Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?

In a way it is moot because if you have a camera capable of high def, high framerates (crisp and clear) I don't think you'd take it on a Vanity Fair shoot and direct the models in front of it, then select frames in an NLE of your choice. It's just so cumbersome and data intensive. However, pulling stills for use in promo material could be viable. But even then...

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

A great image is a great image, period. You are not the only one that determines what a great image is. What makes an image that takes hours, hard work & talent any greater than one still image taken from a video

Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


Videography is motion, photography is still. A still from video is photography.

Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

What does it matter what it is called I may try it in a few years. Do you really think most people care how a photograph was created?

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor).

Anybody here getting the new "C" and trying this out?

Fred Miranda wrote:
Anybody here getting the new "C" and trying this out?

NO

IMO this is the most overpriced camera out there at the moment. Spec wise there is very little difference between this camera and the 1dx...I would guess the hardware changes were minimal. 4k video should be standard on all future pro bodies (5d and up). Otherwise there is no way they are going to trick us with a $3.5k 5d body again...those days are over.

How does this compare to other 4K cameras? I think it is worth getting if customers are willing to pay exta for the service.

Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

What does it matter what it is called I may try it in a few years. Do you really think most people care how a photograph was created?

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor).

Laymen don't. A photographer who respects the practice does.

I think the big shift is going to come from the higher end commercial guys and the general demand for motion capture. They will be set up for shooting video (lights, direction, staging, etc) and will do the stills as frame grabs eliminating the need to shoot separate stills.

Cameras like the Red Epic already make this possible. The next Red camera, Dragon, is supposed to be 6k at crazy frame rates, and have mind boggling dynamic range in RAW video format. That will certainly eliminate the need for a separate stills camera on any set where you're already shooting motion.

For traditional studio photographers things just aren't happening fast enough to justify shooting motion instead of stills. The photographer is already good enough at catching the right moments. And I can't imagine a wedding photographer wanting to do an entire wedding in video then trying to pull frames after the fact. Angles and compositions change too frequently for a lot of shooting. It would make crappy video and the post production work would be mind boggling.

Now imagine this for the implications of technology... I'll pull out the crystal ball for a second. Electronic viewfinders have gotten so good that no one cares about a true SLR design camera. 6k or 8k video is the norm. Your camera can continuously capture video at 120fps. When you push the shutter button to capture the "decisive moment" the camera actually records the previous second and following half second into a single raw file that you can time scrub after the fact in Lightroom 9 to pick the shot(s) you want.

Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

What does it matter what it is called I may try it in a few years. Do you really think most people care how a photograph was created?

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor).

Laymen don't. A photographer who respects the practice does.

And laymen form the vast majority of people that view, purchase, and hire photographers.

artsupreme wrote:
frame grabs are the future, give it a few years.

Photography is about the journey as much as the final image. Even during this current smartphone-camera boom, there are plenty of young creatives who are discovering mechanical film cameras for the first time.

So it will be in the near future when the stock-photo markets take all their stills from 4k video, and with wedding videographers doing the same, there will still be a core of journeying photographers creating images that only they can find - for the journey the photographer took to get that image isn't the same journey the editor at the PC took...thus the images the real photographer produces will always have a different quality to what the editor pulls out).

1D C = 1D X + worlds most expensive FW upgrade.

Serious rip-off.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
1D C = 1D X + worlds most expensive FW upgrade.

Serious rip-off.

Oh well, Canon has been drinking their own bathwater again, but at least they're consistent.

They suffer from the delusion that their products, once priced competitively and near the top of their class, deserve a huge premium even if now they're only average, and technically, behind the curve. Like the overpriced 6d and 5d3, the price will fall.

RED, with a 24 FPS 14mp raw file seems a little more useful - that is if you want to spend 20 hours a day reviewing a couple of hours work.

Unless you shoot 4x5 you might not be a real photographer
Unless you shoot black and white film you might not be not a real photographer
Unless you shoot with natural light you might not be a real photographer
Unless you shoot 120 you might not be real photographer
Unless you shoot chrome film you might not be a real photographer
if you shoot 35mm you might not be a real photographer
If you shoot with a motor drive you might not be a real photographer
Unless you use a hand held meter you might not be a real photographer
If you use auto focus you might not be a real photographer
If you use a digital camera you might not be a real photographer
If you use a digital camera less than 12 mb you might not be a real photographer
Unless you shoot with strobist style lighting you might not be real photographer
If you shoot 3500 frames at an event you might not be real photographer

And now the latest:

If you pluck still frames from a video you might not be a real photographer

Any more?

If you complain bitterly about the price of a camera you had no intention of buying anyway, .... ?

Monito wrote:
If you complain bitterly about the price of a camera you had no intention of buying anyway, .... ?

I could care less what they charge for this camera. If the 1dx had a update that would allow 4k on it I would buy one @ $6k. 50% reduction in price should take canon around a year ... but in a year I'm only willing to pay half of that again. So in other words IMO they would sell more than 2x as many of these cameras (like 10x) if they would sell the 1dc for the same price as the 1dx.

Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

What does it matter what it is called I may try it in a few years. Do you really think most people care how a photograph was created?

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor).

Laymen don't. A photographer who respects the practice does.

And laymen form the vast majority of people that view, purchase, and hire photographers.

+1

Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Paul Mo wrote:
Nothing. Frame grabs have been used in the art world for decades. But if a new trend catches on - that of pulling stills from 4K or 8K acquisition - how could we define that? Is it videography, photography, or something else?


A still from video is photography.

But is it? Personally I can't wait to see people who think this is valid sell their gear and then post their latest work from high res. video cameras. Are you game?

What does it matter what it is called I may try it in a few years. Do you really think most people care how a photograph was created?

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor).

Laymen don't. A photographer who respects the practice does.

And laymen form the vast majority of people that view, purchase, and hire photographers.


To add to that, FPS isn't a sign of disrespect. Otherwise, may all you 1DX users bow your heads in shaaaame!!

Long lenses and shallow DOF action may be an area that video stills never take away from. It's difficult to keep the focus point on a small flying bird or sports player as it is. Getting another 500 OOF shots may be of no benefit for this type of photography.