"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?
Are you saying that a point and shoot that allows for
using raw format doesn't exist?
If you can't produce something out of nothing, as someone
kept saying about photoshop interpolation, then how do you
account for morphing?
|
