"Vance" <Vance.Lear@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5e58c669-a189-44d7-a648-47da0800000f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 15, 3:14 pm, "AKA gray asphalt" <benvh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Is there a difference between quick still cameras and
> HD video? How big of enlargements can you get from
> the video?
>
> Thanks, I'm thinking about a small wedding
> photo business.
Besides the technical aspects already mentioned, shooting stills is a
very different discipline artistically (using the term loosely). A
completely different type of visualization is involved because a still
has to carry more implicit information than a video and the
photographer is involved in a different imagining process. It
happens, but it is rare, that a still from a video has the emotional
or aesthetic impact that a specifically shot still can have.
____________
This is baloney, imo. Poised stills looked just that.
Having a range of frames to choose from is always
better. (I'm being dogmantic, I know). Resolution
being the same it is always better to have more
choices. That's why strobes and higher fps cameras
are used in advertising. Duh
_______________
Videos have their effect on a viewer as a result of being a captured
segment of time and reducing that segment to a singular moment of time
usually results in a snapshot. Very occassionaly, I have worked with
a very talented and award winning videographer and I wouldn't try and
do what he does any more than he wants to try and do what I do. Give
me his video equipment and I come up with imaginative home movies. A
still camera in his hands results in very good, but somewhat sterile
images that just barely get beyond being snapshots.
______________
There are a lot of goofs charging a lot of money
to do the same things that a neighbor can do. And
there's no guarantee that a higher price will get
better quality pics.
_______________________
I also don't see good economics. A video image can be up res'd and
the image quality vastly improved using some very fancy mathematics
and multiple frames. The best software for doing this isn't cheap,
either. The software and the hardware to run it effectively will set
you back somewhere in the range of $3,500 - $5,000 USD. For my setup,
though I use the software for doing something other than making fair
stills out of crummy video frames, it's $3,000 for Matlab and $700 for
the Matlab package that does the work.
______________________
If Photoshop isn't good enough for fixing pictures then
you're hying someone.
______________________
For any given image, you will have to find it in a stream of images,
this means watching the whole video in at least a scanning fashion.
You'll need more than one image, so you will have to pull out each
one. In an hours video, how much time do you think you have just
spent?
______________
You don't need to go through a whole hour of video,
fram by frame. Checking out the important parts, like
when the groom kisses the bride and the posed shots
right after the ceremony and when the cake gets
smeared on the couple. : -)
______________
You've just added several hours on top of the viewing time
itself. If you are using the type of software that can produce a
higher quality image from several video frames, being conservative,
for 200 images you have just added another six hours to you post
capture processing time (that's with an established workflow). You've
just added a minimum of 10 hours to your workload, assuming an
optimized workflow, to get to the point a still photographer will
start with as raw input to their workflow. It actually can get worse
from here because you will have a lot more post processing in
something like photoshop to get even close to the default quality that
a still photographer will start with simply as a matter of knowing how
to get as much right in the capture as they can for any given image.
_______________________
I think someone should get inventive and try
some new ideas instead of trying to discourage
people from taking photographs.
_______________________
In terms of quality and ecomomics alone, I just don't see it on the
still side. Now, you have the job of editing the video and producing
a quality package out of that. The analysis could continue, but you
would be in the situation of trying to compete with either a pro
covering a wedding in video and who has hired a still photographer, or
the converse. Either way, they will be able to produce a higher
quality package technically and aesthetically at a similar, or lower
price, than you can and at a better profit margin for them.
____________________
I have a degree in grahic design and I know what I'm doing
when it comes to correcting photos. I suggest that you guys
look at the Casio EX-F1 camera and see what you can do
with multiple frames. And try this ... take some point and shoot
cameras and pass them out at the wedding to the guests. Make
them feel part of the process and your competition will become
your pupils and biggest supporters. And if you don't think that
people will pose better and more naturally and allow more
candid shots from friends than some guy in an ill fitting tuxedo
who looks like he'd rather be watching television, then you're
nuts. No offense. I don't want to take anybodies paycheck
but I would be nice to see some innovation and a little less
elitism.
______________________
You aren't the first to think of this and there are very good reasons
that pros, either from the videography or photography side, haven't
jumped on the idea.
Vance
________________________
To be a pro all you have to do is charge money. That's
not my idea of a recommendation. There are so many
untapped areas that really need people to be taking
pictures and doing videos and audio family histories and
giving people in hospices a chance to record best wishes
for the remaining generations ... Take a family and sit them
down and record a few nice phrases and memories and
take a few pics, but them in one of the photo frames and
get it to someone in the last months of terminal cancer.
Now that's worth your time.
|
