Should there now be a separate forum for video enthusiasts?

Tugela wrote:

To be brief, no.

Modern cameras are both stills and video cameras in one. The idea that forums should be separated is an archaic one that does not reflect the modern paradigm of camera design.

The board is about the camera, not how you use it.

Then DPR needs to provide all the Video Specs, Features, and the Reviews need to be just as informative as the photo specs, which they are never! You can't give details to one side and limit the other, other wise your going to always have people like my self asking for a separate forum for video!

gskolenda wrote:

Tugela wrote:

To be brief, no.

Modern cameras are both stills and video cameras in one. The idea that forums should be separated is an archaic one that does not reflect the modern paradigm of camera design.

The board is about the camera, not how you use it.

Then DPR needs to provide all the Video Specs, Features, and the Reviews need to be just as informative as the photo specs, which they are never! You can't give details to one side and limit the other, other wise your going to always have people like my self asking for a separate forum for video!

They do.

Video features page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1/11

Video shooting and quality Page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1/12

Plus its covered pretty extensively in the conclusion.

The rest of the functionality is covered in the body & design, wifi pages and so on.

Happy shooting!

Straw Man hits the nail on the head: There ALREADY is a video section-- Digital Video Talk.

I guess it is just me but when I glance through the threads in the Samsung Talk forum I don't see a vast majority of threads being about video. Overwhelmingly about camera functions, issues, posting photos, suggestions to improve FW/hardware, and stills questions.... by a landslide.

Greynerd wrote:

Usually I find most things interesting on these forums but I am afraid 4K just leaves me cold. I do not even mind if a camera has only 720p so it is that bad. I like doing video segments but HD looks fine so I suppose it is just a case of sorting out the photography items from the video stuff.

Is there an upload in posts for insertion for video as there is for stills? I cannot see how the quality of any persons video captures can be assessed in the same way as photographic stills. It is a completely different world. The difference between an art museum and a cinema.

These are good questions. One can just add a link to the video, which is typically on video-sharing site. Then, with 4k, the video frame grabs are exactly the same as 8 megapixel stills. Those can be directly uploaded like any stills. So you can see some of the quality of the video just by looking at these. Obviously motion and sound are also important, a key difference.

Here is an example:

The link to a 4K video (you just click) and you go to the video, you press play and you watch, or not:

https://vimeo.com/115490662

You can even download this video - the original 4K - to play on your TV.

And then these are some 4K frame grabs - originals from the video:

What you miss from the grabs are - the gears in the first are turning; the people in the second are walking and talking and moving towards the camera, and in the third, the fireworks are actually animated. And the windows have music. But you do see the color, DR, any noise, the dof, the resolution. And if I did not say they were from a video, and they weren't 16:9 in dimension, you would never know.

Kabisuwa wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

Greynerd wrote:

Usually I find most things interesting on these forums but I am afraid 4K just leaves me cold. I do not even mind if a camera has only 720p so it is that bad. I like doing video segments but HD looks fine so I suppose it is just a case of sorting out the photography items from the video stuff.

Is there an upload in posts for insertion for video as there is for stills? I cannot see how the quality of any persons video captures can be assessed in the same way as photographic stills. It is a completely different world. The difference between an art museum and a cinema.

These are good questions. One can just add a link to the video, which is typically on video-sharing site. Then, with 4k, the video frame grabs are exactly the same as 8 megapixel stills. Those can be directly uploaded like any stills. So you can see some of the quality of the video just by looking at these. Obviously motion and sound are also important, a key difference.

Here is an example:

The link to a 4K video (you just click) and you go to the video, you press play and you watch, or not:

https://vimeo.com/115490662

You can even download this video - the original 4K - to play on your TV.

And then these are some 4K frame grabs - originals from the video:

What you miss from the grabs are - the gears in the first are turning; the people in the second are walking and talking and moving towards the camera, and in the third, the fireworks are actually animated. And the windows have music. But you do see the color, DR, any noise, the dof, the resolution. And if I did not say they were from a video, and they weren't 16:9 in dimension, you would never know.

Wow, I still remember grabbing stills from an old canon Vixia. Can't believe those are stills, they look like a normal picture. Let me ask you, the fact that you shoot it at 24p or 60 helps when grabbing the stills or not at all?

The frame rate does not matter directly. However, for good video one usually follows the 180 rule for shutter speed, so frame rate affects shutter speed. These were shot at 30 fps, 1/60th second shutter speed. The relatively slow shutter speeds used for good video (to give the illusion of smooth motion) means that individual frames that are capturing fast-moving subjects will contain blurred subjects. Otherwise, the more frames per second, the more choices you have for picking a still-picture winner!

I agree.  I see a trend moving away from photography and towards video.  20 years after your wedding would you rather have 2 hours of video where you could not just see the emotion and personalities but hear them or a couple dozen photos?

By all accounts i am amateur, ive done less then ten paid events.  As difficult as it was to learn photography for me -- video is on another level.  Its not just living up a perfect moment but a perfect series of moments with sound.  the skill level and gear goes up dramatically.  I have to think this is a good way to separate yourself from the whole hum folks that buy a DSLR and think they are ready to do paid gigs.

Buttons252 wrote:

I agree. I see a trend moving away from photography and towards video. 20 years after your wedding would you rather have 2 hours of video where you could not just see the emotion and personalities but hear them or a couple dozen photos?

By all accounts i am amateur, ive done less then ten paid events. As difficult as it was to learn photography for me -- video is on another level. Its not just living up a perfect moment but a perfect series of moments with sound. the skill level and gear goes up dramatically. I have to think this is a good way to separate yourself from the whole hum folks that buy a DSLR and think they are ready to do paid gigs.

Amen Brother!