"Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:XrtOj.93193$5i5.4104@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:xXsOj.167785$nr1.119043@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:uuaOj.50167$Ff4.16383@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "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!
>>
>> That's not what the reviews say. You obviously
>> haven't used one. They haven't even been
>> available until last week in the US. So I know you
>> are bsing. Who wants 20x30 prints for wedding
>> photos?
>
> Usually the bride and groom...
> Even if they dont the biggest photo you are going to get out of your HD
> Video camera is 6x4 inches at the accepted 300dpi printing resolution.
You
> COULD upsample and interpolate but that just makes a bigger image not a
> better one. You cannot add data in afterwards!
>
> And it will be noisey and badly exposed and focused compared to even a
> cheap DSLR camera.
>
> The point is that there is a reason that wedding photographers prefer
> cannons with FULL FRAME sensors. Or even Nikons like the D200 or D300
With
> DX sensors. The Nikon D3 is the best of the lot here but still pretty
new.
> The reason is that they get the sort of quality and low noise, combined
> with real control over the photographic process. Sensor size is DIRECTLY
> related to noise. Thats why point and shoot cameras all make noisey
> photos. If you are happy with that then thats fine but most people
> especially photographers are not. Especially so at higher ISO settings
> needed in dark winter days, in churches etc. Sorry but NO point and
shoot
> has anything aproaching a full frame or even a DX sized sensor. There a
> bit more to it than pixels... Unless they found a way around this
> inconvinient bit of physics then it can never be any other way. Thats
why
> DSLR cameras have such huge and expensive lenses. To "cover" a LARGER
> sensor. Its also why point and shoots are cheap! Tiny sensor = tiny lens
> to cover its area. Lenses cost. result noisey camera. Plus point and
> shoots and most budget dslr cameras over process images so it looks
"good"
> (sometimes) straight out of the camera. Pro cameras dont. They require
> finishing (levels, etc and sharpening last) to produce a good finished
> image. Once the point and shoot has done this badly and oveexposed and
> blown highlights etc you cant do much exept delete it or accept what you
> got!
The only thing is that when you look at the pictures
you will find that I am right. Who does your film processing
because it appears that home printer now have a wider
color gamut than labs.
|
