the coming earthquake in photography

magicbastarder

"However, it is video that will undoubtedly become the main means of acquisition in photography. Today, almost all the manufacturers of prosumer video cameras have moved to High Definition. These cameras, off the shelf, are capable of delivering a 2-megapixel still image. The Dallas Morning News is now equipping their still photographers with Sony Z1U video cameras, and they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels, which only two years ago was the maximum you could get out of a professional 35mm camera. The Dallas Morning News is regularly running 4- and 5-column front-page pictures from these video grabs."

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in-photography.html

link courtesy of creativeireland.com

elven

For news pictures, maybe... but I would have thought it takes a different minset to shoot stills, than video? And the editing time required to pull out the required frame would be considerable, too...?

Eirebear

Certainly a good idea for news pics, it doesnt surprise me in the least TBH.
Where the mindset isnt all that different really, your recording whats going on, looking for a facial expression or an action shot that tells the story.
I dont think the editing time would be all that much ,opre substantial, a news photographer has to trawl though hundreds of frames anyway to get that one special shot, so watching it it as a film may even work out easier?
As for it taking over from any other forms of photography i don't see it, as the mindset is slightly different and your looking for different qualities.
Also there will always be a big gap in quality.

magicbastarder

Eirebear wrote:

Also there will always be a big gap in quality.

not at all; that's probably what people were saying at the dawn of digital photography.

it'd be a boon for wedding photographers, for example, doing the standard firing squad shots. just get everyone to hold a pose for a second or two, etc.

elven

Wooo, he's alive! Howsitgaun big man?

Fajitas!

magicbastarder wrote:

not at all; that's probably what people were saying at the dawn of digital photography.

Indeed it was/is.

PaulieC

I think he's being a little farfetched in some places e.g.

Already, Sony is moving to become the number one still-camera company. Their newest top-of-the line digital still cameras are based on designs from Konica, a company they absorbed.

The Alpha is hardly setting the world alight in sales terms...

However, it is more likely that paper printing will be long since gone, and instead newspapers, magazines and books will be delivered on "electronic" paper, in which case the visual presentation would most likely be video in the first place.

how many times will this be predicted? Anyone remember electronic books? One of the nice things about papers and books is that you can read them anywhere - bus, plain, train, bed, sofa etc. You cannot do this with an electronic medium. It may be technically possible, but it sucks big time

However, ultimately, the classic need for talent – the "eye of the photographer" – will never change.

I disagree here. Photography, especially photojournalism, relies on the photographer being in exactly the right place and right time to get the 'decisive moment', capturing expressions, etc. Videographers just sweep everything and hope to pick out something interesting.

If this is truly the way things are going, then I for one will not be a part of it.

magicbastarder

i don't think he's got it right on ratios either - 4:3 is not standard movie ratio.

Eirebear

not at all; that's probably what people were saying at the dawn of digital photography.

it'd be a boon for wedding photographers, for example, doing the standard firing squad shots. just get everyone to hold a pose for a second or two, etc

The difference being that film photography stopped progressing when digital began making an impact, while digital is still relativley young and rapidly developing, meaning that the gap between what you can get in terms of resolution from a moving image will always be slighlty behind.
Remember these cameras are still developed for the MOVING image, the freeze frames are a side product, and i can't really forsee them taking over.

In terms of wedding photography its the same.
For what you have termed the "firing squad" shots, its far easier to get people to stay still and in one place if they think your holding a conventional camera, if they see you with a video camera they are more likely to do something stupid like the old bunny ears trick etc.

Elven- I'm pretty good doll, you? finally joined the broadband age so this site isnt a pain in the grass anymore, (although i have noticed that boards.ie in general is painfully slow to load at times!) it also means ill be able to get my stuff online and show it off again! woohoo.....now all i need to do is remember my flickr sign in details!

Eirebear

Videographers just sweep everything and hope to pick out something interesting.

being a little harsh on the videographer there are you not?

magicbastarder

Eirebear wrote:

The difference being that film photography stopped progressing when digital began making an impact, while digital is still relativley young and rapidly developing, meaning that the gap between what you can get in terms of resolution from a moving image will always be slighlty behind.

not neceessarily - film was quite mature by the time digital happened along; the last shake-up i can really remember with film was the arrival of velvia.

and digital is already maturing in some aspects; e.g. megapixels topping out - the eos mk whatever not making any increase in the resolution available.
sure, moving images will probably never catch up with what's technically possible from a still, but practical and usable resolution is all people will ultimately be interested in.

PaulieC

Eirebear wrote:

being a little harsh on the videographer there are you not?

yes, probably. apologies to all videographers out there!! Waht I really meant was that it's easier to video everything and step through frame-by-frame and pick out the decisive moment, rather than capture it on a still camera. These stills have way more impact that video could ever have, in my opinion...

Eirebear

cambo_gueno wrote:

yes, probably. apologies to all videographers out there!! Waht I really meant was that it's easier to video everything and step through frame-by-frame and pick out the decisive moment, rather than capture it on a still camera. These stills have way more impact that video could ever have, in my opinion...

Whilst i agree with what your saying, i also know that there are certain time constraints that a news photographer has to deal with, especially when it comes to a daily newspaper.
I really reckon that you could get some cracking shots for news from this technique.
I still however dont see it happening in a more general sense.

Mantel

It'll work for newspapers and websites because you don't need pinsharp stills for newspaper prints, compressed jpegs or even flash video. People like to see video rather than reading words, its easier. For anything else it may take awhile to catch on once the quality increases.

Don Winslow, the editor of News Photographer magazine, has noted that vertical photographs have almost ceased to exist in the photography lexicon. It used to be a maxim of photojournalism that it was important to get as much information as possible into a small space.

Someone explain this to me, does he mean portait instead of vertical?

Anyone looked at the The Dallas Morning News website to see the results of these new gimicks?

[edit]
I was wondering why he singled canon out as the only camera company that will survive in the still-less future, guess who supports parts of that web site [/edit]

Eirebear

magicbastarder wrote:

not neceessarily - film was quite mature by the time digital happened along; the last shake-up i can really remember with film was the arrival of velvia.

and digital is already maturing in some aspects; e.g. megapixels topping out - the eos mk whatever not making any increase in the resolution available.
sure, moving images will probably never catch up with what's technically possible from a still, but practical and usable resolution is all people will ultimately be interested in.

For the home user i dont think it does make it practical and useable though, think about it, you can go out and take a digital snap, be it you family your dog, your holidays, whatever and see it instantly, print it and do whatever you want with it very very easily,

Whereas with the moving image your gonna have to keep that camera to your eye at all times, take it home, spend ages capturing it into an editing programme and then run through it all looking for a "special" shot.
Also people will then have more trouble with focusing on what they want etc etc, (we all know that video auto focus is generally mince) so they may not get that shot after all.

It will work in terms of news photography, to an extent, but if its not viable to the home consumer market, then there is no money in it for the major companies, thats where the real money is after all.
For that reason i dont see it developing.

mathias

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirebear
Also there will always be a big gap in quality.

not at all; that's probably what people were saying at the dawn of digital photography.

it'd be a boon for wedding photographers, for example, doing the standard firing squad shots. just get everyone to hold a pose for a second or two, etc.

Moving pictures have always required less resolution in terms of quality than still images , in terms of the moving images required today , at home this will top out at 1920 x 1080 per frame ( or 2 megapixel ) and is likely to stay that way indefinitely ( for bandwidth reasons ) as its good enough !! ( produces crystal clear movies on a 100 inch plus screen ) , this is fine for moving pictures but does not do for still photography , it has always been the case that frames grabbed from moving pictures just dont have the quality needed for a good still , or something that will be used as wall art or whatever. This includes the top res of 1920 x 1080 , a still scrutinised under freeze frame quickly shows its limits and interpolation ( boosting 2MP to 16MP as in the article ) has been shown in the past on many cameras to be a waste of time.

Sure , they will do for journalism or throwaway paper articles , but these publications are not meant to be kept ! Journalism is not dependant on quality in the final product.

Almost all photojournalism that has been kept for posterity has kept the high quality originals over the final product , one example is the book of life magazines great photographers etc.

Dont get me wrong , I would love a camera that was capable of high quality movies and high quality stills , that has the artistic capabilities of a Dslr , such as depth of field etc . but such a camera has never existed and is highly unlikely too in the future as two disciplines have very different needs. If it ever does happen , I'll buy one straight away , but I cant see it to be honest!

This is one of the key reasons why there will always be still cameras.

And such a still taken from a 2 mp HD camera will never cut it for weddings , Believe me , Ive done em , and I wouldnt even try without a 20D ( 8MP , minimum and some good lenses , ) preferably a 5D and if available a Medium format . No one would be happy with a wedding album made up from 2MP stills.

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote:

they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels

From 2MP? Buh? I doubt it.

Hugh_C

I'm very familiar with both disciplines, and they're poles apart. Being a moving picture capturer requires hugely different skills than someone taking stills. There are a few who've succeeded in both (anton corbijn springs to mind), but they're the exception rather than the rule.

I'm a video editor by trade, and I regard my interest in stills photography as good training for seeing a good (moving) shot, but I'm in no way belittling either discipline. They're just different.

The original article just points towards cost cutting and share price.