I hear you, but it sounds a bit elitist. Let's work in reverse, what is the frame rate where one is no longer a photographer?

corndog wrote:
I hear you, but it sounds a bit elitist. Let's work in reverse, what is the frame rate where one is no longer a photographer?


24, or above.

Is photography about to take another turn? From film to digital and now "motion-acquired images" using 4K video?

Abraham Joffe from Untitled Film Works, posted a great article showcasing high resolution stills pulled from 4K videos using the Canon EOS-1D C.

"We realized that the best and harshest critics to show these motion-acquired images would be photographers themselves. So on the 19th of December we invited some of Australia’s leading photographers to Sun Studios in Sydney Australia for a look. Reactions from each photographer varied from shock and amazement to almost disbelief. Understandably the discussion of would this negatively affect business was raised, but after some reflection everybody agreed that this is simply and exciting new tool for photographers and should not be feared.

The art and skill of a photographer is still required when using a camera like the 1DC. Understanding and harnessing of light, composition and interaction with your subjects are all vital skills of a photographer and are not replaced by the idea of motion image capture. Photographers also use a variety of techniques to obtain unique looking images (like long exposure times and the use of remote flashes) these times of images would not be reproduced in video. I see the biggest step forward using motion image capture the ability to record many individual moments in time, all the while silently as there is no shutter being released. This could have great benefits in situations where you may want to remain more candid. Subjects could also feel more relaxed not knowing “photographs” are being taken."

Read the entire article

Pre-order Canon EOS-1D C from B&H Photo for $11,999 (expected to ship January 2nd)

It'll cheapen the art of photography that's for sure. Just like the ability to take as many photos as you like with a digital camera as opposed to the limited expensive film rolls.

The easier it is to get that "lucky shot", the less valuable it becomes. And it'll be pretty damn easy to get it with an 8k 120fps camera that records RAW footage.

Canon's fatal flaw in this is that they priced it higher than 1D X.

F man! That's lens money right there!

In this thread: People afraid that their work is rendered useless by technology.

Seriously guys, 4K movies have existed for quite some time now and nobody is going apeshit about it. It's not like everyone can afford a $20k camera.

I remember Gibson released a self-tuning guitar a while ago, and every musician I knew was like "What has the world come to? In a few years teenagers won't even know how to tune a guitar." Fast-forward in time, that guitar is still expensive.

Relax, guys. Have a little faith in your work.

n0b0 wrote:
It'll cheapen the art of photography that's for sure. Just like the ability to take as many photos as you like with a digital camera as opposed to the limited expensive film rolls.

The easier it is to get that "lucky shot", the less valuable it becomes. And it'll be pretty damn easy to get it with an 8k 120fps camera that records RAW footage.

That's with the assumption that these less skilled photographers will normally nail every other aspect of the shot, except that their timing is typically off, and off enough where their camera's current frame rate is insufficient. Not to mention that with sports, there's 10-20 players out there and you can still only point the camera at one (maybe two) of them at a time. This just doesn't sound like a realistic concern. And I'm sure you recall sucky film photographers with lots of money who got lucky shots by just burning through rolls of film. Considering the cost of modern gear, is it really any different? There's an indescribable and unmanufacturable element in photography (regardless of frame rate) that takes true talent/skill which can never be purchased. So, you insecure guys (nobody specific) can sleep comfortably.

HauntedHat wrote:
Seriously guys, 4K movies have existed for quite some time now and nobody is going apeshit about it. It's not like everyone can afford a $20k camera.

I remember Gibson released a self-tuning guitar a while ago, and every musician I knew was like "What has the world come to? In a few years teenagers won't even know how to tune a guitar." Fast-forward in time, that guitar is still expensive.

There's nothing to compete against self-tuning guitars, so no pressure to lower the price.

But camera manufacturers are now threatened by ubiquitous phone cameras. As long as there is sufficient demand, supply and competition, it's quite conceivable for a Digital Rebel to spot 4k movie-capturing capability 10 years from now at a low price.

corndog wrote:
n0b0 wrote:
It'll cheapen the art of photography that's for sure. Just like the ability to take as many photos as you like with a digital camera as opposed to the limited expensive film rolls.

The easier it is to get that "lucky shot", the less valuable it becomes. And it'll be pretty damn easy to get it with an 8k 120fps camera that records RAW footage.

That's with the assumption that these less skilled photographers will normally nail every other aspect of the shot, except that their timing is typically off, and off enough where their camera's current frame rate is insufficient. Not to mention that with sports, there's 10-20 players out there and you can still only point the camera at one (maybe two) of them at a time. This just doesn't sound like a realistic concern. And I'm sure you recall sucky film photographers with lots of money who got lucky shots by just burning through rolls of film. Considering the cost of modern gear, is it really any different? There's an indescribable and unmanufacturable element in photography (regardless of frame rate) that takes true talent/skill which can never be purchased. So, you insecure guys (nobody specific) can sleep comfortably.

You are correct in a way. This so called "motion image photography" can't be used for long exposure for one. Nor can they be used for any other photography tricks that involves playing around with exposure like bracketing, or the lens covering trick to capture multiple fireworks in one frame.

That said, I can see this "technique" becoming popular for wildlife or other action photography as it basically reduce or even eliminates the reliance on timing. Of course you'd still need other skills to capture a great photo. This just makes it easier.

Am I write in thinking that the shutter speeds used in video don't usually go over a 1/125 and mostly used at a 1/50? Whole heck of a lot of photography that needs to be sharp not blurred in single frames....

Beni wrote: Am I write in thinking that the shutter speeds used in video don't usually go over a 1/125 and mostly used at a 1/50? Whole heck of a lot of photography that needs to be sharp not blurred in single frames....

Nope. Not "right" either.

While you are technically correct about video shot for "video", video shot for stills can use any shutter speed faster than about 1/40 sec.

If video is shot for viewing as video, a high shutter speed can make it seem subtly choppy or stuttering because the frames stop too much motion and there isn't a subtle enough transition between them.

But if you don't care about viewing it in motion, then individual frames can be shot at high shutter speeds. You can use it as a 24 fps "motor drive" (24 fps 'continuous mode'). Fire off a burst of 36 frames in a portrait session and then a blink is not a problem. You still have 36 frames to store on the card and 36 frames to review and compare and choose from. That's just for one "shot", one pose, one expression.

It is a common error to think that simply holding the shutter button down allows you to make two products at one time: stills and video. Not only is there the shutter issue, but there are also issues of framing and focus pulling and especially the lighting which must be optimized in different ways for video than for stills.

Monito wrote:
Video lighting is very different from still photography lighting.


I get what you mean, but not for nature, sports, reportage or weddings (unless you are using flash)... and maybe not in controlled lighting conditions where you are specifically shooting video and going to make screen shots from that video.

Monito wrote: Video lighting is very different from still photography lighting.

Bones74 wrote: I get what you mean, but not for nature, sports, reportage or weddings (unless you are using flash)... and maybe not in controlled lighting conditions where you are specifically shooting video and going to make screen shots from that video.

Especially different in controlled lighting conditions where you are specifically shooting video. There you need to light to account for the movement of the subjects and camera movements.

Controlled lighting is the only time you have controlled lighting (a tautology). When we say "video lighting" or "lighting for stills", we are only discussing controlled lighting. For pre-existing lighting found at the scene (nature, sports, some reportage), sometimes called "available light", it is not controlled, so still photographers and videographers are both forced to use it as is. When you add light (or subtract light) you begin to control it.

Shooting stills by using video as a 24 fps burst mode is "still photography" and the lighting can be optimized for each "shot", as a still photograph.

1gb for 15 sec of video....forget that noise.... (well, at least until 128gb cards comes down to $20 each......)

No more spray and pray.

Just strap a 4k version of a human critter cam (http://gopro.com/products/?gclid=CJHvoP_YvbQCFQ0GnQodwm8AHQ) to your forehead everyday and you're all set.

And as soon as we have cheap exebyte drives you'll never miss that magic moment again. "Editing" shouldn't take long either.

1 EB = 1000000000000000000B = 1018 bytes = 1000000000gigabytes = 1000000terabytes = 1000petabytes

^^^ Shouldn't those numbers be relative to time? Matters not, good luck doing anything with a 240x160 pixel image, because that's what you'll be left with by the time you 'zoom' in on anything!

Paul Mo wrote:
corndog wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
I am a crap photographer, like really bad. Probably the worst you've ever seen. But you know what? I have a high res. video camera and from the footage I can make stills. It's great! I post them to flickr and facebook and you should see the comments; 'Wow! That's incredible!'. 'Talk about decisive moment!' 'Buddy, you're a legend!' My ego has never been so happy!

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People love to complain about something being 'too easy' while completely ignoring the fact that they're holding a five thousand dollar camera/lens and making images with the push of a button. What they're basically saying is "my 10fps is super hard work and your 30fps is totally cheating!!!". Frames per second is not the definition of a good photographer.



I am not arguing that. But our practice is photography, not shuffling through footage in Premiere to find the best frame.

So, Mr. Photographer (not you personally), why not buy a RED, start picking out frames and make a mint on stock sites?

If you (not you personally) thinks that's cool and the way to go you have no place here.

Speak for yourself. You determine how a photograph should be created and who should be posting here

It is the final image that matters, not how it was created.

I'm ready to buy when the 8k version drops to around $2.5k...5d size or 1D size I'm not picky

What an interesting discussion, seems funny, as a 30yr plus software developer; hearing many times that 'ANYONE' can code/program, many of you are echoing that very incorrect thought.

Speed of image capture, words/lines of code per minute, will never out perform the imagination, the creativity behind the deliverable is the key. Be it in image or class/routine/ui component; in these two professions, there is still the human element determining it's composition, it's elegantness, simplicity or complexity...it's beauty.

"In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away."
- shing xiong

Paul Mo wrote:
Is it photography? Technically speaking, yes.

Is it the skilled practice we're all involved in? A serendipitous 'art'? No. It's crap.

It seems a very 'art school' way to make something. Haven't the skill? Then let's find a way.

How is it any different from a sports photographer shooting at 12fps and picking the shot where the ball hits the bat? Maybe one way to think about this would be that from the 12 fps of current top of the line DSLRs to the 24 fps of video, where is the boundary when it transitions from art to crap?

Also as others have said, its not that you can just shoot a video and get great frames out of it. The basic skills in composition, lighting, post processing etc are all still required. If anything they are harder with this method. When you shoot a still photograph you know precisely at that moment the lighting and composition etc which you have chosen for that specific shot. When you are shooting a video with the intention of grabbing a frame, it will require more planning and pre-visualization to ensure that it could give you stills with good lighting and composition.

The bottom line is that getting a good shot requires good vision and skill regardless of which method you use. A non-talented photographer like me is not going to produce a masterpiece no matter how much technology you give me.

And of course this particular method doesn't apply to every situation. There is not much use of this technique when shooting say posed studio shots or when shooting landscapes etc.