Getting a Grip on the 4K Video Conversation

Started Feb 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
G1Houston Senior Member • Posts: 2,683
Why not a G7?

xerophytenyc wrote:

Devil's advocate : you can shoot video at very fast shutter speeds and extract decent stills, then later in post you can reintroduce motion blur to video with software if the intent is a pleasing to the eye video clip.

But shooting a burst of 16 MP still images (or higher if you shoot Nikon/Canon) at 8 or even higher fps is very very easy so what do we really gain from going through the trouble of extracting video frames to get 6 or 8MB images?  You need to really demonstrate that extracting videos can, on a regular basis, captures the moment that is often missed by shooting stills already at such a high burst rate.  You can do this experiment at home if you want to convince me.  Shoot you kids running from one end of your drive way to another, shoot HD videos for 5 sec, ten times.  Repeat using a still cameras capable of 8 fps (e.g., E-PL5) or higher.  Count how long it takes for you to (1) transfer the images to your computer, (2) View and Select the one you want, (3) Modify, post-process to your satisfaction, (4) Count how many keepers you have from each set and see if you can capture something that is substantially better using video vs stills.  Show us the results.

With the high burst rate already available, for many professional sports photographers nowadays, the key limiting factor is how to send the images to their boss as fast as they can to beat the hundreds of smartphone images that will be posted on FB or Twitter. The faster they can capture the images, download to the computer, select and modify them, and them off easily the better.

To extract video frame to capture the moment has been very nicely implemented in Nikon 1 cameras called "Motion Snap shots" and you get 14MP images.  Does it work? By itself, it certainly did not sell the these cameras and people here laughed it.

Finally, I repeat, if your photography interest is landscape, architecture, portrait (with your subject sitting), etc, which is a lot of photography, do you still even need to think about grabbing frames?  When videos were first added to dSLRs, there was no real cost to add it to the camera b/c the live view feeds already exist.  But to get you much higher video capacity, you now need to devote substantial amount of processing power to handle the videos, the body needs to handle the heat and accommodate all the ports and connection as we see in the GH4.  If you are a still photographer, not a pro, in particular, why would you choose GH4 over (the upcoming) G7.  WHY?  WHY?  WHY?

 G1Houston's gear list:G1Houston's gear list
Nikon D7100 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow