I am primarily a still photographer that shoots large animals (grizzly, polar, muskox, wolves [and landscape but that's not relevant in this post.])
Sometimes cubs will do cute things that require motion/video to capture. Sometimes stills are limited by branches that would be less important in video.
I would like to dabble in video but the thing that always stops me is that I would then miss opportunities for high quality stills that could be printed large. Switching from video to stills misses losing video. Switching from stills to video misses stills.
Stills generally require faster shutter speed and better focus. Whereas video is more forgiving and generally benefits from blur from motion (180rule) eg 1/120s for 60fps to not seem jittery.
I have read that I could shoot my r5ii in video 60fps 1/2000ss 8k raw auto iso and then:
1) Pick frames out of video for about 35mpx raw stills. They would be 12 bit Raw but still pretty good. With lots of culling.
2) Use topaz video, to convert the video to remove the jitter that arises at 1/2000 ss. To make it into a very good 24fps video.
Using 1/2000 would remove blur caused by 1/120 ss, which is generally needed to freeze still frames, that would be selected.
Using topaz video would put the blur back in, so that it looks like it is shot at 1/120s
Then I would not miss stills when shooting video, and I would be more inclined to shoot video.
[I guess I could go the other way an shoot in preburst at 30fps or 20fps with craw and then create a ~5 s video by merging them into a video.At 20fps, craw, I should get enough frames for 25s converted to 24fps cinema look. Only 3.5 seconds at 30fps. This is very easy to do, put them in a folder, import them into QuickTime and ask it to make a video, I think.]
It might even be pretty good as compared to pre-burst. With way more culling and extracting.
I would have to buy topaz at $300 but if it works that's okay.
I am primarily a still photographer that shoots large animals (grizzly, polar, muskox, wolves [and landscape but that's not relevant in this post.])
Sometimes cubs will do cute things that require motion/video to capture. Sometimes stills are limited by branches that would be less important in video.
I would like to dabble in video but the thing that always stops me is that I would then miss opportunities for high quality stills that could be printed large. Switching from video to stills misses losing video. Switching from stills to video misses stills.
Stills generally require faster shutter speed and better focus. Whereas video is more forgiving and generally benefits from blur from motion (180rule) eg 1/120s for 60fps to not seem jittery.
I have read that I could shoot my r5ii in video 60fps 1/2000ss 8k raw auto iso and then:
1) Pick frames out of video for about 35mpx raw stills. They would be 12 bit Raw but still pretty good. With lots of culling.
2) Use topaz video, to convert the video to remove the jitter that arises at 1/2000 ss. To make it into a very good 24fps video.
Using 1/2000 would remove blur caused by 1/120 ss, which is generally needed to freeze still frames, that would be selected.
Using topaz video would put the blur back in, so that it looks like it is shot at 1/120s
Then I would not miss stills when shooting video, and I would be more inclined to shoot video.
[I guess I could go the other way an shoot in preburst at 30fps or 20fps with craw and then create a ~5 s video by merging them into a video.At 20fps, craw, I should get enough frames for 25s converted to 24fps cinema look. Only 3.5 seconds at 30fps.]
It might even be pretty good as compared to pre-burst. With way more culling and extracting.
I would have to buy topaz at $300 but if it works that's okay.
I am primarily a still photographer that shoots large animals (grizzly, polar, muskox, wolves [and landscape but that's not relevant in this post.])
Sometimes cubs will do cute things that require motion/video to capture. Sometimes stills are limited by branches that would be less important in video.
I would like to dabble in video but the thing that always stops me is that I would then miss opportunities for high quality stills that could be printed large. Switching from video to stills misses losing video. Switching from stills to video misses stills.
Stills generally require faster shutter speed and better focus. Whereas video is more forgiving and generally benefits from blur from motion (180rule) eg 1/120s for 60fps.
I have read that I could shoot my r5ii in video 60fps 1/2000ss 8k raw auto iso and then:
1) Pick frames out of video for about 35mpx raw stills. They would be 12 bit Raw but still pretty good. With lots of culling.
2) Use topaz video, to convert the video to remove the jitter that arises at 1/2000 ss. To make it into a very good 24fps video.
Using 1/2000 would remove blur caused by 1/120 ss, which is generally needed to freeze still frames, that would be selected.
Using topaz video would put the blur back in, so that it looks like it is shot at 1/120s
Then I would not miss stills when shooting video, and I would be more inclined to shoot video.
[I guess I could go the other way an shoot in preburst at 30fps or 20fps with craw and then create a ~5 s video by merging them into a video.At 20fps, craw, I should get enough frames for 25s converted to 24fps cinema look. Only 3.5 seconds at 30fps.]
It might even be pretty good as compared to pre-burst. With way more culling and extracting.
I would have to buy topaz at $300 but if it works that's okay.
I am primarily a still photographer that shoots large animals (grizzly, polar, muskox, wolves [and landscape but that's not relevant in this post.])
Sometimes cubs will do cute things that require motion/video to capture. Sometimes stills are limited by branches that would be less important in video.
I would like to dabble in video but the thing that always stops me is that I would then miss opportunities for high quality stills that could be printed large. Switching from video to stills misses losing video. Switching from stills to video misses stills.
Stills generally require faster shutter speed and better focus. Whereas video is more forgiving and generally benefits from blur from motion (180rule) eg 1/120s for 60fps.
I have read that I could shoot my r5ii in video 60fps 1/2000ss 8k raw auto iso and then:
1) Pick frames out of video for about 35mpx raw stills. They would be 12 bit Raw but still pretty good. With lots of culling.
2) Use topaz video, to convert the video to remove the jitter that arises at 1/2000 ss. To make it into a very good 24fps video.
Using 1/2000 would remove blur caused by 1/120 ss, which is generally needed to freeze still frames, that would be selected.
Using topaz video would put the blur back in, so that it looks like it is shot at 1/120s
Then I would not miss stills when shooting video, and I would be more inclined to shoot video.
[I guess I could go the other way an shoot in preburst at 30fps with craw and then create a ~5 s video by merging them into a video.At 20fps, craw, I should get enough frames for 25s converted to 24fps cinema look.]
It might even be pretty good as compared to pre-burst. With way more culling and extracting.
I would have to buy topaz at $300 but if it works that's okay.
Thoughts before I spend $300 on topaz?
Dec 31, 2025 at 03:15 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #16958401 « Minimizing Video Shooting Still Regret --- R5II »
