Again...slightly off topic...but as this does concern video, I'd be
interested in your thoughts...


Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you pay
a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer
be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.

"Steve Franklin" wrote in message
...
Again...slightly off topic...but as this does concern video, I'd be
interested in your thoughts...


Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing
resolution do you think there will come a time where certain fields of
photography will not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you
pay a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of
photographer be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.
Digital stills cams have motor drive too but video stills tend to show
movement so a single frame looks blurred, And there is a big difference in
the resolution needed to make a 21" wide print to filling a 21" wide screen

In message , Steve Franklin
writes
Again...slightly off topic...but as this does concern video, I'd be
interested in your thoughts...


Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs.

Don't know if I'd agree Steve, since most (all?) video camera
manufacturers have a vested interest in promoting their range of digital
still cameras - ranging from the "in-your-breast-pocket" variety to the
sizeable digital SLRs.

It's the same with the provision of movie video on the still cameras -
it will always be provided but at a much lower quality that incorporated
in a dedicated camcorder.

A sort of NIMBY philosophy of the marketing world.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:40:27 +0100, "Trev" trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet wrote:

Digital stills cams have motor drive too but video stills tend to show
movement so a single frame looks blurred, And there is a big difference in
the resolution needed to make a 21" wide print to filling a 21" wide screen

Sorry but that's not really correct if your talking about subject movement, the
quality (or lack of) of a single frame on video is directly related to the
shutter speed.

Cameras, whether still or video, with a fixed speed of 1/50 will show motion
blur on moving objects.

IIRC, I think there are formulas for calculating best shutter speeds from the
speed of the object and the angle to the camera.

If you add camera movement due to hand holding and it sometimes surprising that
one gets anything worth watching!!!

With regard to the 21" print/TV, this is due to how our optics work. Very
basically, our brain expects movement to be an "unsharp" image and "sees" the
"important" bits of the image and only "sees" the full picture if given long
enough. With a still image, you do have long enough, and more, to process the
full image especially if you are at the optimum viewing distance.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

"Stuart McKears" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:40:27 +0100, "Trev" trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet
wrote:

Digital stills cams have motor drive too but video stills tend to show
movement so a single frame looks blurred, And there is a big difference in
the resolution needed to make a 21" wide print to filling a 21" wide
screen

Sorry but that's not really correct if your talking about subject
movement, the
quality (or lack of) of a single frame on video is directly related to the
shutter speed.

Cameras, whether still or video, with a fixed speed of 1/50 will show
motion
blur on moving objects.

Thats what I ment

IIRC, I think there are formulas for calculating best shutter speeds from
the
speed of the object and the angle to the camera.

If you add camera movement due to hand holding and it sometimes surprising
that
one gets anything worth watching!!!

With regard to the 21" print/TV, this is due to how our optics work. Very
basically, our brain expects movement to be an "unsharp" image and "sees"
the
"important" bits of the image and only "sees" the full picture if given
long
enough. With a still image, you do have long enough, and more, to process
the
full image especially if you are at the optimum viewing distance.


Lack of pixels There is no need for a 4000 x 3000 pixel video but if you
want a big print you need a big image.

Advancements in Video will coexist along side advancements in still cameras
Stuart

www.mckears.com

"Stuart McKears" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:40:27 +0100, "Trev" trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet
wrote:

Digital stills cams have motor drive too but video stills tend to show
movement so a single frame looks blurred, And there is a big difference in
the resolution needed to make a 21" wide print to filling a 21" wide screen

Sorry but that's not really correct if your talking about subject movement,
the
quality (or lack of) of a single frame on video is directly related to the
shutter speed.

Cameras, whether still or video, with a fixed speed of 1/50 will show motion
blur on moving objects.

IIRC, I think there are formulas for calculating best shutter speeds from
the
speed of the object and the angle to the camera.

If you add camera movement due to hand holding and it sometimes surprising
that
one gets anything worth watching!!!

With regard to the 21" print/TV, this is due to how our optics work. Very
basically, our brain expects movement to be an "unsharp" image and "sees"
the
"important" bits of the image and only "sees" the full picture if given long
enough. With a still image, you do have long enough, and more, to process
the
full image especially if you are at the optimum viewing distance.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

PMFJI, Yup I reckon a ball at 180 mph travels 267 feet/sec so 1/50th =
5.34feet
If the shutter was 1/1000 sec then around 5 inches. Mmmm this does'nt seem
right as I have seen photos taken at 1/1000 catching Formula One car wheels
apparently "stationary"

Anyone put me right here?

Beemer

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:06:59 GMT, "Beemer" wrote:

PMFJI, Yup I reckon a ball at 180 mph travels 267 feet/sec so 1/50th =
5.34feet
If the shutter was 1/1000 sec then around 5 inches. Mmmm this does'nt seem
right as I have seen photos taken at 1/1000 catching Formula One car wheels
apparently "stationary"

Anyone put me right here?

Beemer

About right :-) my maths suggests that 180mph @ 1000 is just over 3 inches.
(180*1760*3*12)/(60*60*1000)

However, the way to photo F1 cars or any other high speed object is to pan with
the object and then press the shutter. Same with video, the speed of the object
is relative to the speed of the pan and the distance from the object.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

"Stuart McKears" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:06:59 GMT, "Beemer" wrote:

PMFJI, Yup I reckon a ball at 180 mph travels 267 feet/sec so 1/50th =
5.34feet
If the shutter was 1/1000 sec then around 5 inches. Mmmm this does'nt
seem
right as I have seen photos taken at 1/1000 catching Formula One car
wheels
apparently "stationary"

Anyone put me right here?

Beemer

About right :-) my maths suggests that 180mph @ 1000 is just over 3
inches.
(180*1760*3*12)/(60*60*1000)

However, the way to photo F1 cars or any other high speed object is to pan
with
the object and then press the shutter.

Does panning with the object involve spinning your camera round at high
speed when it involves making the wheels appear stationary?

Rob


Same with video, the speed of the object
is relative to the speed of the pan and the distance from the object.

Stuart

www.mckears.com

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:43:09 +0200, "Rob D" wrote:

Does panning with the object involve spinning your camera round at high
speed when it involves making the wheels appear stationary?

Rob

Is that a horizontal spin or a vertical spin???

Stuart

www.mckears.com

"Steve Franklin" wrote in message
...
Again...slightly off topic...but as this does concern video, I'd be
interested in your thoughts...


Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you pay
a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer
be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.

Steve,

Why did the original news article mention pixels at all if it is a film
based camera? Pixels are only relevent (despite what certain Photoshop
menus say about print resolution) for CRT and LCD screens.

Beemer