Ill have to find the link, I believe it was the dvinfo.net forum I frequent, but when it compared the red vs the 5d2 vs a still pic capture, the 5d2 has better resolution for a full frame grab in the specs when you compare it against the red. It had something to do with pixel density if I remember right. If someone is interested, I will look it up again and post it.
The problem with the frame grab at 24p or 30p is its still 1920x1080, which is way below the raw spec on a camera like the 5d2 of 5616x3744.
The upside like someone suggested, is that you have 30 frames every second (or 24) to find the right frame you like!
There was a magazine cover recently that actually used a still frame from video shot on a 5d2 but I cant remember the name of it. Im sure some google-fu would find it easily if someone is interested.
The still pic is not going away anytime soon, but I agree the possibilities in the future are making a great case for frame grabs out of video.
Digital Photo Pro (I think) magazine done an article comparing the Red to the Mk II for this and came up with the same conclusion... Mk II frame grabs were better. Don't remember which issue it was though.
Steve Ickes wrote:
While the RED system makes high resolution stills a reality, their price is extremely prohibitive. Not exactly a mass market product....yet.
exactly. it's more for motion picture work.
I used the RED camera on the series finale of ER along with other movies and tV shows.
This is even beyond PROsumer as the lenses used for motion picture work cost more than this camera does.
I have friends that own them for 'film' work, but I wouldn't think twice about buying one and I work in the industry that I could rent it out to.
i like knowing that the expressions in Richard Avedon's shots were not only genuinely obtained but genuinely captured-his instinct and timing resulted in thousands of photos taken at just the right moment
i'm not much on change (i was slow to join the "digital revolution" too)-i cringe at the continual dumbing down of photography-it's sad
I saw an 11x14 print made using this same technique at a dance competition... the moment was nice, but the print was god awful. Where did I see it? On the wall of a dance studio after it was paid for. It might suck, but it works.
I use sample prints to try and explain that a still camera does a better job, but I can't hire people that are good enough to get all of the great moments in a dance, so in some sense they got me beat! In a few more years, they'll definitely have me beat... its time to move forward with the technology, not against it.
Steady Hand wrote:
A "One Series" camera shoots sports at 10 frames per second.
A video camera on 24p will shoot 24 frames per second.
So, "twice the frames" to choose from.
I am sure that MANY sports shooters shoot at 10 fps or similar BECAUSE they like to pick "the best frame" from among many.
I bet there are many who "chimp" too (and I don't care if they do or don't).
The point?
The technology advances and allows a photographer to have "more choices" and more ability to edit from a selection of many rather than fewer.
Imagine... one has "2.4 times as many" frames to select from of a critical moment....well...I would prefer that option. ...Show more →
I shoot sports 95% of the time from youth to pro events. I have absolutely NO need for a higher frame rate. My DSLR's can rip off 10 fps but unless I'm shooting a specific sequence (ex. pitcher in windup) I only ever grab 3-4 frames at a time. Even at that I have way too many images to edit through looking for the ones I want. I'm not refuting the progression of technology but I really do not want to have to edit through more images than I do now. Simply pointing your lens at the action and mashing the button down to get 10 fps in the hopes of capturing one decent frame is not photography, it's simply wishful thinking.
markholmesphot wrote:
Got your attention, I guess!
It seems the company that is the behemoth of all school picture companies has started using DSLR video. Simply get the kid to walk in front of the blue screen, ask them a few silly questions, then let them go on their way. The lab then chooses the perfect frame to print. No more trying to coax the perfect smile out of the kid or judging the moment of decision.
I hear a lot of DSLR photographers saying they don't want video on their cameras. Maybe for portraiture, weddings, fashion, etc. it will soon be the standard capture method. It wasn't long ago before video was unheard of on DSLR, and it may not be long before the quality of capture matches stills.
The market will certainly dictate where digital imaging will go. Canon and Nikon are certainly not blind to this and will watch and make adjustments to it's lineup and offering. Where red might be on the cutting edge, companies like Canon and Nikon will actually make it affordable and in some ways they are already moving in that direction by introducing hidef video in their still-cameras. Their lenses are still world class and Red wouldn't be able to compete in the mass market just yet.
radioblurs wrote:
...or luck. Vid cameras have been around for a long time...how many still photog's traded in their equipment to become cinematographers/videographers?
Wouldn't be anymore advantageous a studio with strobes than a still camera, but I guess you'd have to purchase monolights too.
Steve Ickes wrote:
I shoot sports 95% of the time from youth to pro events. I have absolutely NO need for a higher frame rate. My DSLR's can rip off 10 fps but unless I'm shooting a specific sequence (ex. pitcher in windup) I only ever grab 3-4 frames at a time. Even at that I have way too many images to edit through looking for the ones I want. I'm not refuting the progression of technology but I really do not want to have to edit through more images than I do now. Simply pointing your lens at the action and mashing the button down to get 10 fps in the hopes of capturing one decent frame is not photography, it's simply wishful thinking. ...Show more →
You wrote: Simply pointing your lens at the action and mashing the button down to get 10 fps in the hopes of capturing one decent frame is not photography, it's simply wishful thinking.
I disagree.
I can think of instances and professional situations where that is what happens and is accepted as the NORM for getting the photos and is depended on to get "the shot."
That cuts across photography genres too (celebrity, fashion, wildlife, wedding, family, sports, etc.)
So, I don't consider it "wishful thinking" at all.
I consider it a possible good use of a tool's capability to reach a desired end ("getting the shot").
But, I don't write this to argue with you. I don't expect to change your POV at all. I only write this above because you did quote me.
My production company has a RED One, it's a great camera, but it's not the most ergonomic and in many ways it's a prototype.
Certain sectors of the film industry are already changing due to the impact of digital cinema technology, but the revolution wont take place until Epic and Scarlet are released later this year. There are going to be more people like me who shoot both stills and moving pictures, but I think the impact on the stills industry will be far less than the impact on the film industry. One thing is for sure, it's going to be a fun ride.
Steady Hand wrote:
You wrote: Simply pointing your lens at the action and mashing the button down to get 10 fps in the hopes of capturing one decent frame is not photography, it's simply wishful thinking.
I disagree.
I can think of instances and professional situations where that is what happens and is accepted as the NORM for getting the photos and is depended on to get "the shot."
That cuts across photography genres too (celebrity, fashion, wildlife, wedding, family, sports, etc.)
So, I don't consider it "wishful thinking" at all.
I consider it a possible good use of a tool's capability to reach a desired end ("getting the shot").
But, I don't write this to argue with you. I don't expect to change your POV at all. I only write this above because you did quote me.
Yes, there are times when you press the shutter and hope for the best: during the post game scrum, when everyone's jockeying for position, cameras held overhead, trying to shoot over and around other photographers and tv cameras. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But even then its wishful thinking since I cannot see what's in my viewfinder. But again, that has nothing to do with new technology or capabilities. I, as well as many others, did the same thing with film cameras and motor drives.
Not arguing your viewpoint but I run across far too many "photographers" who think that the path to a great image involves nothing more than filling up a CF card.
The use of video frame grabs has been around for some time. But getting the same quality out of that video is far from there. But again, that's how some companies stay ahead of the curve and differentiate themselves, but doing it differently.
markholmesphot wrote:
Got your attention, I guess!
It seems the company that is the behemoth of all school picture companies has started using DSLR video. Simply get the kid to walk in front of the blue screen, ask them a few silly questions, then let them go on their way. The lab then chooses the perfect frame to print. No more trying to coax the perfect smile out of the kid or judging the moment of decision.
I hear a lot of DSLR photographers saying they don't want video on their cameras. Maybe for portraiture, weddings, fashion, etc. it will soon be the standard capture method. It wasn't long ago before video was unheard of on DSLR, and it may not be long before the quality of capture matches stills.
It just depends on what type of portraiture we are talking. I actual see a real oportunity in high end circles of using large format 4X5 & 8X10 cameras and hand printing B&W archival prints. I think that hand crafted images are going to become more and more precious as many of the older photographers that had these skill become less and less. Kind of like carpenters, plasterers, etc.
I remember hearing that when color was becoming huge there would be no more B&W and video would completely replace still but none of this had happened. In fact I have a couple of good photographer friends that are coating there own platinum papers and shooting large format. One is using a pinhole camera.
I do agree that some areas will be heavily impacted because these issue of IQ when going from motion to still will be addressed. It wasn't all that long ago when 3mps was the still standard. Its just a matter of time. Sports photographers in say the NFL will just point at the action and a live video stream will be streaming to an editor that could be halfway around the world and that editor will find the moment. Cartier-Bresson would be rolling in his grave. or maybe he would become an editor. He was very good at finding the "Decisive Moment."
airfrogusmc wrote:
It just depends on what type of portraiture we are talking. I actual see a real oportunity in high end circles of using large format 4X5 & 8X10 cameras and hand printing B&W archival prints. I think that hand crafted images are going to become more and more precious as many of the older photographers that had these skill become less and less. Kind of like carpenters, plasterers, etc.
I remember hearing that when color was becoming huge there would be no more B&W and video would completely replace still but none of this had happened. In fact I have a couple of good photographer friends that are coating there own platinum papers and shooting large format. One is using a pinhole camera.
I do agree that some areas will be heavily impacted because these issue of IQ when going from motion to still will be addressed. It wasn't all that long ago when 3mps was the still standard. Its just a matter of time. Sports photographers in say the NFL will just point at the action and a live video stream will be streaming to an editor that could be halfway around the world and that editor will find the moment. Cartier-Bresson would be rolling in his grave. or maybe he would become an editor. He was very good at finding the "Decisive Moment." ...Show more →
I found this an interesting additional view.
_________
I don't agree with all of it, but I enjoyed reading it and agree with some of it.
