Michael clearly identifies the gulf that separates the still photographer from the "moving-image-capturer" (for lack of a better term). I think this rule applies to our tools as well as our skill sets, and the Casio is a good example.
While there is significant commonality between the two types of photography, the 'film' camera operator has far the more complex task. Motion-media capture requires far more of the camera operator than still image capture, for cameramen must be directors, too. In fact, a cameraman's skill set is much like a writer's, while a still photographer works more like a painter. (Add to that the now-common responsibility for sound as well as picture and you have a difficult task indeed.)
Michael writes that the Casio's failing is its attempt to do too much at once. Even without using it, I'm inclined to agree. The demands of the two jobs are far too divergent for one camera to satisfy them all. "Horses for courses", as they say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Without using the term "good enough" quality images really depends on the use and genre.
A photographer shooting a news event for a large daily newspaper can and will use some type of fast frame camera to capture the event and as the quality improves, the speed and post processing improve soon the word hybrid will no longer be part of the designation.
This opens up possibilities and also obstacles. Right now press credentials for a football game in Lyon only allows for still photography, because the broadcast and video rights and under contract, but how can anyone know, or stop you from using this casio or the next bigger better version that we all know is coming.
The same holds true for all events, sports and news. What keeps Getty's contracted photographers from mounting a high frame rate camera at the finish line of the 400k at Beijing and once again who will know if the Nikon D6x is set on continues play or still play?
Take this to the level of commerce. What keeps a television camera from capturing 5k stills as well as video for a pharmaceutical campaign? What client wouldn't want to see that type of money savings of a combined project and better yet who is going to be the first to offer this, a still photographer or a film/video production company?
In so many ways, digital and cinema have converged and obviously a 30mpx back with dedicated flash will produce a superior still image to any video grab and just as obvious a 35mm arrifllex shot on large dolly's, cranes and stands will produce more professional motion capture than any ramped up casio, but the lines get closer daily.
A DiVinci 2k color editor is not that big of a leap from the "basic" learning curve of lightroom. Editing video and the basic controls in final cut pro, really isn't that huge of a difference than editing down stills in a browser and purposing the files for multiple use.
In fact, before I send a project in for color timing, I take screen grabs of the footage, color them in lightroom or photoshop, print out hard copy and deliver it to the colorists as a base guideline to go from. This has saved us many hours and many thousands of dollars in back and forth corrections.
Now how good would it be if the time I spend on photoshop correcting the screen grabs could just be moved over to the entire video clip?
Of course on a professional level all of these processes take time to learn and a money investment but once in the digital domain the basic learning curve, at least in broad strokes, is very close.
JR