Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: vertigoestudio on September 24, 2008, 03:15:39 pm
-
amazing (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086)
Amazingggggggg!!!!!
-
amazing (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086)
Amazingggggggg!!!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow.. can't wait... and what a showcase for Canon.... thanks for the link!
-
Wow indeed - that was shockingly good visuals for a small handheld camera.
But this worries me for two reasons:
1. Photographers will think they can produce similar results, and be thoroughly disappointed when they realize how involved, expensive and time-consuming shooting and editing video is.
2. The net will be inundated with pseudo-artistic crap like this, done by photographers who have an eye for visuals but can't turn even a simple 2-minute boy-meets-girl story into a coherent whole.
-
The video is irritatingly arty farty IMO (reminds me of Japanese comic books) but it does show the camera to have remarkable video capability. I could see people buying it as much for the video as for stills ability.
-
The quality is nice indeed.
The whole "video capability in new D-slrs", is the beginning of a new era in the photographic world in my opinion. As digital imaging evolves continuously, the distances between what we knew up to now as photography, videography etc, will become smaller and smaller. Maybe, (and I know many of us are scared under this thought), there will be no such thing as professional photography in many aspects and parts of the market, in the future. There are demands from companies that will benefit from such turn and that mix-up will affect many professionals. So I guess there will be those who are willing to learn, invest and finally provide videos and editing along with their stills and those who will not. The "older" fashion ones. Like it happened with film. I know many old photographers who decided not to go digital and some survived till they retired, but many went out of business. For once again we will witness a mix up that will bring good and bad things at the same time. Videographers will try to get into photography and vise versa. The question is, are you going to get into that?
Me as a young photographer (31) who is trying to survive in this confusing and meshed up market of Eastern Europe, is not really willing to try it, but survival comes fist, so I guess if I have to... I already have many clients who often ask me if I could provide them with video as well.
-
Sorry, he lost me with the sunglasses at night thing..
Very impress however with what the camera can do..
-
Sorry, he lost me with the sunglasses at night thing..
Very impress however with what the camera can do..
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=224267\")
I think it is a reference / homage to Corey Hart's tune!
[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunglasses_at_Night]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunglasses_at_Night[/url]
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National Atlanta / Miami
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
But this worries me for two reasons:
1. Photographers will think they can produce similar results, and be thoroughly disappointed when they realize how involved, expensive and time-consuming shooting and editing video is.
2. The net will be inundated with pseudo-artistic crap like this, done by photographers who have an eye for visuals but can't turn even a simple 2-minute boy-meets-girl story into a coherent whole.
1. I agree, but only some people will think they're automatically filmmakers because of the 5DII and it's DOF control, and I trust that most people know how difficult it can be to make a quality production/film.
2. Yes, I forsee A LOT of beautiful cinematography with music in the background, and nothing else. But in the hands of a photographer who is also a storyteller...
You're second point has held true for sometime, ever since regular camcorders came out with HD or 24P recording, and 35mm adapters with the ground glass (Panasonic DVX, etc). A huge boom of digital filmmaking was unleashed, and 90 percent of "feature films" shot this way have been pretty bad, IMO. Most were beyond bad. Even some of the big productions that spend significant money making a "film" end up with less than desireable results. I find that most amateur DPs who are shooting digital don't understand lighting, and it just looks BAD.
You can have HD and 24P, a nice expensive 35mm adapter on a prosumer camcorder, some decent actors, and good lighting, but if you don't have a script, well, you got nothin'! People say, "well that's been true ever since people started making motion pictures." Well, I think it's even more significant with digital.
-
1. I agree, but only some people will think they're automatically filmmakers because of the 5DII and it's DOF control, and I trust that most people know how difficult it can be to make a quality production/film.
2. Yes, I forsee A LOT of beautiful cinematography with music in the background, and nothing else. But in the hands of a photographer who is also a storyteller...
You're second point has held true for sometime, ever since regular camcorders came out with HD or 24P recording, and 35mm adapters with the ground glass (Panasonic DVX, etc). A huge boom of digital filmmaking was unleashed, and 90 percent of "feature films" shot this way have been pretty bad, IMO. Most were beyond bad. Even some of the big productions that spend significant money making a "film" end up with less than desireable results. I find that most amateur DPs who are shooting digital don't understand lighting, and it just looks BAD.
You can have HD and 24P, a nice expensive 35mm adapter on a prosumer camcorder, some decent actors, and good lighting, but if you don't have a script, well, you got nothin'! People say, "well that's been true ever since people started making motion pictures." Well, I think it's even more significant with digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Couldn't agree more. What I think is the most important thing to note is that still photography and cinematography are very different artforms. Although both are visual mediums, the languages are as far apart as Chinese is from Italian. Knowing how to compose a still image doesn't translate easily into shooting a scene or even a shot.
But as they saying goes, 99% of everything is shit; I'm sure there are some true gems to come out of this convergence.
-
But this worries me for two reasons:
1. Photographers will think they can produce similar results, and be thoroughly disappointed when they realize how involved, expensive and time-consuming shooting and editing video is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Today we see hordes of photographers heading out to the well known sights to take pictures just like Ansel Adams et al, and coming back with pictures that are often little more than pale imitations. You can even buy books that tell you where to stand, and what lens to use. So what's new?
The very fact that it has shallow depth of field and low noise means people can shoot short sequences of a christening in a dimly lit church, or a college graduation, which will mean something to them.
-
It will be another useful tool for cinematographers. Adding a Cineform HDMI Recorder to a camera like this might give you beautiful 10bit 4:2:2 1080p footage (assuming there are no "restrictions" on the HDMI feed). The sensor size is roughly the same as the legendary Vista Vision!
The main issues that need to be addressed are:
1) lack of compressed RAW, similar to REDCODE RAW
2) lack of overcranking
The form factor is obviously odd for shooting video. But custom rigs will be made with matte boxes, follow focus, etc. I'm wondering what type of signal could be grabbed from the HDMI feed or Liveview to work as a "viewfinder"?
-
A huge boom of digital filmmaking was unleashed, and 90 percent of "feature films" shot this way have been pretty bad, IMO. Most were beyond bad.
I think it was Theodore Sturgeon who said "90% of everything is crap" A generous percentage I'd have said. So why should films be an exception?
You can have HD and 24P, a nice expensive 35mm adapter on a prosumer camcorder, some decent actors, and good lighting, but if you don't have a script, well, you got nothin'! People say, "well that's been true ever since people started making motion pictures." Well, I think it's even more significant with digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everything is subservient to the script/story, yet this is so rarely realised.
I don't think digital changes that. What is does change is the fact that you can make stuff with less money than before, imagination was always free.
-
Sorry, I should have said that 90 percent of everything shot on FILM is crap as well (maybe 99.99?).
I agree with the following statements:
It is easier to make a "film" with digital.
It is harder to make a film that is NOT crap with digital.
It is easier to make a film that IS crap with digital.
-
Somehow I don't think camera bodies using video technology are going to change anything as much as people think. Still photography is an art form and people who want stills don't necessarily want video. For weddings, sure, you can give your clients some amateur video if they want it.
Could the video grabs get as good as still grabs? if so, then still cameras may be out completely, since who wouldn't want a 30FPS camera?
Hmmm a strange time.
-
Somehow I don't think camera bodies using video technology are going to change anything as much as people think. Still photography is an art form and people who want stills don't necessarily want video. For weddings, sure, you can give your clients some amateur video if they want it.
Could the video grabs get as good as still grabs? if so, then still cameras may be out completely, since who wouldn't want a 30FPS camera?
Hmmm a strange time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, and that makes me think what will the photographers be like in the year 2020? Will they be editing videos in front of a monsterous PC, picking up stills from what he earlier filmed out of his 250mp Frankenstein camera thing?
As a still picture lover the whole idea raises many questions and a little fear (there I said it). Is it the industry who is leading us there or maybe just ourselves?
-
geez... what a bunch of debbie downers.....
We live in such a fantastic time.... technology is advancing at such a fast pace that we can create visually or audibly just about anything our talent and minds can come up with.
If your a musician, photographer, film maker.... there is no excuse to not create and distribute some amazing creations!
The 5d2 is the 1st of it's kind.... a BRIDGE to allow some photographers to let things MOVE! The concept is so unlimiting... just imagine every photograph in your portfolio with some movement.... a moment in time limited to not just a fraction of a second, but 12 minutes!.... shot with all the skills and vision that you now already have.
the smirk and gaze of a beautiful model
the steam coming off a plate of food
the birds flying through a landscape
a caterpillar munching on a leaf
a wave crashing against the rocks
a rotational view of a classic European automobile
Jump on the bandwagon folks..... or it's gonna leave you in the dust!
chriswitzke.com
-
geez... what a bunch of debbie downers.....
We live in such a fantastic time.... technology is advancing at such a fast pace that we can create visually or audibly just about anything our talent and minds can come up with.
If your a musician, photographer, film maker.... there is no excuse to not create and distribute some amazing creations!
The 5d2 is the 1st of it's kind.... a BRIDGE to allow some photographers to let things MOVE! The concept is so unlimiting... just imagine every photograph in your portfolio with some movement.... a moment in time limited to not just a fraction of a second, but 12 minutes!.... shot with all the skills and vision that you now already have.
the smirk and gaze of a beautiful model
the steam coming off a plate of food
the birds flying through a landscape
a caterpillar munching on a leaf
a wave crashing against the rocks
a rotational view of a classic European automobile
Jump on the bandwagon folks..... or it's gonna leave you in the dust!
chriswitzke.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally I really feel I won't shoot video, but I'm still excited about experiencing the creativity of others. Even now in the last years I've seen wonderful video imagery in museums and galleries--some very subtle as mentioned here, some outrageous and way out of the box--and some fell into the 'crap' category (IMO LOL).
Diane
-
Personally I really feel I won't shoot video, but I'm still excited about experiencing the creativity of others. Even now in the last years I've seen wonderful video imagery in museums and galleries--some very subtle as mentioned here, some outrageous and way out of the box--and some fell into the 'crap' category (IMO LOL).
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can guarantee you tha if most big clients that shoot Video ad campaigns along with Print ad campaigns they will save A LOT of money if they shoot something like this and can grab single images from the Video.. A LOT of work will be funneled to One production. If they can save that much money.. believe me they will!!
Ofcourse this is not ging to happen with the 5DII but will eventually and sooner than you think.
Since the hype of the RED camera I have been anylizing the effect of this.
It is right around the corner and why would someone not want to see movement in an image.
A lot of LCD ad tv's are everywhere now a days and internet is becoming evry day more strong as a selling point.
Plus who would not want to shoot 1-2 , even 10-20 second takes and grab the images out of the single frames.. sure as hell would save a lot of time in shooting. the subject, in my case, could jump, move.laugh, swing their hair, etc. etc.. and I know I got it at 35 fps. instead of one.
Interesting times indeed
Snook
-
Plus who would not want to shoot 1-2 , even 10-20 second takes and grab the images out of the single frames.. sure as hell would save a lot of time in shooting. the subject, in my case, could jump, move.laugh, swing their hair, etc. etc.. and I know I got it at 35 fps. instead of one.
Interesting times indeed
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's been done. You set up a wall of cameras shooting every angle and then start pulling the trigger simultaneously on all cameras. So your point is taken.
When commercial advertisers start pulling video clips that are as good as still shots, then that will be the very near end of commercial photography in specific areas--such as sports photography and fashion. Listen, if I sponsored a football team or race car driver and wanted to advertise and save as much money as possible, I'd just have the already necessary camera crews--video crews--like always, and then an art director do the video grab picking. No more still cameras or operators to pay. And virtually every angle will be covered by the camera crews already there.
But then why not landscape too and everything else? Pull the trigger and move the camera from your feet over your head and back again, repeat until the sun goes down. No composition thinking nothing. Then do the cropping and comp at home in Adobe, like every one else does. Or just drive by a huge grove of trees in the fall and pull the trigger as you zoom past at 1/500th and 30FPS. Toyota will probably team up with Canon and have one mounted in every car soon so everyone can simply push a button on teh steering wheel and photograph their entire trip--at 200MP and 100FPS!!!
Pretty soon everyone will be unemployed because there will be automated everything, even buttwipers.
-
It's been done. You set up a wall of cameras shooting every angle and then start pulling the trigger simultaneously on all cameras. So your point is taken.
When commercial advertisers start pulling video clips that are as good as still shots, then that will be the very near end of commercial photography in specific areas--such as sports photography and fashion. Listen, if I sponsored a football team or race car driver and wanted to advertise and save as much money as possible, I'd just have the already necessary camera crews--video crews--like always, and then an art director do the video grab picking. No more still cameras or operators to pay. And virtually every angle will be covered by the camera crews already there.
But then why not landscape too and everything else? Pull the trigger and move the camera from your feet over your head and back again, repeat until the sun goes down. No composition thinking nothing. Then do the cropping and comp at home in Adobe, like every one else does. Or just drive by a huge grove of trees in the fall and pull the trigger as you zoom past at 1/500th and 30FPS. Toyota will probably team up with Canon and have one mounted in every car soon so everyone can simply push a button on teh steering wheel and photograph their entire trip--at 200MP and 100FPS!!!
Pretty soon everyone will be unemployed because there will be automated everything, even buttwipers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
wow.. doom and gloom....
every person on this planet has a varying degree of visual arts talent.... some, due to their environment or genetics will shine, some will not. A camera that has a higher level of features and capturing abilities is just a tool within the environment a person with or without higher levels of talent will be in.
every market ( fine art, commercial art ) on this planet has varying levels of visual needs. Some like direct mail, senior portraits, editorial, or google street view have lower requirements.... others like fashion or national level ad print have higher levels. Fine art ( nudes, landscape, etc. ) is completely subjective and a unique look is what gets noticed.... sometimes that look is by pinhole, sometimes by technically perfection.... sometimes by message, sometimes meaningless imagery.
If a photographer does an adequate job of capturing an image ( still or moving ), returns their phone calls, shows up on time..... they will find their niche....
Talent is always sought out by those who have a need for it.
-
wow.. doom and gloom....
every person on this planet has a varying degree of visual arts talent.... some, due to their environment or genetics will shine, some will not. A camera that has a higher level of features and capturing abilities is just a tool within the environment a person with or without higher levels of talent will be in.
every market ( fine art, commercial art ) on this planet has varying levels of visual needs. Some like direct mail, senior portraits, editorial, or google street view have lower requirements.... others like fashion or national level ad print have higher levels. Fine art ( nudes, landscape, etc. ) is completely subjective and a unique look is what gets noticed.... sometimes that look is by pinhole, sometimes by technically perfection.... sometimes by message, sometimes meaningless imagery.
If a photographer does an adequate job of capturing an image ( still or moving ), returns their phone calls, shows up on time..... they will find their niche....
Talent is always sought out by those who have a need for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree generally too. However, as digital photography increased, sales from stock agencies decreased. Now people give away "good" images to corporations like National Geographic for free, just to see their images in print. Of course 5 days a week they work as doctors and lawyers so they have a constant cash flow. I wonder how they would like it if someone opened a doctors office next door and offered services for free few times a week--just because they like playing doctor on their time off?
But you are right. At the top most level, talent and connections are king.
-
I agree generally too. However, as digital photography increased, sales from stock agencies decreased. Now people give away "good" images to corporations like National Geographic for free, just to see their images in print. Of course 5 days a week they work as doctors and lawyers so they have a constant cash flow. I wonder how they would like it if someone opened a doctors office next door and offered services for free few times a week--just because they like playing doctor on their time off?
A more positive spin is that many more people have the opportunity to be their own patrons, i.e. fund their own artistic endeavours without the need to wait tables, starve in a garret, or win the lottery to make ends meet.
For people who are or were in the stock business and had their income reduce, yeah, it would suck, just as any other forced job change (factory closure, IT outsourcing/offshoring, buggy whip market collapsing, or other disruptive technology development) hurts the people directly affected.
Giles
-
New accesories for video work with DSLRs !!!!
http://www.fotomaf.com/blog/tag/zacuto/ (http://www.fotomaf.com/blog/tag/zacuto/)
-
I agree generally too. However, as digital photography increased, sales from stock agencies decreased. Now people give away "good" images to corporations like National Geographic for free, just to see their images in print. Of course 5 days a week they work as doctors and lawyers so they have a constant cash flow. I wonder how they would like it if someone opened a doctors office next door and offered services for free few times a week--just because they like playing doctor on their time off?
That's not a particularly useful analogy, is it?
Anyone prepared to spend money to buy a camera can take a photograph. If they're lucky or have some modicum of ability, they might manage from time to time to take a snapshot sufficiently attractive to National Geographic to be worth their printing it. What amateurs (me included) can't do, we're repeatedly told by the pros, is guarantee to get things right each and every time, to satisfy the needs of a customer on a shoot. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea, but I'm fully prepared to accept it. I'd certainly never dare to accept a photographic commission if I had to provide any degree of reassurance that I wouldn't screw it up!
Nobody can manage to be a doctor or a lawyer just by spending money on a tool: it takes time, effort and a degree of dedication to achieve the qualifications. Some in fact do then spend part of their time working for free, but the rest don't generally find that threatening.
In general, though, people don't go to the cheapest doctor or the cheapest lawyer. They believe that price somehow reflects quality. Isn't part of the job of any professional to deliver value equivalent to price?
Jeremy
-
That's not a particularly useful analogy, is it?
Anyone prepared to spend money to buy a camera can take a photograph. If they're lucky or have some modicum of ability, they might manage from time to time to take a snapshot sufficiently attractive to National Geographic to be worth their printing it. What amateurs (me included) can't do, we're repeatedly told by the pros, is guarantee to get things right each and every time, to satisfy the needs of a customer on a shoot. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea, but I'm fully prepared to accept it. I'd certainly never dare to accept a photographic commission if I had to provide any degree of reassurance that I wouldn't screw it up!
Nobody can manage to be a doctor or a lawyer just by spending money on a tool: it takes time, effort and a degree of dedication to achieve the qualifications. Some in fact do then spend part of their time working for free, but the rest don't generally find that threatening.
In general, though, people don't go to the cheapest doctor or the cheapest lawyer. They believe that price somehow reflects quality. Isn't part of the job of any professional to deliver value equivalent to price?
Jeremy
I doubt there are any perfect analogies. The point is that the more people sending off images for free, and the more organizations that usually pay to have those images, the less they need to pay in order to get those images. The less they pay, the harder it is to make a living as a photographer. And I'm not really talking about amateurs. I'm talking about advanced hobbyist who can and does take good images, but they give them away for vanity or ego.
-
The point is that the more people sending off images for free, and the more organizations that usually pay to have those images, the less they need to pay in order to get those images. The less they pay, the harder it is to make a living as a photographer.
That is a fact, and it means a change in the perspective of professional photographers that they should evaluate. Whether it is worth or not for some particular professional photographer to go on with his business, or to change his business and then go on, is up to him. All photographers should adapt to the new circumstances brought by the generalisation of photography thanks to digital, some good for them, some bad (unfortunately I'd bet many professional photographers would be happy if digital photography never existed).
It has always been so in all aspects of life. Changes have always had people who gained, and people who lost, time will force everyone to adapt. What does not make too much sense to me is to complain, we are talking about facts and changes that no one could prevent from happening.
-
But, both Chinese and Italians do spaghettis. (lol)
Eduardo
Couldn't agree more. What I think is the most important thing to note is that still photography and cinematography are very different artforms. Although both are visual mediums, the languages are as far apart as Chinese is from Italian.
-
Wow indeed - that was shockingly good visuals for a small handheld camera.
But this worries me for two reasons:
1. Photographers will think they can produce similar results, and be thoroughly disappointed when they realize how involved, expensive and time-consuming shooting and editing video is.
2. The net will be inundated with pseudo-artistic crap like this, done by photographers who have an eye for visuals but can't turn even a simple 2-minute boy-meets-girl story into a coherent whole.
I wouldn't take this video too seriously.
It was a demonstration of what the camera could do.
If you know the French, it was actually pretty funny. Especially the part where the credits were almost twice as long as the "movie".
Other than that, there's nothing to worry.
Pen and paper, computer and word processor are readily available. Does that mean you are getting carpet bombed by "great American novels"?
The only ones, who should be worried, are the manufacturer's of overpriced wannabe-professional digital video gear. After the introduction of the Red One, this is blow number 2.
-
I doubt there are any perfect analogies. The point is that the more people sending off images for free, and the more organizations that usually pay to have those images, the less they need to pay in order to get those images. The less they pay, the harder it is to make a living as a photographer. And I'm not really talking about amateurs. I'm talking about advanced hobbyist who can and does take good images, but they give them away for vanity or ego.
That's clearly true. Let me make my point a bit more directly.
If all that you, as a professional photographer, had to offer your clients was mastery of the arcane art of making images using silver halides and various toxic chemicals, and the advent of digital photography has rendered that art obsolete, then you have no longer have anything to offer your clients. (Please don't take my use of "you" as relating to you personally, or of "all" as denigrating the art.)
Of course, a good professional photographer offered far more than that: vision, artistic as well as technical ability and so on. He has skills which remain of use, skills which advanced hobbyists don't have.
The need to cope with advances in understanding or technology isn't confined to photography, of course. Take an example from medicine. For much of the last century, peptic ulceration was a scourge of the Western world, with significant morbidity and mortality. General surgeons spent huge amounts of time operating not only to fix the acute complications, such as perforation and bleeding, but also in an attempt to cure the condition. Operations varied from removing that part of the stomach thought to be responsible for producing acid to cutting the nerves which controlled that production. They worked, to a degree, but inflicted their own mortality and morbidity. Then came H2 blockers, which lowered acid production. Then the proton pump inhibitors, which pretty much abolished acid production. Then came the realisation that most peptic ulceration was a complication of bacterial infection and could be cured by antibiotics. As a result, surgery for peptic ulceration has virtually disappeared. The job formerly done by surgeons is now done by physicians, without making holes in their patients. So general surgeons have had to move on, refining their techniques and offering their patients better operations for other conditions. They still work; they still earn a living.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Jeremy
-
Couldn't agree more. What I think is the most important thing to note is that still photography and cinematography are very different artforms. Although both are visual mediums, the languages are as far apart as Chinese is from Italian. Knowing how to compose a still image doesn't translate easily into shooting a scene or even a shot.
But as they saying goes, 99% of everything is shit; I'm sure there are some true gems to come out of this convergence.
I love the bit about 'Chinese and Italian'...they both eat 'Noodles' ..sorry!
Tino
www.tinotedaldi.com
-
I'm waiting for someone to say to a famous movie director: "Great movie, you must have a really nice camera!"
Ken