"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ev9Oj.88205$497.17023@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Ay0Oj.51599$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.
You mean try to rescue bad lighting, noise, bad exposure, blurred fuzzy
images from a amature photographer with a noisy camera that cant focus
accurately?
Not possible other than for 6x4 pictures for people that dont expect much.
>> 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.
>
Yes. Its a point and shoot! Noisy, low image quality, does not compare to
a
real Digital SLR. Great for snaps. Unusable for printing high quality
20x30
prints unless you are very easily pleased!
|
