photography vs. videography

Comparing photography with videography, would you say there are any inherent strengths of either?

A video captures many frames at once and it also gets motion and sound and from what I can tell, any photographic tool could also be used for a video camera. So what are the differences in need of skill, technique, etc?

 

Huge. With a moving picture which has sound the method of which meaning can be conveyed becomes drastically different.

Look at Hitchcock films. Without the sound they wouldn't be at all scary. Photography has no sound just a single frame so a completely different method needs to be through up to convey the same meaning.

 

Video usually works at 25 fps.
And I would be interested to see how you could use a Sinar P2 as a video camera without major modifications.

 

Most great cinematographers are very good photographers. You still need to be able to compose a shot, and you need to master your gear if you want repeatable effects (as opposed to a lucky shot.) Because the elements are not static - and the camera doesn't need to be static either - there is a an additional layer of complexity. In return, you have the luxury of telling a story or eliciting an emotional response over a span of frames, rather than in a single exposure.

 

i think there are certain shots that work better as video and some better as stills...If you watch a well filmed movie you will see the use of stills (via video camera just holding the shot steady/focused).

I think the "Planet Earth" series really combines the best of video/stills as there could be a seamless transition between many of the video shots

 

I do wedding videography, and in that field I have to say the major strength of photography is that you can hold the photos in your hand. Video is great, but how often do you watch the DVD after the wedding? A framed photo you can look at every day and enjoy, and I think that's the main reason why photo is essential and video is the first to go.

In a general sense, definitely sound, which goes a long way in creating a mood. Just think about how a sound can make you jump in a horror movie? Or how an upbeat song can pump you up during an opening credit sequence?

 

I'm not sure what is meant by videography, but here are a few inconsequential, overgeneralized and oversimplified ramblings on a very big subject.

As already mentioned, cinematography is composing in time or as Tarkovsky described it, sculpting in time. Our compositions have to work in time - I call it dynamic composition and a lot of the time I spend in pre-production is contemplating exactly that.

People tend to view photographs at an effectively closer distance than they do video and television, so the composition must reflect that. Video also has less resolution, in general.

It varies a lot, but in general I find cinematography to be more demanding in terms of discipline and technical aspects. There has to be shot-to-shot consistency, even with changing angles and changing lighting. Two or three minutes of outdoor scene may take all day to shoot, and lighting conditions can change a lot. It should look the same, or nearly the same.

With exceptions, you are usually working with many more people when you are making a motion picture than when you are taking still photographs. It is much less about your personal style and more about providing what someone else wants, with your own slant on things. The cinematographer and the director must work very closely.

Oh, and there's the old saying "Theatre is life, film is art, and television is furniture."

Best,
Helen

 

with the coming of more and more wide spread HD filming that simply won't be the case for much longer, heck even a consumer can go out and pick up a HD-camera for a fair price

 

And some directors.
Stanley Kubrick started out as an Advertising photographer had had a large collection of magazines with his published work.

 

Sony makes some awesome HD handicams. I own one and used it on my recent vacation.... quality is just awesome for a consumer product. There are times when pictures speak, other times that one needs a moving picture with audio. For me that ratio is about 8:1 in favor of stills.

 

We must be comparing two different things. The HD I know, from cameras like the Sony F900, is 1920 x 1080. A Nikon D40 is 3008x2000. How is HD even close to a D40, never mind a high resolution still camera? I’ll stick to my comment that when you compose for still images you are composing for a higher resolution medium than video.

Best,
Helen

 

And video can't match the quality of motion picture film either.
This is why most serious movies are still shot using Arriflex or Aaton or similar.
Try comparing a still video frame with a frame from a movie shot on 35mm. Most video is barely on a par with Super 8 film.