The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

OMG -HassyH3D22 versus RedEpic - the end of Photography ?

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
Sounds like they need a shooting mode where it captures continuously, but you have a shutter button to mark. Then in post you default to the frame at each mark, with the option of moving forward or backward on the timeline to tweak. The marks could show up as a grid of stills, just like in C1 etc, it's just when you edit the image you get a timeline panel as well.
 

Chris Giles

New member
I can't see myself going through 10 hours of footage for 500 images.

Think of the processes involved. I can select my edits in under an hour. Edit them in a 8-12 hours.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
THAT´s a splendid idea Jan ! Yup this would definitely work !

Sounds like they need a shooting mode where it captures continuously, but you have a shutter button to mark. Then in post you default to the frame at each mark, with the option of moving forward or backward on the timeline to tweak. The marks could show up as a grid of stills, just like in C1 etc, it's just when you edit the image you get a timeline panel as well.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Really? Any camera shot under flat controlled lighting would produce a nice 8x10 print. In what way is this impressive? The only thing this points to is art directors and editor are going to pay high-school students minimum wage to point a video camera at a model and then they can chose the frame they want.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
It's more than the end of photography; I think it's the end of the world.

I'm selling everything right away. Thank you Stefan for the warning. You're like the canary in the mine.
 
Really? Any camera shot under flat controlled lighting would produce a nice 8x10 print. In what way is this impressive? The only thing this points to is art directors and editor are going to pay high-school students minimum wage to point a video camera at a model and then they can chose the frame they want.
Yep. Looked to me like "I can't tell the difference between a (lower resolution camera) and (higher resolution camera) at 8x10 size under very controlled lighting conditions." I guess that's cool, but would a Canon G10 have fared much worse? Are there any current digital cameras that wouldn't do as well in the same test?
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Sounds like they need a shooting mode where it captures continuously, but you have a shutter button to mark. Then in post you default to the frame at each mark, with the option of moving forward or backward on the timeline to tweak. The marks could show up as a grid of stills, just like in C1 etc, it's just when you edit the image you get a timeline panel as well.
See also my prediction of just that in 2008:
Doug Peterson, Wedding Photography

Not that I was remotely the first.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
"The Red Epic can film 120 frames per second at the full 5K resolution"

have you ever heard of superresolution ? resolution enhancement by combining multiple shots ? Mmmh- I´m sure you can do this with about any digital camera, but today - with this amount of data..... ?

Of course you would not be interested to have any fashion shot be a safe bet, because the model does not blink with the eye or if it does just use 3-4 frames before or after that......?

I know..... When cars where invented people asked, why do we need cars we have horsecarriages.........

regards
Stefan


Yep. Looked to me like "I can't tell the difference between a (lower resolution camera) and (higher resolution camera) at 8x10 size under very controlled lighting conditions." I guess that's cool, but would a Canon G10 have fared much worse? Are there any current digital cameras that wouldn't do as well in the same test?
 

T.Karma

New member
Movie and stills are totally different in nature.
Just because a technical medium can do both at the same time doesnt mean they belong together.

To envision a good and powerful still one has to concentrate in a different way than shooting a film. For sure you can have lucky grabs out of a film sequence, but the problem is that it was not "envisioned" before and therefore it will lack the click. (literally)
Going the easy way may be convenient, but it is not convincing.
It is all about consciousness.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
The images are not the same quality. Just look at the models hair.
Nice crisp fine detail for the Hasselblad. Muddy for the Red.

The red is so darn fiddly to work with. Recently worked on a production with a red camera. Far from stable to say the least.
The red one needs over one minute to boot.......

Red sensor is 27.65x14.58mm..... don't expect the same sort of depth you get wide open with either a FF 35mm or MFD.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Of course it will be technically possible, that's only a question of time. In 5-6 years, I'm sure there will be a m4/3 device costing around $1,000 capable of doing exactly this, and there will probably be software available helping the photographer choosing the "best" image. I will be very happy to use a camera like that for the occasions when I'm going to do photography and video. But not simultaneously.

The difference between video and photography is much more that the number of frames per second, minute or hour. "The decisive moment" is a combination of timing, framing, DOF, exposure etc. Video follows a timeline with totally different constraints. Good video does not equal good photography. But having the option will be nice, and for PJ/news, this will probably become very common, to great satisfaction for the bean counters who can report more profit back to the shareholders after throwing out half their staff. I'm not sure the news photographers will be equally thrilled though.

Another unfortunate side of this is that, although it shouldn't affect those camera manufacturers that concentrate on still photography only, like MF and Leica, it probably will. There will always be techno hungry people out there who will leave "traditional" hi-tech gear in the dust for a Red or whatever comes after it, making the market situation even more challenging for the traditionalists. But that's evolution, and there's no way of getting around it other than becoming more clever, more flexible... now we're approaching Darwin.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I think you all put too much significance on the Hasselblad. I'm sure that's just the camera he had on hand because it's what he normally shoots with. Right now I see this stuff as being where digital still photography was in the late 90s. I.e., not competitive really, but with excellent new functionality. The blad of course is a better still camera in every regard. Except it doesn't allow adjusting poses and expressions with 1/120s granularity in post. That's pretty much it, and if you need the latter it may well trump the blad's (or any other still camera's) all other advantages. Without the really poor (= unmarketable) image quality associated with regular HD video.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I feel GetDPI more and more like "Nikon Rumors" or something like that everyday.
Some people with a lot of comments, I've rarely seen their works at GetDPI.
Let's go out and take photographs or at least talk about the art of photography!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I feel GetDPI more and more like "Nikon Rumors" or something like that everyday.
Some people with a lot of comments, I've rarely seen their works at GetDPI.
Let's go out and take photographs or at least talk about the art of photography!
Not possible. I have neither a dog nor a cat. There's not even a backyard here, so what on earth should I take photos of? Did I mention that the weather is cloudy, and that none of my ancient cameras deliver clean results above ISO 102,400? You should have seen the 2 hour exposure I did of the inside of my lens cap the other day; noise, banding, diffraction, CA, back focus, front focus, vignetting, mushy corners and lots of other defects that haven't even been invented yet. Nope, back to dpr. There, at least, there's a general consensus that all cameras are crap, but that we need them anyway, so that we have something to fondle.

Take photos, huh :loco:
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
It's more than the end of photography; I think it's the end of the world.

I'm selling everything right away. Thank you Stefan for the warning. You're like the canary in the mine.
Well damn, Stephen. Is that the real reason you sold the rangefinder to me? You know if the world doesn't end, I'm not giving it back. :D
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Well somehow the posting worked already. There are emotions on that and I am sure you know why ! I have to tell you that in a former life I was also working as a set photographer for film and television. Back then the image quality of the filmframes was too bad to use them for the TV program magazines not to speak of Film theaters foyers.
In the late 80ies the first digitizers were appearing, so video frames could be chosen (of course this was only NTSC or Pal) that were usable for program magazines with low resolutions first, but when there were no other pictures this was the first method to get some illustrations when there was the need to have some.
take a look at the Set Photographers today. They have mostly disappeared, only on larger productions the images are taken dedicated, even on Holiwood productions many preview sites use the press material which is from "Screenshots" of the film.
This is a huge cost advantage and also does speed up production as there need to be breaks for dedicated photoshootings, as well you were one of the most hated guys on the set as on non repeatable scenes you needed to get that shot (of the burning house or the car crash....whatever) and the sound people heard your clicking of the camera.

Why do I tell this story ? There are a lot of fashion Foto shootings already happening with video in //. So don´t you think it may be pretty obvious to think of a similar devellopment happening there ? Doing one run- use both, especially when you produce for online media( where excuse me- nobody will be able to tell the difference already today).

Think about it. This is not nice but this is how things devellop.
Jorgen is of course right, there is a different approach with photography, but the customer rules and money rules. Sooner or later the customers will force this as a next step and you either learn to swim by that rythm or perish.

regards
Stefan
 

MaxKißler

New member
Sounds like they need a shooting mode where it captures continuously, but you have a shutter button to mark. Then in post you default to the frame at each mark, with the option of moving forward or backward on the timeline to tweak. The marks could show up as a grid of stills, just like in C1 etc, it's just when you edit the image you get a timeline panel as well.
Don't get me wrong, I just don't see the point of doing so. Wouldn't it be much easier to just be good at using a still camera? Plus you don't have to go through so many files...
 

T.Karma

New member
............ Sooner or later the customers will force this as a next step and you either learn to swim by that rythm or perish.
That is a bit too much. Such "cutting-edge-demanding-obedience" is in no way going to grant you anything, except spending a lot of money.
 
Top