Reading mode: Light Dark

Don't understand the video fascination here

Go to last post
T

tjuster1

Senior Member
Messages
2,241
Solutions
5
Reaction score
1,958
Location
FL, US
Please understand I'm not bashing; I have nothing against those who worry about the video capabilities of their cams. Obviously the market says there are lots of you out there.

What I don't understand is the obsession with HQ video. I take video too sometimes--birthday parties, some travel, etc. And while I enjoy taking video, the intended audience is always my family and friends, who will see the video ONCE. This is not high art.

I mean, what would I do with 'serious' video? How would I display it? Run it on a continuous loop on a digital screen, like in a museum or something? Publish it on youtube?

Pictures, on the other hand, are often more 'serious'. Sure I take snapshots like everyone else, but I also take 'artistic' pictures, some of which I hope will end up on my wall. I print the very best of my pictures up to 11x13 (maybe larger someday!) and look at them frequently. This is the primary reason I have a m43 camera system instead of a P&S. I find it hard to believe that this doesn't describe the majority of m43 users, but I may be wrong.

Put in another way, I fancy myself a 'serious photographer' but hardly a 'serious videographer'. And if I ever decided to become a serious videographer I would probably go out and buy a dedicated video rig, not try to make do with a hybrid system like m43.

So for you video buffs out there--why do you value HQ video? What do you do with it?
 
Photography and videography (if that's the right word) are both art/hobby forms.

Some like one more, some like the other more.

I like both somewhat equally. And I shoot pretty much nothing else but family stuff. Do I really need a few thousand dollars worth of camera for photography? Nope. But I like good quality (can't afford best quality). And I do print up to 20x30.

Same for videos. Nothing but family stuff. But since my family is in so many activities, there's always something to shoot every week. That and I like to mess around creating music video of my son's band. There are some disadvantages of using a DSLR/mirrorless camera to record videos, but for me, it's minimal. And the quality is great. Beats the top of the line consumer HD camcorders - like the TM700 that my brother has, but with little kids running around, it suits him better. But he couldn't match the quality partly due to the lenses.

And since my son plays a lot of music, it's kind of hard to hear what he's playing with a picture.

So for me, a good camera that can take good video/audio is great. I only have to take 1 device with me. Which amusingly enough, isn't true sometimes. Last month, I had the D7000 on a tripod shooting videos of my son's shows at local coffee houses and I was running around taking pictures with the E3 from different angles.
 
If you're going to include video on a camera, it might as well support modern TVs.

And I can certainly understand why budding videographers would want to experiment with these cameras, considering the wide choice of lens that can be used with them, and the neat video effects one can get with Olympus art filters.
 
Thousands of people like to take beautiful pictures, very few hang them on their walls. Hanging a picture is not a reason to want to take nice pictures. Same for video. People like to take nice videos even if they don't play them in theaters
 
do you have kids? a wife? go on vacation where there are once in lifetime memories?

say you do. now if you had a choice of preserving those memories (esp if a loved one dies) would you rather just have a photo or photos AND videos of the highest quality you could afford?

50 inch 1080p tvs are as low as $600 now.

and hq video looks gorgeous on it.

I;d give 20 grand to have some hq videos of my grandmother - the photos are lovely but the best re-creation of sound and moving images is better for re-visiting real life. as opposed to "art" of photos.
 
tjuster1 wrote:
[snip]
tjuster1 said:
So for you video buffs out there--why do you value HQ video? What do you do with it?
Click to expand...
I'm not serious about video at all, but I do shoot lots of video clips of my kids because they are growing so quickly. Even clips from last year shock me because I forget how they used to talk. And now that we have a 50" HDTV, I really appreciate the difference between HD video and non-HD video.

For a "serious" camera, I don't require video. So it's not a concern when I shop for a DSLR. But for a camera that I carry on a regular basis and on vacation, it must incorporate video. Previously, this has meant carrying a video-capable P&S along with my DSLR when travelling. But this year, I can just bring my GH2. I might still bring a P&S as a backup, though.

What do I do with the video? Every 3 months or so I go through the various video clips. I don't shoot long videos. Most clips are only 10 secs long. I probably only have about 100 clips per year. Everytime I go through them, my wife and I marvel and how much the kids have grown. And I'm sure I'll treasure these videos, and wish I took more, when they're all grown up.

When I find time, I do try to burn them onto a DVD in standard movie format.

larsbc
 
tjuster1 said:
So for you video buffs out there--why do you value HQ video? What do you do with it?
Click to expand...
Quite simply for the same reason I take photos, to watch them later usually on a high resolution monitor. I mainly take stills which the GH1 is very good at but it's still handy to be able to just press the record button and take high quality video (particularly in low light) without needing any extra equipment. I have no interest in a separate video device as I've tried that before and it was a waste of money, I didn't like the camcorder handling, lack of lenses, the tiny sensor and the extra space the device took up. Lower quality video on a high resolution output is not at all desirable regardless of whether the video is for professional use or not.

John
 
When you watch footage on a large HD TV recorded in 1080p and see quality of footage that looks like it was shot by National Geographic or Discovery channel, but that came from a tiny little camera that you own I think its pretty darn exciting.

I've had plenty of cameras that did video, but it was always crummy looking 640x800 stuff and just looked like consumer video in a 3:4 ratio, nor did I have a 50" LCD to view it on

Being able to record 16:9 1080p footage is making me shoot a lot more videos because I know how cool it looks, and with a little practice editing you can make some really cool little movies

Next time your on a vacation or something you should experiement with the video a bit more and try some basic editing software. Being able to produce your own little travel documentary for a little 10-15 minute video of your trip to share with friends is actually a lot of fun and you can often show a place better in video, such as panning across a wide landscape or market scene etc.

Video is only as boring as the end user makes it. Just like a still photo

One person can show me a 100 shot slide show and I can love every moment of it, and another can bore me after 5 shots.

Same with video. If your just standing there taking home movie style stuff, yeah, thats not that exciting, but if you approach it with some creativity and editing you can produce some cool stuff

I think you should explore the possiblities more before you knock it

Check out the Vidmo channel and see some work people are doing with basic tools and get inspired
 
the best part is when my wife sees it and goes "wow...."

and she forgives me for buying a lens or camera...
 
I'm a fan of minor league baseball. Funny thing is, I'm not very interested in sports photography. There are just other things I'd rather photograph. Another action shot of a ballplayer sliding into a base...it doesn't interest me enough to even want to bring a camera to a game. If I do have a camera there, I'm more interested in getting nice shots of the stadium, the crowd, etc.

But, if I have video, if I can get video of a few top prospects, that's much more interesting to me. Photos have little scouting value. With video you can really break down mechanics, and get a real sense of a players reactions, instincts, speed, and athleticism. Moreover, if I were to capture good video of a top pitching prospect, for instance, and post it on youtube, there are going to be a hundred people who are interested in seeing it.

I also, as a hobby, recently got into playing harmonica. And there are hundreds of videos out there from people, giving lessons, showing how to repair harmonicas, or simply showing off their performances.

Most people who are here posting on an internet forum are doing so because they have things they want to share, we do so here mostly with text, but in the modern digital age, there are just many other ways to communicate and share things. Video, audio, still photography all have their uses, and it's useful to have access to all in one package when the need arises.
 
If you're serious, a dedicated video will set you back $5,000+, and be much larger and heavier. But they buy it FOR the benefits that increased size gives you - large buttons and wheels, better audio including XLR inputs, moveable EVF, etc.

OTOH, you can shoot videos like this on a GH2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gof74TSBbK8 . Still images pale by comparison. Each has it's place.

Regards,

Dan.
tjuster1 said:
Please understand I'm not bashing; I have nothing against those who worry about the video capabilities of their cams. Obviously the market says there are lots of you out there.

What I don't understand is the obsession with HQ video. I take video too sometimes--birthday parties, some travel, etc. And while I enjoy taking video, the intended audience is always my family and friends, who will see the video ONCE. This is not high art.

I mean, what would I do with 'serious' video? How would I display it? Run it on a continuous loop on a digital screen, like in a museum or something? Publish it on youtube?

Pictures, on the other hand, are often more 'serious'. Sure I take snapshots like everyone else, but I also take 'artistic' pictures, some of which I hope will end up on my wall. I print the very best of my pictures up to 11x13 (maybe larger someday!) and look at them frequently. This is the primary reason I have a m43 camera system instead of a P&S. I find it hard to believe that this doesn't describe the majority of m43 users, but I may be wrong.

Put in another way, I fancy myself a 'serious photographer' but hardly a 'serious videographer'. And if I ever decided to become a serious videographer I would probably go out and buy a dedicated video rig, not try to make do with a hybrid system like m43.

So for you video buffs out there--why do you value HQ video? What do you do with it?
Click to expand...
 
I'm not knocking it; I do use it, but obviously we're different because for me it's just a secondary capability of my camera. The only 'serious' shooting I do with my camera is stills. Lord knows I'm not a great (or even good) photographer, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes and I've lucked into a few really good photos that I'm very proud of.

I do have a HDTV, and I can see the difference between HD and 680x420 or whatever. Not, to be honest, between 1080p and 720p. I have taken videos of vacations, but--like I wrote originally--I find I view them once or twice, and that's it. So having eye-popping quality isn't really all that important to me.

But I do understand how it is for some people.

Again, thanks for the answers. My only additional thought would be: for people like me, video on an EPL-1 is good enough, and I'm loathe to pay for better video at the expense of still photography. "Optimized for video" is not necessarily a good thing. I'm more interested in a camera system that's "optimized for stills" but can do video.
 
tjuster1 said:
I'm not knocking it; I do use it, but obviously we're different because for me it's just a secondary capability of my camera. The only 'serious' shooting I do with my camera is stills. Lord knows I'm not a great (or even good) photographer, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes and I've lucked into a few really good photos that I'm very proud of.

I do have a HDTV, and I can see the difference between HD and 680x420 or whatever. Not, to be honest, between 1080p and 720p. I have taken videos of vacations, but--like I wrote originally--I find I view them once or twice, and that's it. So having eye-popping quality isn't really all that important to me.

But I do understand how it is for some people.

Again, thanks for the answers. My only additional thought would be: for people like me, video on an EPL-1 is good enough, and I'm loathe to pay for better video at the expense of still photography. "Optimized for video" is not necessarily a good thing. I'm more interested in a camera system that's "optimized for stills" but can do video.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with EPL1 and 720 video. It was fine for me. But when I saw the D7000 1080 video (even with cheap lens), I said wow.

Nothing wrong with your putting stills first and video second. Everyone's different and it's a good thing we have choices.

Disclaimer: I returned the D7000 for other reasons.
 
tjuster1 said:
What I don't understand is the obsession with HQ video.
Click to expand...
Because of two basic facts of life:
  • A certain percentage of consumers take both stills and videos. Just like a DSLR user might want to switch to M43 to minimize the size and weight of the equipment he has to lug around, a still/video photographer would love to switch to a single piece of equipment to do everything he wants to do.
  • Panasonic has created what many people argue is the best integrated product for stills and videos. That attracts the people who want video to this forum, so you're very likely to see a higher percentage of video interest here than in other fora.
 
Sean Nelson said:
tjuster1 said:
What I don't understand is the obsession with HQ video.
Click to expand...
Because of two basic facts of life:
  • A certain percentage of consumers take both stills and videos. Just like a DSLR user might want to switch to M43 to minimize the size and weight of the equipment he has to lug around, a still/video photographer would love to switch to a single piece of equipment to do everything he wants to do.
  • Panasonic has created what many people argue is the best integrated product for stills and videos. That attracts the people who want video to this forum, so you're very likely to see a higher percentage of video interest here than in other fora.
Click to expand...
Beats the other two basic facts of life: death and taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top