Don't understand the video fascination here

I'm not into cinematography the way I am into photography (though I'm getting more interested lately)... However my husband is very much into it.

Let me tell you... That video of my daughter at 3 years old dresed like a silly super hero and calling us "mommy and daddy superhero" can bring a tear to the eye every time. I have it on my iPad and watch it more than once. Even my own (now 17) daughter gets emotional when she sees it. No, it isn't high art or filmed like a Tarantino film, but it is fun and nice and touching to have.

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography

I have to agree with tjuster1. I am interested in still photography period. I have a P&S that will take video clips, when there is a personal need for one, which is not very often. Those that use video I have no quarrel with, but what I would like to see is a good still camera, where what a buyer pays for goes into taking photographs. I would like to upgrade my G1 to something that has a sensor like the GH2, but I don't really want to pay for the video capabilities and would rather see a camera optimized for photography.

I believe that still photography, done artistically or simply seriously, requires a very mind set and type of visualization very different from videography. When I go out to shoot I am thinking still images.

I know I am in a minority here and the market is dictating that my wish for a purely still photography camera is fast becoming a chimera, but I am not sure just how small that minority is.

http://vimeo.com/4714724

Enjoy

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...

--

'If you can imagine sharing a waterbed with a baboon that's just been doused in itching powder.' J.C. reg. the suspension of the Lincoln Town Car '82

Multi day backcountry trip. 6+ batteries for every device you carry on your back. You shave your toothbrush bristles to half length, and smelly armpits as well to cut down on the weight factor. At this point you are thankful that LiPo is lighter than NiMh, thus the justification to not have 'every' device on your body AA Compatible, because your AA NIMh batteries are much heavier. However your headlamp, GPS, and VHF Radio stilll use them.

On these trips you shoot some stills, mostly landscapes mind, and then you get on an expanse of 'Pow' like you have never seen before. Each skier takes his turn due to the avalanche conditions. You are first, and have the run of your life. 'Gee it would be nice to get some video!'

Do you fumble in your pack for a second video camera, maybe a 'Flip' or 'Hero HD', or do you use the one you already have in your hands that's already using one of the plethora of batteries you already had to hump up the mountain with your toothbrush?

Your honour, I make the case for one device that can handle 2 jobs well.

--
Best Regards,
John

We talked about this in another thread earlier today, but maybe I didn't ask the right questions...

Aside from removing the video recording ability, what exactly would you do differently in a GH2 to make it a better stills camera?

AFAICT, it's already stills optimized (grip layout, control setup, AA filter and imager design, etc,) and merely taking advantage of the synergies to provide awesome video as well, which is an advantage from several perspectives. But maybe I'm missing something...
Walter

Video is here to stay and one day people will look at non-video enabled cameras the way we look at rabbit ears on a TV.
--
Roberthd12

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?

Click to expand...

Personally, I edit them, store them, and stream to to a TV when required.

I take your point - but the same thing can be said of still images. One of the problems of the digital camera revolution is that it has stopped photography from being 'special', something reserved for holidays and family occasions.

Now it's mega-bursts of images from just about everyone in the world who has access to a camera or a phone. While this might seem pleasingly egalitarian, the reality is billions of images 99.999% of which are not worth a second glance (mine included)

I know that in my family, years ago, photo's were only taken a few times a year - and they somehow seemed more exciting because of it.

Just how many flower shots, building shots, landscape shots, family shots, pet shots et. al., can we take before everyone (including the unfortunate subjects) groans whenever the camera appears?

Sooner or later, saturation is reached, which is when some people, rather than taking a break, proceed to wander around snapping weeds growing in cracks, or cigarette ends littering the ground, anything really - and then grandly announcing that these images are, in fact, 'art'

All of this nonsense stems from the ease and cheapness of digital photography.

DSLRs and M4/3 cameras have become tools of serious art videographers. One huge factor is their ability to fit a variety of lenses on the somewhat compact bodies. The video quality, even at 720/30 has the potential for professional results. As we saw in Secretariat, the Olympic EP series cameras can be valuable tools to the serious film maker.....the artist who knows how to control the camera and how to respond to the subject environment.

tjuster1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who likewise never print their still photos and lots who hardly look at them again. Many people spends thousands of dollars on wedding photos and barely look at them again.

However, there is a pleasure in eye-popping quality, however many times something is looked at.

--
john carson

I too am primarily interested in still photography, but I used to produce TV commercials in my work. I was never interested in personal video because consumer video gear didn't have the level of control I had been accustomed to having as a producer. For example, getting full manual exposure control on a video camera required a pro model costing several thousand dollars.

But now it's affordable to buy a fully-controllable, interchangeable-lens video camera, not to mention nonlinear edit software with such features as A-B rolls and ripple edits. As a result, I'm finding I'm interested in doing video again, purely as a personal expressive activity. The fact that my GH2 is also a very adept still camera makes this an even more appealing proposition.

I will say, though, that because I think about still images and video completely differently, I seldom go out and shoot a mix of still photos and video clips. If I think of an idea as a video project, that's all I do, and if I think of it as a still-photo project, that's all I do. The fact that I can use the same hardware for both is just a convenience.

nams said:

the best part is when my wife sees it and goes "wow...."

and she forgives me for buying a lens or camera...

Click to expand...

Wonderful comment.

What I love is the way you can chuck a wide angle lens on the front of a GH1/2. and get really good wide angle shots whereas with a video camera, the small sensor only allows long shots.

Isn't technology GREAT.

Best Regards Mike.

pbase supporter. http://www.pbase.com/ekim
http://ekim.zenfolio.com

'Live every day as if it was your last, one day it will be'.

I like this one the best. LOL.
--
http://public.fotki.com/forrestsun/

"Andy Warhol looks a scream hang him on the wall. " (David Bowie)
Cheers
Billy
http://williammartinwigandia.posterous.com/
http://www.wigandia.com

Quote: 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.

Unlike most of the folks in this thread, I have no interest in my new GH2 as a still camera - I have a good Pentax APSC system and lenses for that. I also have two good-quality Prosumer video cameras (Canon HF100 and Pany HMC40) and will continue to use the Canon for family and travel video.

The reason I (and many others on more video-oriented forums) have been falling over each other to buy the first GH2 bodys to reach the U.S. is that for $680 I got a small, uber-light large sensor video camera, free of most artifacts that HDSLRs had until now, that takes SUPERB HD footage through all my interchangeable, existing Pentax lenses.

You have to realize that there are really exciting video applications that cheap + large sensor + interchangeable lens opens up, that would previously have cost and weighed 10 times as much to achieve. I just wish Pentax had done it themselves, in APS-C rather than M4/3.

I have about 8 minutes worth of video footage you will want to watch and about 100 pictures you will want to see as well. I could have taken the video with a dedicated camcorder but it wouldn't have come close to taking the stills.

I probably could have taken slightly better pictures with about $2000 worth of Nikon gear but the videos wouldn't have been worth watching because of focus problems.

The video I am going to post this week of our trip to India could have only been shot with the GH2. There is no other single device on earth that could have taken it and I think everyone will enjoy it.

There are just some things that pictures cannot portray like the humanness of a monkey eating food, or the way a bird uses its tail to steer in flight. I have stills of both of those things but I guarantee will be more amazed by the video of those scenes.

It is 3:30 am where I am(stuck in Newark again because of snow). However, I am working as fast as I can to process the videos and images. When I post them this week you will see why video and stills are so important on the GH2. I consider myself an absolute amateur in both stills and video but I think the GH2 can produce pro quality work in just about any competent person's hands.

Here is a taste of what is to come. Could your camcorder have taken these?





















--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

This is exactly why I want quality video on my camera. I am not interested in chunking out another $400+ for a dedicated video cam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuI17w4j2wM

Remember. Youtube makes it convenient to share this kind of stuff. That's all

Same here, since I have had my GH2 I have not shot a single still shot and only used it in 1080p24 mode. I use my Pentax K-7 for stills and my Pentax lenses on my GH2 that work great for video. I use my Panasonic TM700 3MOS 1080p60 camcorder for for family and travel video.

Coby said:

Quote: 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.

Unlike most of the folks in this thread, I have no interest in my new GH2 as a still camera - I have a good Pentax APSC system and lenses for that. I also have two good-quality Prosumer video cameras (Canon HF100 and Pany HMC40) and will continue to use the Canon for family and travel video.

The reason I (and many others on more video-oriented forums) have been falling over each other to buy the first GH2 bodys to reach the U.S. is that for $680 I got a small, uber-light large sensor video camera, free of most artifacts that HDSLRs had until now, that takes SUPERB HD footage through all my interchangeable, existing Pentax lenses.

You have to realize that there are really exciting video applications that cheap + large sensor + interchangeable lens opens up, that would previously have cost and weighed 10 times as much to achieve. I just wish Pentax had done it themselves, in APS-C rather than M4/3.

Click to expand...

This is what I can tell you

There are instances where you really do need video because you have run accross a once in a lifetime thing.

For example a few years ago when video was brand new to digicams my neice got married. She had an outdoor wedding and the weather was overcast. The wedding photographer did not bring his video equipment with him due to the weather. The bride had a melt down on the spot. I remembered that my S9000 could shoot video at 640X480. I had never shot video before with a digicam but I was desperate. To my surprise the video came out great. Was it camcorder quality? Almost. But more importantly it captured a moment that cant be recreated and it actually saved a wedding. I was able to put the wedding video on CD and DVD and made a bride very very happy.

That experience opened up a whole new world to me of taking video while I shoot stills. If a picture is worth a thousand words then video must be worth millions

The beauty of the video done by the Panasonic cameras becomes clear if you have a Panasonic TV. You can use Viera Link and for the most part you wont be able to tell the difference between the digicam and the camcorder.

For those of us that live in North America. It is far easier to travel with one small camera through the airports than with 2 bags of gear.

You are also more likely to see instances where you would want to shoot video and stills since you have the ability.

Goto Youtube and look at some of the video that has been shot with digicams
Just type in the model of the camera and you will see video shot by it

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...

--
Ronald Nikon cp4500, tc-e2, canon tc-dc58n, Fuji S9000

So... should DPReview begin a dedicated forum topic to digital video production? I think they should.

dmac2410 said:

So... should DPReview begin a dedicated forum topic to digital video production? I think they should.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in video at all, I see the whole video/GH2 taking over the forums but i'm a firm believer of "if you don't like watching/reading something, don't". Only once it gets to the point where the photography threads get pushed out too fast would I have an actual problem with it.