Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Better than digital MF ?  (Read 10109 times)

Randal32

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2007, 06:48:08 pm »

Quote
This topic is plain silly!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I make a living as a photographer.  I think it's vital to stay ahead of the curve especially in a tech era.... I bought a 1D for 5K in 2002.  Now you can get 10MP for under 1K.... Think about where we'll be in 5, 10 years.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2007, 06:48:36 pm by Randal32 »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2007, 09:22:03 pm »

Quote
I make a living as a photographer.

I think most of us here do.

 
Quote
think it's vital to stay ahead of the curve especially in a tech era

Sure, but that's entirely different to suggesting that a digital video camera is better than current digital MF. It's also off-topic.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2007, 09:45:04 pm »

Quote
I think most of us here do.

 

Sure, but that's entirely different to suggesting that a digital video camera is better than current digital MF. It's also off-topic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My question is "can you do as well as those samples with regard to skin tone and focus smoothness?"

Most of today's imagery is rendered on the web and at fairly small sizes in print. It's not about how many pixels you have, it's how your images *look*. And those samples look seriously good.

If you consider it obvious that these images are inferior in look to MF imagery, then please say how.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

fpoole

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.frankpoole.com
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2007, 10:08:00 pm »

"For certain genres of photography, I absolutely believe this is what will eventually happen. I don't think it's crazy to believe that within 5 years we'll be grabbing 22 MP raw files off a motion camera. For lifestyle shooters, action shooters, photojournalists, and some fashion, this would be quite attractive.The decisive moment will no longer be decided by our fingers pressing a trigger, but selecting the perfect frame out of 60 from that one second in an editing house."
Randal



Randal is absolutely right folks.  

 I hate to even say it but he's right- in 5-10 years the "decisive moment" will probably be a grabbed video frame.  Think back to the first Mac and the first version of Photoshop.
Can anyone who was in business then honestly say that they predicted the photography would evolve to where it is now?  And so quickly. I didn't. If you did see it happening I hope you bought stock in Apple and Adobe.  I certainly wish I had.  

I agree that this may be a silly topic for a mfdb forum but the reality of high quality video frame grabs is already here-I believe some papers are using mini hd video cams now.  
That said, the idea of this is repulsive to me, but......if you plan on being in this business for the next 15 years you at least should start thinking about how this may affect your business.  Think back 15 years - nnow think ahead 15 years- or even 10.  It doesn't take much imagination to see where photography will evolve to-like it or not.  

Best,
Frank Poole

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2007, 10:30:28 pm »

Quote
My question is "can you do as well as those samples with regard to skin tone and focus smoothness?"

I haven't shot anything in daylight, but here's the first sample I could find using flash. It's a 100% crop:



Looks better than the Red sample to me. The Red sample is a touch yellow, and of course can't compete in resolution.

As for focus smoothness, which I assume to mean the transition between sharp focus and smooth bokeh, here's a quick'n'dirty sample using the Rollei 180mm f2.8:

Logged

ngophotographer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2007, 11:18:55 pm »

At this point in time, HD video frame grab doesn't compete with MFDB for lifestyle or fine art.  The rest of this post relates more to photojournalism and some recent shifts..read on if you please:

For those of us that do photojournalism as the other part of our life, this article was enlightening/disturbing/interesting:

The Dallas Morning News is now equipping their still photographers with Sony Z1U video cameras, and they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels, which only two years ago was the maximum you could get out of a professional 35mm camera. The Dallas Morning News is regularly running 4- and 5-column front-page pictures from these video grabs. Then, they put the streaming video on their Web site.

From: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the...hotography.html
[digitaljournalist.org focuses on photo video media, journalism, etc.]

2 years ago most newspapers got rid of their wet darkrooms and bought more computers and photoshop!  The SJMN just dumped the last of the film cameras from their inventory early last year.  The staff photographers have been using digital for 5+ years.

In the SF area we have gone down from 4-5 pro labs for onsite/2hr E-6 (120 & 4x5) to only one.  One of the 5 has moved south to Santa Cruz.  2 years ago,  I used to be able to "pick my lab" for my 120 and 4x5, now there is only one.

The next five years will be quite interesting...digital killed the film star...video killed the still photographer  [Sorry, couldn't help the 80s reference   ]


Rich
NGOphotographer
« Last Edit: April 20, 2007, 11:20:07 pm by ngophotographer »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2007, 12:39:34 am »

Quote
The Dallas Morning News is now equipping their still photographers with Sony Z1U video cameras, and they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels, which only two years ago was the maximum you could get out of a professional 35mm camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which leads me to think that the output of a 10MP video camera could be "boosted" to MF-comparable resolution ...

It would be interesting to know exactly how this algorithm performs - I assume it accumuates information from several sequential frames ...

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2007, 03:32:44 am »

Well maybe for some applications the video camera will be used instead of a 'still-camera' however I do feel that you are looking at the development of digital video but do not take into consideration still photography will also develop further in the coming years.

Maybe in 10 years we will all be working with 180MP, 32bit color, 20stops DR and totally redesigned glass etc... We will all be laughing over the schmucks that use video and try to deliver a bit of quality with their tiny 39MP, 16bit, 12stops files.

It is not the first time the death of photography is announced. It just shows we have to stay in motion.
Logged

ngophotographer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2007, 10:23:47 am »

In case I was misunderstood, I wasn't predicting the demise of photography, but shifts are afloat.

As one of the previous posters mentioned, they need to stay ahead of curve.  Here's an interesting scenario based on past history that may indeed play out...

Newspapers started experimenting/using digital cameras in 94/95-- 7-10 years later they are almost exclusively using them.  Now they are experimenting/using video for stills.

Wedding photographers started picking up digital a fews years after the newspapers, once the quality was there.

Lifestyle and fine art photographers next...

Now if a wedding photographer starts using a video camera and offers a service, such as, reviewing the video in key/slow mode with the bride and mother/mother-in-law    and the say "aahhh...look at that  "frame/moment/picture" he/she/it is sooooo cute...

The enterprising wedding photographer could then say... "What size would you like? 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc.  How many for the relatives?

You never know...just some thoughts...


Rich
NGOphotographer

PS If this needs to moved to a different forum because of the shift in topic, feel free to do so.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2007, 10:39:12 am by ngophotographer »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Better than digital MF ?
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2007, 03:30:53 pm »

Quote
Most of today's imagery is rendered on the web and at fairly small sizes in print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For which only a few MP are needed. Once resolution beyond that of the Red One is unneeded, both it and DMF seem to be massive overkill; may mainstream DSLR's can handle very well the needs of 'the web and ... fairly small sizes in print.' (Even my humble, obsolete, 5MP Olympus E-1.)

Quote
If you consider it obvious that these images are inferior in look to MF imagery, then please say how.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought your original suggestion was about being better than MF. If the new question is whether images at on-screen viewing resolution are not inferior to DMF, then I would say that the same claim can be made for many DSLR's costing (and weighing) far less than either DMF or the Red One.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2007, 03:32:51 pm by BJL »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up