expected to be engrossed with five minutes of action packed footage about hydraulic couplings or watch the same tractor and mower go up and down the same field for an eternity etc. I'm sure the products are wonderful but a just a page or two explaining their benefits will be just fine and a lot less taxing on the soul thanks. Such experiences have probably coloured my views.

Having said that one of the most popular stands at agricultural shows in Ireland sells videos of er.... Tractors and various bits of machinery go up and down fields!

[Rhossydd]

Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense.

Not really. It makes far better sense to buy a specialist dedicated camera that performing it's own primary task well. DSLRs are rubbish for professional video production.
Yes, some people cludge about with them and call themselves, wrongly, cinematographers, but most of them haven't enough credible experience to know any better.

[Justinr]

Why video? That's a good question, as I have never made a video in my life. My single effort with motion happened via a small amateur film camera that my father-in-law lent me in order to shoot some 'family' film when my wife and I went off on honeymoon. What the hell do you do with people in motion? I ended up shooting some minute or so (just to keep the guy happy) of his daughter stepping from one small rock onto another at the water's edge. She felt and looked embarrassed and I felt the same: no purpose. However, she did not wave! which I thought showed great promise.

Decades later, that piece was collated with some other family stuff and put onto a DVD and a copy sent over to me. I find it uncomfortable viewing and can no longer watch. It's one thing looking at photographs of a deceased loved one, but film is something else, best avoided unless you also feel like playing lots of torch songs (only for the over-sixties) and cleaning out your tear ducts.

Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense. But for me, none at all. I haven't even used the function on the cellphone.

I, along with most of us, have no idea at all how much it costs to incorporate these functions into a stills camera and I wish that, instead, we could have a digital product functionally similar to a 500C/M that simply offers the original 500 series possibilities at a price to which I could happily stretch - around the price of a D810 or whatever. I'd even be happy with the new X1 D at around that price; no way I'd pay more for anything photographic anymore. Unlike those pretty models, no, I don't think it's worth it. For me. Of course, I speak without a commercial objective anymore, which makes it a totally different ballgame.

The more I think about it, the more likely such dreams could materialise if companies collectively stopped chasing their tails trying to make new all the time! We already have more stuff in any camera than we have any need or desire to use: make the same models over many years, sell at accessible prices and folks will start to buy again - I expect. Constant, expensive change makes buying feel very silly: you get no sense of investment in equipment anymore - just a sense of throwing money away needlessly.

Rob

It will depend on the type of product to a great extent but the problem is not that is expensive to add features to anything electronic but it is too cheap to do so, fiddling with a camera's software hardly costs when compared to engineering a totally new lens mount for instance. In marketing terms you do need something new and different to attract the attention of the punter, whether it is of any discernible benefit in the great scheme of things is besides the point, you've got to be seen to be cutting edge in a digital world and at the end of the day Nikon's and Canon's aim is to sell more cameras.

[stamper]

Why should noting that film still has value be considered elitist? Is it only an elite that recognizes or appreciates that it can be more expressive than digital at times? Are those who are totally committed to digital so sensitive about its shortcomings that they have to invent some great divide to justify their unswerving loyalty?

The members who posted about shooting again with film made IMO the unnecessary connection with digital and giving the impression that film is "better" hence the the comment about elitism?

[stamper]

Not really. It makes far better sense to buy a specialist dedicated camera that performing it's own primary task well. DSLRs are rubbish for professional video production.
Yes, some people cludge about with them and call themselves, wrongly, cinematographers, but most of them haven't enough credible experience to know any better.

A lot of films showing in cinemas were made with DSLRS and the quality haven't been criticized by a knowledgeable  audience.

[Rhossydd]

A lot of films showing in cinemas were made with DSLRS

Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?