Forget the D3 – Video is the future

Started Oct 8, 2007 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
craigsaltwaterimages Junior Member • Posts: 33
Forget the D3 – Video is the future

Forget the D3 – Video is the future

As a working pro, I get excited when a new piece of kit comes onto the market, like the D3 I just tested. But, the future tool being handed to the press photographers is the Video Camera. The organisation I work for is experimenting with replacing the SLR with a HDV documentary camera, such as the Sony Z1. With the Internet uses having a craving for short video clips, the YOUTUBE generation is changing the tools we use.

Using frame grab technology to convert the 2Mp video image into a 65MB image file. At first it feels like being handed a D1 again and told to keep up with the Canon 1DsMk3.

But then the added dimension of sound and motion adds to the still image, a new challenge in photography. Or am I just becoming a Videographer?

-- hide signature --

A press photographer who never uses RAW

revaaron Veteran Member • Posts: 6,644
I hate video

made it's just me, but I really don't like video at all.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.returntothepit.com

pictures up within hours of the show

Gary J Jensen Senior Member • Posts: 2,204
Re: Video is the future...

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:

... Or am I just becoming a Videographer?

Yes.

craigsaltwaterimages OP Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Video is the future...

One day.. maybe we'll all be going this way.

I BET THAT... Canon will soon bring out a new SLR that can shoot video.

Keep watching this space.
--
A press photographer who never uses RAW

Ed Leys Veteran Member • Posts: 4,948
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:

Or am I just becoming a Videographer?

As has been said before, yes !

You also have to keep in mind that a great motivation for the development of digital cameras was to counteract the incursion of video cameras into the marketplace, which were causing a loss of revenue for still photography.

And by the way, creating digital still cameras rechanneled the efforts of video camera engineers. (Look into the history.) That's one reason why, by and large, the aesthetic qualities of digital camera photographs are reminiscent of the aesthetic qualities of a video still.

Ed

-- hide signature --
ItsaChris Contributing Member • Posts: 575
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

I do think if we can make faster and faster chips and we dont hit a wall like we did in the PC industry in 2002. a video camera could replace SLR in many locations.

a slow video camera is 15 fps and at 11fps (D3) we are so close to video.

now for natural light and sports this will work fine but it will never replace studio setting.

the amount of pictures people take at a wedding of event or what ever has just become sad. they might as well have a video camera.

craigsaltwaterimages OP Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

For pros who work for large organisations, We won't have the choice as the reader of newspapers are expecting a new dimension to their reading experience.

Yes it is a sad picture, great photographer having their craft change before their eyes. But, We will move in this new direction. Will the consumer follow?

I hope not.

The dallas morning news is a world leader in this conversion. Most of their photographers are using video as their main tool, or only tool, to produce PHOTOGRAPHS.

News organisations of the world are about to follow.
--
A press photographer who never uses RAW

craigsaltwaterimages OP Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

There are already wedding photographer who now shoot video to produce their stills. In one way they can double their income, but having the quality.
--
A press photographer who never uses RAW

docmaas Veteran Member • Posts: 5,433
European common markets squelches innovation?

The European common market announced last week that still cameras with video exceeding certain parameters in resolution and recording time will be taxed at the higher video camera rate rather than the lower still camera rate.

Mike

-- hide signature --

'America is not at war,
The Marine Corps is at war;
America is at the mall.'

craigsaltwaterimages OP Junior Member • Posts: 33
TV Rights

Sport photographers will have a longer life using the SLR. This is because TV rights prohibit accreditated photographers from shooting moving pictures. But if I can shoot 11 frames a second, Is this a moving picture?
--
A press photographer who never uses RAW

Joe Braun
Joe Braun Senior Member • Posts: 1,432
no, I will not forget the D3

or any other still camera for that matter!

People have been arguing about video replacing still cameras since the 80's. There is a purpose for both and for what you do, videography may open more doors for you. But it isn't for everybody.

-- hide signature --

Joe Braun Photography
http://www.citrusmilo.com/

dannv Veteran Member • Posts: 3,416
Re: Video is the future...

Gary J Jensen wrote:

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:

... Or am I just becoming a Videographer?

Yes.

if the point is video is the future, what does "just a videographer" mean? obviously anyone who shoots video is a videographer. sounds like a snobbish wedding shooter to me (cause we all hate THOSE videographers

FWIW, i agree with the original point. photography & videography will merge. the standard "capture" will be variable length, but still relatively short, with full sound & motion. i already have three digital "photo" frames at my house and all are capable of displaying video clips as well as photos.

in the not too distant future, DSLRs will be a niche along with film. then "just a still photographer" will be the pejorative phrase...dav

-- hide signature --

don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you

Anastigmat Forum Pro • Posts: 12,663
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:

Forget the D3 – Video is the future

As a working pro, I get excited when a new piece of kit comes onto
the market, like the D3 I just tested. But, the future tool being
handed to the press photographers is the Video Camera. The
organisation I work for is experimenting with replacing the SLR with
a HDV documentary camera, such as the Sony Z1. With the Internet uses
having a craving for short video clips, the YOUTUBE generation is
changing the tools we use.

Using frame grab technology to convert the 2Mp video image into a
65MB image file. At first it feels like being handed a D1 again and
told to keep up with the Canon 1DsMk3.

But then the added dimension of sound and motion adds to the still
image, a new challenge in photography. Or am I just becoming a
Videographer?

Video cannot replace still photos. Photos did not replace paintings. Each medium has its use. I don't see a future in which Sports Illustrated or National Geographic will use frame grab technology to create its photos, either for their pages or for their covers. Besides, only when video cameras are equipped with 24x36mm sized sensors can they even approach the image quality of a DSLR camera. Of course video camera lenses are no match for 35mm SLR lenses in terms of sharpness.

Logic108 Regular Member • Posts: 386
Great thread

well this thread is very interesting for me because I'm really into video as well.

When using video I shoot canon with Nikon lenses. How? I use the canon HV20 with a 35mm lens adapter (the SGPro - sgpro.co.uk).

I get great film-like effects with this setup and I can handhold / shoulder mount it. The frames are HD sized and I can edit the footage in Photoshop CS3 extended although I mostly use Final Cut Pro.

I shoot at 24 frames per second with video and it interests me that the Nikon D3 can shoot at 11 frames per second in cropped mode.

When I get the D3 I will shoot it alongside my video and do exeperiments with merging the D3 files into a video sequence shot at 24 frames per second.

Anyhow I think the OP is absolutely on the money and that in 3 - 4 years it will definitely be preferable for photojournalists to shoot video or very fast SLR cameras at say 4MP / 10bit / 4:4:4 colour space for 24/25 frames per second.

Rich Gibson
Rich Gibson Veteran Member • Posts: 3,378
No it isn't

Had this discussion with a friend a couple of years ago. He's not into digital photography or anything of that ilk but he raised some very cogent points which are hard to refute.

  • His main two were, no one wants to invest their valuable time to "look at your home movies." (That's what they were called when I was a kid..boring and poorly made as well). With images you can perfunctorily skim through a stack of prints or click through a viewer and be done with it or pause on any ones which meet one's fancy.

  • More importantly an image stimulates something a video doesn't and that's imagination. He pointed out you can stop on one which either reminds you of the time the image was taken or the viewer can stop and look at the image and place him/herself there in one's mind's eye. With video it's there and then gone.

Videos require too much equipment and time committment.

Thanks, Rich

Dan FOx Forum Member • Posts: 92
Re: No it isn't

Rich Gibson wrote:

Had this discussion with a friend a couple of years ago. He's not
into digital photography or anything of that ilk but he raised some
very cogent points which are hard to refute.

  • His main two were, no one wants to invest their valuable time to

"look at your home movies." (That's what they were called when I was
a kid..boring and poorly made as well). With images you can
perfunctorily skim through a stack of prints or click through a
viewer and be done with it or pause on any ones which meet one's
fancy.

  • More importantly an image stimulates something a video doesn't and

that's imagination. He pointed out you can stop on one which either
reminds you of the time the image was taken or the viewer can stop
and look at the image and place him/herself there in one's mind's
eye. With video it's there and then gone.

Videos require too much equipment and time committment.

Thanks, Rich

I think you're missing the point. The OP was talking about photojournalists. His argument is that instead of using a High Speed Photocamera, they will use High Speed Videocameras, and the editor of a newspaper can choose the best frame to print. I think he has a point. But you are right, video will not replace Art P.

mjt Senior Member • Posts: 1,044
Re: Forget the D3 – Video is the future

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:
[snip]

But then the added dimension of sound and motion adds to the still
image, a new challenge in photography. Or am I just becoming a
Videographer?

uh, Videographer.

personally, i think they're two different artistic mediums. photographer is about capturing a moment in time - a moment that the photographer decides. the videographer captures a series of moments in time, with the intent that those moments be strung together to arrive at a cohesive aggregate.

sure - we could take a video camera, shoot a football game, then go back through the video, frame by frame, searching for the "right moment". first off, that's lazy. secondly, it's not what's at the philosophical core of photography.

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,616
Afraid you are right - for press photo

craigsaltwaterimages wrote:

Forget the D3 – Video is the future

As a working pro, I get excited when a new piece of kit comes onto
the market, like the D3 I just tested. But, the future tool being
handed to the press photographers is the Video Camera. The
organisation I work for is experimenting with replacing the SLR with
a HDV documentary camera, such as the Sony Z1. With the Internet uses
having a craving for short video clips, the YOUTUBE generation is
changing the tools we use.

Using frame grab technology to convert the 2Mp video image into a
65MB image file. At first it feels like being handed a D1 again and
told to keep up with the Canon 1DsMk3.

But then the added dimension of sound and motion adds to the still
image, a new challenge in photography. Or am I just becoming a
Videographer?

Its possible that the 1D3 and the D3 are the last of its kind of tool for the press photographer. So many papers now also has a web edition, and they want video content besides the still images. The IQ from cameras like 1D3 and D3 are most of the time a huge overkill for newsprint. If there was a robust device capable of decent 3 mp frame grabs and good videoclips it may very well be success in these transforming newspapers.

However, for photography as an artform the future looks bright. Nikon and Canon sells more than in the glory days of film, and the interest among consumers in digital photography seem to be far greater than in digital video.

swnyc Regular Member • Posts: 394
If the news agencies really are moving in this direction...

...then it is truly a sad day indeed.

Video will never replace real photography.

-- hide signature --

  • s t e v e

“Sometimes I do get to places just when God’s ready to have someone click the shutter.” - Ansel Adams

mikes
mikes Veteran Member • Posts: 3,371
Personally, from my own experience..

we are still a few (at least 3) years away from that ever happening successfully. As a working photojournalist who tried the videography/photography combination, I learned that quality suffers too greatly, and in this industry that cant happen , you can only look through one viewfinder at a time. Not to mention, night time car accidents and fires require longer shutter speeds, video isnt capable of acceptable quality at large print sizes yet. Then there is the processing, it can take hours to process and ftp. a 30 second video clip, minutes for a photo. For me, at an emergency scene, carrying a tripod, camera and video camera was toooo cumbersome, plus, you cant move about freely for a better angle, the video camera needs a tripod and slow movements. Image quality at hi iso from a tiny 3 ccd chip, forget it. When newsprint goes all into cyber space, video will take over

-- hide signature --

Only when you can criticize yourself, should you criticize others. Mikes.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads