Video - why?

[RSL]

What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc

[pegelli]

So the man on the internet forum with no expertise on the subject knows as much as the industry professional ?

Most industry professionals I know (in many different industries) provide logical arguments and data, and don't say "believe me, I know". So yes, you can believe what you want but I think it falls short of a "professional opinion"

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Russ,

Nice video…

The way I see it, video adds one more dimension, it is called time… As a craft, i think video is very different from stills, so being a great still photographer doesn't make you a great videographer. Just to say, flying gives you some degrees of freedom.

I would say that it is natural for an open minded photographer to embrace video. You don't need to use it but it expands your envelope of interpretation.

Best regards
Erik

What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc

[Tim Lookingbill]

It boils down to the concept of less is more along with the more concealed, the more the viewer wants, sees or fills in with their own imagination which still photography delivers like a champ. That form of telling a story is similar to actors who express stillness in their movements as Bruce Willis employed in "The Sixth Sense" which contrasted against the audience expectations from his former action hero over the top performances.

Video tells the story with a lot more information for the viewer to process which requires more skill and responsibility in telling the story spread across a group of folks with various talents like writing a good script, scoring and recording music and dialog, camera and lighting changes, timing and editing. A lot more can go wrong in communicating the story across to a broad audience than just telling it with one or series of stills.

[pegelli]

What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc

Indeed a nice video Russ, just one nit, I think he needs to show that picture of you as war photographer a little longer (as well as the rest of the title rolls) so the viewer actually has the time to read them. The link with the flash floods there is special, such a nice and peaceful place when the weather is nice, but havoc when it's not!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This is one of my favourite videos:

It has been filmed by Jona Salcher in the Dolomites.

To some extent I love that film as it shows places I have visited by car and on foot:





Best regards
Erik

[Telecaster]

To follow on from Russ, the equipment is just equipment but the creator creates. If I were a talented video artist with a story to tell, it wouldn't matter much if I were using an ARRI Alexa rig or my little Panasonic GX8 to tell it. Lots of folks making videos don't have much to say with the medium, but some do and they're worth seeking out…even when their ambition excedes their technique. Same goes for still photography.

-Dave-

[Alan Klein]

Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions?  The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras.  There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's.  That's who the manufacturers are catering too.    Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.

[pegelli]

Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions?  The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras.  There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's.  That's who the manufacturers are catering too.    Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.

I don't think many here are "stuck" on pro video and cinematic productions but it's where the discussion went and where there was a difference of opinion if DSLR's can be useful for that or not. But I agree the OP's question was just about video capability in DSLR's where he was questioning the usefulness and why anybody would use it. I agree with you, some people want and like video in their DSLR, if it's there you can always choose not to use it, but if it isn't there it will decrease the customer base. I almost never use the video in any of my cameras, but I'm not bothered by it being there. There's a lot of stills photography options in there I also never use, so what's the difference?
I have never found a camera that only and exclusively has all the things I need/want and doesn't have any features that I don't want to use or need.

[Rob C]

I don't think many here are "stuck" on pro video and cinematic productions but it's where the discussion went and where there was a difference of opinion if DSLR's can be useful for that or not. But I agree the OP's question was just about video capability in DSLR's where he was questioning the usefulness and why anybody would use it. I agree with you, some people want and like video in their DSLR, if it's there you can always choose not to use it, but if it isn't there it will decrease the customer base. I almost never use the video in any of my cameras, but I'm not bothered by it being there. There's a lot of stills photography options in there I also never use, so what's the difference?
I have never found a camera that has all the things I need and none I don't want to use or need.

Now you've lost me: what, exactly, do you mean? That no camera fulfills your wishes, yet that all cameras carry functions that you find indispensable? In other words, you find yourself obliged to use everything the camera offers and that's not quite enough?

I use hardly anything my cameras have to offer; I strip everything down to the bare necessity of allowing the things to function as cameras, not as second-guessers of my intents. I make them as analogue camera-like as I can find how to do.

There is one function Nikon gives that I do find wonderful: Matrix metering.

I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better.

Rob C

[Farmer]

Is you having to do more really a reduction in what's between you and the image?  If you can focus (sorry about the pun) on just certain areas and let the camera worry about others, then aren't you potentially closer to the image?

It's all about point of view (another bad pun), and there is no wrong or right or closer or further or better or worse.  If the experience is what you want and the end product is what you want, then it's right and I don't think we need to tell people that their interpretation or method is somehow more or less pure than our own.

[RSL]

Indeed a nice video Russ, just one nit, I think he needs to show that picture of you as war photographer a little longer (as well as the rest of the title rolls) so the viewer actually has the time to read them. The link with the flash floods there is special, such a nice and peaceful place when the weather is nice, but havoc when it's not!

Hi Pieter,

First off, I wasn't a war photographer. I was a fighter-bomber pilot. The picture Tom showed of me was on a beach in the southeast corner of Korea in 1954, after the war was over.

Yeah, Manitou has had its ups and downs lately. I lived there from 1972 to 2002 and was mayor from 1980 to 1986. We moved back in 1996 and lived there until last winter -- 2015. But the floods you mention were brought on by the fire you see in the film. That fire, started by a careless camper in 2012 burned over the surrounding hills, and made the valleys flood-prone. Eventually the trees and other vegetation on the hills will return and things will settle down. It'll go back to being peaceful and very wonderful place to live.

[pegelli]

Now you've lost me: what, exactly, do you mean? That no camera fulfills your wishes, yet that all cameras carry functions that you find indispensable? In other words, you find yourself obliged to use everything the camera offers and that's not quite enough?

I use hardly anything my cameras have to offer; I strip everything down to the bare necessity of allowing the things to function as cameras, not as second-guessers of my intents. I make them as analogue camera-like as I can find how to do.

There is one function Nikon gives that I do find wonderful: Matrix metering.

I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better.

Rob C

Sorry to be confusing Rob, what I meant was that all camera's I have owned had all the tings I wanted/needed but then also a lot more things that I didn't want/need/use.
Hope it's clear now, also changed the wording of my post a bit to make it clearer.

[pegelli]

First off, I wasn't a war photographer. I was a fighter-bomber pilot. The picture Tom showed of me was on a beach in the southeast corner of Korea in 1954, after the war was over.

Sorry for the mis-representation, but still a great picture.

[RSL]

Sorry for the mis-representation, but still a great picture.

Thanks, Pieter. You'll be happy to know I no longer carry a shoulder holster or a 38 Special S&W Combat Masterpiece.

[pegelli]

Thanks, Pieter. You'll be happy to know I no longer carry a shoulder holster or a 38 Special S&W Combat Masterpiece.

Well Russ, for you I will certainly make an exception since nobody would have to fear anything if you still carried it (except crooks/nutters who do crazy things with guns)

[Tim Lookingbill]

Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions?  The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras.  There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's.  That's who the manufacturers are catering too.    Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.

The OP's question doesn't just address why video is included with DSLR still cameras. If you read the entire post, you wouldn't be bring up that point. Below are OP quotes to explain why I posted my answer on the advantages and disadvantages of video over still images...

Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled. 

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.

[Rob C]

1.  Is you having to do more really a reduction in what's between you and the image?  2.  If you can focus (sorry about the pun) on just certain areas and let the camera worry about others, then aren't you potentially closer to the image?

  It's all about point of view (another bad pun), and there is no wrong or right or closer or further or better or worse.  If the experience is what you want and the end product is what you want, then it's right and 3.  I don't think we need to tell people that their interpretation or method is somehow more or less pure than our own.

1.  Yes.

2.  No; one would still have the distraction of frame-lines I don't wish to see, or the alternative of a blacked-out part of the normal screen. Why not take a page from the Leica rangefinder mantra and celebrate seeing more than you are going to shoot? You could do this if there's no blocking out on the viewfinder system.

3.  "I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better."

I simply voiced, as quoted, my preferences for my use of cameras. Period.

The only purity is total silence. Close the forums.

Rob C

[Justinr]

While we as photographers might argue the point of such a feature in a stills camera there are those who might be grateful of such a capability for it allows the filming of err... 'boudoir activities' while still retaining the pretence of innocence. A video camera in plain wrapping.

[RSL]

For that to work you'd have to find some pretty ignorant boudoir actors.