BTW - all the talk of 24p, 25p and 30p may have confused some people. Traditional TVs are 25i & 30i (i=interlaced) rather than 25p or 30p (p=progressive). Newer TVs can display progressive fames. Old TVs can't, and require an interlaced signal.
Lord Fluff wrote:
Erm no, sorry. Still photos are a different thing entirely to moving video. Irrespective of price, size, quality etc, there will still be a market for, and interest in, stills photography - it is simply a different thing.
Indeed. Video camera isn't a substitute for DSLRs, they complement each other and have done so for many years. While video cameras capture the important event, still cameras capture the moments.
Lord Fluff wrote:
Erm no, sorry. Still photos are a different thing entirely to moving video. Irrespective of price, size, quality etc, there will still be a market for, and interest in, stills photography - it is simply a different thing.
Did wedding videographers replace stills photographers? Nope, and they won't. There is a healthy interest in both aspects, and if anything (in the UK at least) more people go for photos rather than video for their wedding.
When video cameras can capture 60 frames per second at (say) 50MP (one day this will happen), then you can have all the 'moments' you need from a video still, but there is more to it than that. Still photography is really an art on it's own, and there are things you can do with stills that you simply can't do (easily) with video, regardless of which video 'frame' you choose.
Yes. This forum [and dpreview to a greater extent] is populated by a large number of techno enthusiasts as opposed to photographers. The techno fans will embrace whatever additional cool and groovey "features" are slapped on to cameras.
This year it's video. Next year it might be audio notes converted to embedded text or GPS or whatever. In an effort to sell more units to people who already own one the camera companies are taking a page from the cell phone companies and tacking on lots of "features" that don't have much to do with the product's core purpose.
You're forgetting the motion blur mate. Unless future video camera comes with high speed capability as standard, it'll never give you the same result as a DSLR.
Perhaps 50MP videos will happen but as we get closer to that point, the time it takes will increase exponentially. Not only that, while it may be possible, doesn't mean it'll ever become mainstream. You know... kinda like cars these days, many cars can reach 300-400kph but people only drive at 120kph max.
I just don't think we need to get such a high resolution video as the difference would be lost to our eyes anyway. A bit like how our eyes can't see the difference past 30fps.
JDSA wrote:
... or GPS or whatever. ...
Geotagging is so first quarter of the year.
n0b0 wrote:
You're forgetting the motion blur mate. Unless future video camera comes with high speed capability as standard, it'll never give you the same result as a DSLR.
Exactly. Like I said, there are somethings you can't do with video at this point.
