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.

The most interesting thing with comments like these is that the photographers who are actually pushing the envelop and producing the next set of masterpieces typically use as much technology as they have available and don't worry about their art getting "cheaper" . Sure there are many great photographers who stick to old-school ways but there are at least as many great photographers who openly adopt every innovation. They see the new technologies as something which allows them to do what was not possible before and capture even more awesome new shots and not necessarily as just a way to easily replicate what has already been done.

In any case there will always be as many people against such techniques as in favor of them, thats natural. However I think the biggest fallacy is thinking that somehow even a non-talented photographer can consistently produce great pictures by getting grabs out of a video - thats not true.

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.

Many "lucky shots" are the most valuable shots. And it doesn't matter a hoot if they were captured on film, digitally, or via video.

No should be surprised by this. Canon's focus shifted from still photography to video long ago.

This is the future according to Canon, and it's up to each of us to decide if we want to play along. Some will, some won't.

Peter Hurley did an interesting comparison between 14.4MP stills pulled from a Red Epic vs 22MP Hasselblad.

Still pulled from the Red Epic

Hasselblad H3D-22

See full video:

Great video. Too bad the print was limited to 8x10, because there's a big difference in the samples and it would be interesting to see where the difference is noticed on paper. Big difference in color too, I'm surprised that was downplayed a bit.

curious80 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.

The most interesting thing with comments like these is that the photographers who are actually pushing the envelop and producing the next set of masterpieces typically use as much technology as they have available and don't worry about their art getting "cheaper" . Sure there are many great photographers who stick to old-school ways but there are at least as many great photographers who openly adopt every innovation. They see the new technologies as something which allows them to do what was not possible before and capture even more awesome new shots and not necessarily as just a way to easily replicate what has already been done.

In any case there will always be as many people against such techniques as in favor of them, thats natural. However I think the biggest fallacy is thinking that somehow even a non-talented photographer can consistently produce great pictures by getting grabs out of a video - thats not true.

When I said it cheapens photography, I meant the way the average joes view photography. Just look at the way people ask you for favours to take photos of something these days. As if it takes no effort to take a good photo.

What I get from all this: 16:9 will become the new normal aspect ratio and the vertical portrait will die. That is if you shoot all your still photographs on video.

Thanks Fred! Pretty awesome demonstration of the wave of the future. Even though he was "complaining" about 7,000 stills to edit, it is obvious that the editing process is open to experience and familiarity -- partly, he was slowed down by the glee factor of the new process and technology.

Yes, I can see this and more on the horizon for much lower prices.

cineski wrote: What I get from all this: 16:9 will become the new normal aspect ratio and the vertical portrait will die. That is if you shoot all your still photographs on video.

That makes a big assumption, a common one; that everybody will try to get both video and still photos from one press of the trigger. The video is incidental to still photographs. Still photography and video will remain two different disciplines with two different kinds of lighting and two different kinds of lenses. Sure, occasionally a great photo will be pulled from a video. Sure, many amateurs will try to do two in one, and fail, and most of them won't realize the depth of the failure.

The smart photographers (most pros would be included) would shoot stills and would turn the camera 90 degrees for vertical portaits. That they would shoot a burst of frames is just like "continuous mode" or a motor drive.

cineski wrote: the vertical portrait will die.

Nonsense.

What I don't get is...

How is 24fps and pulling the best one any different from 8fps or 12fps and pulling the best one? :P

Food for thought, eh? :P

At what point is it "cheating" ? ;-)

16:9 won't become the new aspect ratio, don't worry. It looks terrible for a portrait of one person. Looks great for some landscapes, though.

I wouldn't worry too much. When 4k raw video cams become common place and easily affordable, there will prolly be 54mp and 80mp full frame cams (or something). Stills will, for at least the foreseeable future, and probably always, be higher res than video frame grabs. Reason is processing power. 4k video if done right would be close to a "good enough for most things" point though.

Still pulled from 1C footage are only 8mp and not RAW. Yes the tech will improve and maybe we will have 6k and raw video in the near future but sensor tech for stills is also developing. We will soon have a 40+mp canon body soon by all predictions and I would rather shoot with that for large printing options.

Also this technique is no good at the moment for stopping motion (until you can shoot video with 1/1000 sec shutter speed or higher) and its pointless for things like landscape where things are more static and you need to bracket exposures etc.

I don't mind new tech and more options but regular still photography is never going to be made obselete by video frame grabs,

That was interesting. I want one.

Gyroscope wrote:
Also this technique is no good at the moment for stopping motion (until you can shoot video with 1/1000 sec shutter speed or higher)

I shoot video at 1/1000" now

I don't like it. There is something about it that is disquieting.

I almost feel as if the strongest advocates for this would be useless photographers. Or parasites...

Imagine setting up your camera and recording a scene at 120fps just to find a decent frame?

It is weird and I don't like the taste of it.

God save our art.

There is no god, unless you're referring to the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. All praise the FSM!!

I know. It was more a cry of desperation at the inanity of pulling stills from video.

Which is fine if you're a cop or lawyer making a case.

Otherwise... Zzz.

It's fine, you don't have to like it, but I hope you see that FPS has very little to do with the skill involved in making a great image.

A great image = one plucked from thousands?

So if I take zee For-A FT-One and put it at local intersection to record inevitable crashes. I select zee best frames and voila! I am zee great photographer, aren't I no?

Cartier-Bresson has nothing on me. I am the decisive moment.

Gunzorro wrote:
Thanks Fred! Pretty awesome demonstration of the wave of the future. Even though he was "complaining" about 7,000 stills to edit, it is obvious that the editing process is open to experience and familiarity -- partly, he was slowed down by the glee factor of the new process and technology.

Yes, I can see this and more on the horizon for much lower prices.

There is an interaction between shooter and subject, magic if you will, even a dance, it should be interesting to see how this human dynamic changes as fast frame rates become the norm...do we not need a moment to stop, breathe, refresh and start again. I get the chills thinking the still could ever die..moments are such a pleasure to capture.

Paul Mo wrote:
A great image = one plucked from thousands?

Is that what makes a great image, taking thousands? What stops someone from doing that now?