Re: High speed camera vs. HD video

"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:lrxOj.2265$F23.923@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:XrtOj.93193$5i5.4104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xXsOj.167785$nr1.119043@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uuaOj.50167$Ff4.16383@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ev9Oj.88205$497.17023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

"Vance" <Vance.Lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Apr 15, 3:14 pm, "AKA gray asphalt" <benvh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there a difference between quick still cameras and
HD video? How big of enlargements can you get from
the video?

Thanks, I'm thinking about a small wedding
photo business.

Besides the technical aspects already mentioned, shooting stills is a
very different discipline artistically (using the term loosely). A
completely different type of visualization is involved because a still
has to carry more implicit information than a video and the
photographer is involved in a different imagining process. It
happens, but it is rare, that a still from a video has the emotional
or aesthetic impact that a specifically shot still can have.

This is baloney, imo. Poised stills looked just that.

Posed stills are what most wedding customers are wanting and expecting
including all the classic group and cake / signing etc shots.
Although there is absolutely no reason the photographer cannot also get
some good candid shots as well.

Having a range of frames to choose from is always
better. (I'm being dogmantic, I know). Resolution
being the same

Resolution from the BEST HD film cameras (read unaffordable) only
approaches what a 2 megapixel cheap point and shoot camera can do. with
less accurate focus or depth of field control. And more noise... And with
slower "shutter" speed since movement blur in low light is acceptable with
movies of moving objects /people.

it is always better to have more
choices. That's why strobes and higher fps cameras
are used in advertising. Duh

Videos have their effect on a viewer as a result of being a captured
segment of time and reducing that segment to a singular moment of time
usually results in a snapshot. Very occassionaly, I have worked with
a very talented and award winning videographer and I wouldn't try and
do what he does any more than he wants to try and do what I do. Give
me his video equipment and I come up with imaginative home movies. A
still camera in his hands results in very good, but somewhat sterile
images that just barely get beyond being snapshots.
There are a lot of goofs charging a lot of money
to do the same things that a neighbor can do. And
there's no guarantee that a higher price will get
better quality pics.

I also don't see good economics. A video image can be up res'd and
the image quality vastly improved using some very fancy mathematics
and multiple frames. The best software for doing this isn't cheap,
either. The software and the hardware to run it effectively will set
you back somewhere in the range of $3,500 - $5,000 USD. For my setup,
though I use the software for doing something other than making fair
stills out of crummy video frames, it's $3,000 for Matlab and $700 for
the Matlab package that does the work.
If Photoshop isn't good enough for fixing pictures then
you're hying someone.

But photoshop cannot creat data or remove blur or noise (without removing
detail that its already lacking) in an image.

For any given image, you will have to find it in a stream of images,
this means watching the whole video in at least a scanning fashion.
You'll need more than one image, so you will have to pull out each
one. In an hours video, how much time do you think you have just
You don't need to go through a whole hour of video,
fram by frame. Checking out the important parts, like
when the groom kisses the bride and the posed shots
right after the ceremony and when the cake gets
smeared on the couple. : -)

For those moments I would use 8 frames per second on my nikon with
carefully controlled focus and depth of field and get good quality noise
free correctly focussed and controlled 12 million pixel images. WAY better
than any HD movie camera can achieve straight from the camera! And a good
20 x 30 inch pin sharp image with every eylash pin sharp with almost zero
noise. A movie camera simply cannot do that for a huge bunch of technical
reasons. People paying for good wedding photography are payiong for just

You've just added several hours on top of the viewing time
itself. If you are using the type of software that can produce a
higher quality image from several video frames, being conservative,
for 200 images you have just added another six hours to you post
capture processing time (that's with an established workflow). You've
just added a minimum of 10 hours to your workload, assuming an
optimized workflow, to get to the point a still photographer will
start with as raw input to their workflow. It actually can get worse
from here because you will have a lot more post processing in
something like photoshop to get even close to the default quality that
a still photographer will start with simply as a matter of knowing how
to get as much right in the capture as they can for any given image.

Its simply not possible to even get close to that image quality no matter
what you do. The data simply isnt there to work with.

I think someone should get inventive and try
some new ideas instead of trying to discourage
people from taking photographs.

Anybody can take snaps. Very few people can take technically good
photographs even with the best digital SLR available.


In terms of quality and ecomomics alone, I just don't see it on the
still side. Now, you have the job of editing the video and producing
a quality package out of that. The analysis could continue, but you
would be in the situation of trying to compete with either a pro
covering a wedding in video and who has hired a still photographer, or
the converse. Either way, they will be able to produce a higher
quality package technically and aesthetically at a similar, or lower
price, than you can and at a better profit margin for them.
I have a degree in grahic design and I know what I'm doing
when it comes to correcting photos. I suggest that you guys
look at the Casio EX-F1 camera and see what you can do
with multiple frames.

It makes noisy over exposed over over processed typical point and shoot
photos. ASs a point and shoot its OK but quality and control is way short
of my D300 or the D3 nikon for eg. For shooting weddings its just a
snapshot camera.

And try this ... take some point and shoot
cameras and pass them out at the wedding to the guests. Make
them feel part of the process and your competition will become
your pupils and biggest supporters. And if you don't think that
people will pose better and more naturally and allow more
candid shots from friends than some guy in an ill fitting tuxedo
who looks like he'd rather be watching television, then you're
nuts. No offense. I don't want to take anybodies paycheck
but I would be nice to see some innovation and a little less

You would get exactly what you get from guests taking their own pics art a
wedding now.
Thousands of low quality blurry over processed amature badly exposed noisy
point and shoot shots...
Useless for printing at anything other than 6x4 sixe and this already
happens at almost every wedding!


You aren't the first to think of this and there are very good reasons
that pros, either from the videography or photography side, haven't
jumped on the idea.

To be a pro all you have to do is charge money. That's
not my idea of a recommendation. There are so many
untapped areas that really need people to be taking
pictures and doing videos and audio family histories and
giving people in hospices a chance to record best wishes
for the remaining generations ... Take a family and sit them
down and record a few nice phrases and memories and
take a few pics, but them in one of the photo frames and
get it to someone in the last months of terminal cancer.
Now that's worth your time.

There is absolutely nothing stopping them doing that now. And thats not
what this thread is about.

People don't usually do a good job of sharing pictures. A photographer
should be able to correlate, correct and create a presentation with the
photos which were shot with the same type of cameras with the same

You mean try to rescue bad lighting, noise, bad exposure, blurred fuzzy images from a amature photographer with a noisy camera that cant focus accurately?

Not possible other than for 6x4 pictures for people that dont expect much.

The thing is that a few low quality frames taken from a HD Movie camera
doesent come close to a decent photographers wedding photos taken with a
modern SLR camera. Or even close to what the same guy could do with a 6
year old 2 million pixel point and shoot!

Did you look at the EX-F1? They are in stock now at some of the
online stores. It's not a video camera. It has 7FPS with flash. Really,
according to their hype.

Yes. Its a point and shoot! Noisy, low image quality, does not compare to a real Digital SLR. Great for snaps. Unusable for printing high quality 20x30 prints unless you are very easily pleased!

That's not what the reviews say. You obviously
haven't used one. They haven't even been
available until last week in the US. So I know you
are bsing. Who wants 20x30 prints for wedding

Usually the bride and groom...
Even if they dont the biggest photo you are going to get out of your HD Video camera is 6x4 inches at the accepted 300dpi printing resolution. You COULD upsample and interpolate but that just makes a bigger image not a better one. You cannot add data in afterwards!

And it will be noisey and badly exposed and focused compared to even a cheap DSLR camera.

The point is that there is a reason that wedding photographers prefer cannons with FULL FRAME sensors. Or even Nikons like the D200 or D300 With DX sensors. The Nikon D3 is the best of the lot here but still pretty new. The reason is that they get the sort of quality and low noise, combined with real control over the photographic process. Sensor size is DIRECTLY related to noise. Thats why point and shoot cameras all make noisey photos. If you are happy with that then thats fine but most people especially photographers are not. Especially so at higher ISO settings needed in dark winter days, in churches etc. Sorry but NO point and shoot has anything aproaching a full frame or even a DX sized sensor. There a bit more to it than pixels... Unless they found a way around this inconvinient bit of physics then it can never be any other way. Thats why DSLR cameras have such huge and expensive lenses. To "cover" a LARGER sensor. Its also why point and shoots are cheap! Tiny sensor = tiny lens to cover its area. Lenses cost. result noisey camera. Plus point and shoots and most budget dslr cameras over process images so it looks "good" (sometimes) straight out of the camera. Pro cameras dont. They require finishing (levels, etc and sharpening last) to produce a good finished image. Once the point and shoot has done this badly and oveexposed and blown highlights etc you cant do much exept delete it or accept what you got!

The only thing is that when you look at the pictures
you will find that I am right. Who does your film processing
because it appears that home printer now have a wider
color gamut than labs.

Even if thats true and I doubt it, who needs a "wider" gaut picture with less resolution more noise, etc etc???
And its relevant to different cameras how exactly?