"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:KhEOj.12579$CO2.9458@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:kFCOj.52972$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?
>
Of course raw images exist in point and shoots. But its a badly focussed
raw
image from a small sized noisy sensor through a small nasty lense!
Morphing isnt real data and relates to wedding images how?
|
