"Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Ay0Oj.51599$h65.29538@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:DlUNj.12363$CO2.7483@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Vance" <Vance.Lear@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:5e58c669-a189-44d7-a648-47da0800000f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 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.
>
> Posed stills are what most wedding customers are wanting and expecting
> including all the classic group and cake / signing etc shots.
> Although there is absolutely no reason the photographer cannot also get
> some good candid shots as well.
>
>
>
>> Having a range of frames to choose from is always
>> better. (I'm being dogmantic, I know). Resolution
>> being the same
>
> Resolution from the BEST HD film cameras (read unaffordable) only
> approaches what a 2 megapixel cheap point and shoot camera can do. with
> less accurate focus or depth of field control. And more noise... And
with
> slower "shutter" speed since movement blur in low light is acceptable
with
> movies of moving objects /people.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> But photoshop cannot creat data or remove blur or noise (without
removing
> detail that its already lacking) in an image.
>
>
>
>> ______________________
>> 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. : -)
>
>
> For those moments I would use 8 frames per second on my nikon with
> carefully controlled focus and depth of field and get good quality noise
> free correctly focussed and controlled 12 million pixel images. WAY
better
> than any HD movie camera can achieve straight from the camera! And a
good
> 20 x 30 inch pin sharp image with every eylash pin sharp with almost
zero
> noise. A movie camera simply cannot do that for a huge bunch of
technical
> reasons. People paying for good wedding photography are payiong for just
> that.
>
>
> ______________
>> 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.
>
>
> Its simply not possible to even get close to that image quality no
matter
> what you do. The data simply isnt there to work with.
>
>
>> _______________________
>> I think someone should get inventive and try
>> some new ideas instead of trying to discourage
>> people from taking photographs.
>
>
> Anybody can take snaps. Very few people can take technically good
> photographs even with the best digital SLR available.
>
>
>
>> _______________________
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> It makes noisy over exposed over over processed typical point and shoot
> photos. ASs a point and shoot its OK but quality and control is way
short
> of my D300 or the D3 nikon for eg. For shooting weddings its just a
> snapshot camera.
>
>
>
> 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 would get exactly what you get from guests taking their own pics art
a
> wedding now.
> Thousands of low quality blurry over processed amature badly exposed
noisy
> point and shoot shots...
> Useless for printing at anything other than 6x4 sixe and this already
> happens at almost every wedding!
>
>
>
>> ______________________
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> There is absolutely nothing stopping them doing that now. And thats not
> what this thread is about.
People don't usually do a good job of sharing pictures. A photographer
should be able to correlate, correct and create a presentation with the
photos which were shot with the same type of cameras with the same
settings.
> The thing is that a few low quality frames taken from a HD Movie camera
> doesent come close to a decent photographers wedding photos taken with a
> modern SLR camera. Or even close to what the same guy could do with a 6
> year old 2 million pixel point and shoot!
Did you look at the EX-F1? They are in stock now at some of the
online stores. It's not a video camera. It has 7FPS with flash. Really,
according to their hype.
|
