"Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:kFCOj.52972$h65.7952@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:lrxOj.2265$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?
You can print any digital pic you want. If you prefer
to print the ones you insist are better ...
|
