"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:lrxOj.2265$F23.923@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.
>
>
Even if thats true and I doubt it, who needs a "wider" gaut picture with
less resolution more noise, etc etc???
And its relevant to different cameras how exactly?
|
