Shifting paradigms... The future of sports and photojournalism photography..

[TheLost]

What would you do with a 8mp camera that can shoot 80fps (with no buffer limit)? How about a 33mp camera that can do 120fps?

Could Nikon be about to enter digital cinema market? | EOSHD.com
NHK develops 8K camera sensor with 120FPS video | Electronista

With all the new interchangeable lens 4k cameras being announced our way of shooting sports is about to change. Soon we'll be pushing the button twice during an event... once to start recording.. and once to stop. Then its off to PP where we'll scan through millions of frames to find the best shots.

I'm kind of excited... a 33mp camera system (8k video) with good lenses is going to be sweet!

Nikon better pull its head out soon or its going to be left behind.. the future is now!



What do you guys think? Are you ready to switch from being a Photographer to Videographer?

 

[ronlane]

whole new meaning to "spray and pray". I think he said it best, that you are going to use up a lot of resource and pictures with motion blur to get that one shot (not that some don't do that anyway.) That being said, I think it is an option for some given that it is a top of the line body and requires basically L glass, so the images should be really good if done correctly.

 

[Derrel]

As he stated--you lose a lot of frames to motion blur...and you're basically just letting the camera run and HOPING to get a useable frame. The shutter speed being in the 1/50 second range...ummm, terribly slow, and unable to stop many kinds of sports motions. Not really much of an advantage for sports or action. He didn't even feel it was much of an advantage for commercial photography.

Actually, we have had access to this type of very high-speed capture for years now, albeit in high-end digicam form. Olympus premiered this probably eight years ago, and others jumped on, but the lure of 100 frames in one second has never really been compelling.

As far as Nikon being poised to enter the 4k camera market; ummm....they COULD BE, I suppose, but their recent neglect of video doesn't make it seem like they are. The era of the video d-slr...well, it seems like that market has already peaked, and the REAL foot traffic is now directed toward video-specific cameras from other makers--makers who are catering SPECIFICALLY to making good, small, compact and light, affordable video cameras. Like the new BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera, which premiered at the National Association of Broadcasters trade show last week and was awarded Best of Show, 2013. Priced at wait for it,wait for it...$995, with an active m4/3 lens mount...whoa!!!!

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

The whole d-slr as video camera was a short-lived phase; d-slr as a video platform really cannot compete with dedicated video cameras. And dedicated still cameras have advantages. That's why the two camera types have remained separate for decades. Consider the very restrictive National Football League rules on video...having a still camera that is a video camera could actually be considered a negative...same with other sports leagues where VIDEO images from games are regulated VERY strictly, and can only be allowed on the web for literally hours before they must be pulled down.

 

[TheLost]

Think about filming an NFL game 10 years from now (if the NFL is around 10 years from now )...

1) Drone's / Quadcopters following the action from above.
( First 4K Canon 1DC drone flight (and FS700 / C300 also gets airborne) | EOSHD.com )

2) Automated camera arrays positioned around the field sending high quality (33mp / fast shutter / 60+fps) video to the production room.

The 'photographer' just scans through the action pulling out the images he/she wants.

The NFL will finally have total control of all its images

 

[ronlane]

I can agree with Derrel about the video and stills part. My T3i has video and I've only used it about 3 times and that was with action shots of my kids and they weren't all that great. Not bad but I don't think that I'd want a still pulled from them.

 

[ronlane]

That's what dictator Gooddell wants is total control. His ego is so big that he actually thinks he ca be judge, jury and executioner.

 

[TheLost]

As far as Nikon being poised to enter the 4k camera market; ummm....they COULD BE, I suppose, but their recent neglect of video doesn't make it seem like they are. The era of the video d-slr...well, it seems like that market has already peaked, and the REAL foot traffic is now directed toward video-specific cameras from other makers--makers who are catering SPECIFICALLY to making good, small, compact and light, affordable video cameras. Like the new BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera, which premiered at the National Association of Broadcasters trade show last week and was awarded Best of Show, 2013. Priced at wait for it,wait for it...$995, with an active m4/3 lens mount...whoa!!!!

I have no hopes for Nikon in the future... they seem to be stuck in the past. Canon is doing a good job staying 'current'.

But its the new/start up companies that will define what comes next. Take a look at RED.. Their first camera came out in 2007(?) and has been gaining acceptance at a staggering pace (Movies, Television, and Magazines shot on RED Digital Cinema cameras and equipment).

8K video will kill the sports photographer as we know it

 

[imagemaker46]

Still comes down to the person holding the camera. It will always come down to the creative and educated mind to produce images. If cameras are just set up and the thousands of images are being sent to one person, that person will not be a photographer, but simply a computer tech. I know all kinds of photographers that are moving towards video already. I've started working on shooting more video myself, but find using a live view screen on the dslr is a pain in the ass to focus using longer lenses.

 

[TheLost]

I can agree with Derrel about the video and stills part. My T3i has video and I've only used it about 3 times and that was with action shots of my kids and they weren't all that great. Not bad but I don't think that I'd want a still pulled from them.

Your T3i is only shooting 1080p video (2.1mp)... Im talking about 8K video (33mp).

 

[Derrel]

The ability to pull stills from high-quality video has been around for a long time. Maxim ran a cover photo of Kelly Brock (??) or Kim Kardashian (??) a few years back, made from a still image pulled from a 4k video camera. And yet...that practice has still not become the norm. Not sure why...but it just...has...not...become...the...norm. Maybe because medium format digital backs are still so much higher in resolution? Or because motion pictures require so much continuous lighting, as opposed to lightweight, cheap strobe flash power? Did you notice in that video, he had both a 1k and 2k quartz light + ambient daylight, just to get decent images in sunny southern california between 2 and 4 PM???

I dunno...

We often see technical innovation that never catches on, never comes to fruition...it's an interesting subject.

 

[TheLost]

The ability to pull stills from high-quality video has been around for a long time. Maxim ran a cover photo of Kelly Brock (??) or Kim Kardashian (??) a few years back, made from a still image pulled from a 4k video camera. And yet...that practice has still not become the norm. Not sure why...but it just...has...not...become...the...norm.

Those are studio shots...

I'm talking about sports and photojournalism. When you have 5 seconds to capture that moment wouldn't you rather have 600 frames then 50? The (outdated) Nikon V1 can do 30FPS @ 8mp (3872 x 2592... or 4k video). Granted it can only do it for 1 second... but that's from a ~$300 camera.

I asked Thom Hogan a few months ago what he thought the best 'soccer mom' DSLR was...

The soccer mom's D4 is…wait for it…A V1 or V2. Really. As long as you stick to faster lenses on the FT1, it's actually quite a reasonable facsimile (V2 is 15 fps in continuous focus with Nikon 1 lenses, up to 60 fps without focus shift). Your 70-200mm becomes essentially a 510mm on the V1/V2. With care, it produces very good results.

If a low-end camera can do that now... In 5 years we'll be shooting video and pulling out the stills in post

 

[imagemaker46]

The ability to pull stills from high-quality video has been around for a long time. Maxim ran a cover photo of Kelly Brock (??) or Kim Kardashian (??) a few years back, made from a still image pulled from a 4k video camera. And yet...that practice has still not become the norm. Not sure why...but it just...has...not...become...the...norm.

Those are studio shots...

I'm talking about sports and photojournalism. When you have 5 seconds to capture that moment wouldn't you rather have 600 frames then 50? The (outdated) Nikon V1 can do 30FPS @ 8mp (3872 x 2592... or 4k video). Granted it can only do it for 1 second... but that's from a ~$300 camera.

I asked Thom Hogan a few months ago what he thought the best 'soccer mom' DSLR was...

The soccer mom's D4 is…wait for it…A V1 or V2. Really. As long as you stick to faster lenses on the FT1, it's actually quite a reasonable facsimile (V2 is 15 fps in continuous focus with Nikon 1 lenses, up to 60 fps without focus shift). Your 70-200mm becomes essentially a 510mm on the V1/V2. With care, it produces very good results.

If a low-end camera can do that now... In 5 years we'll be shooting video and pulling out the stills in post

Skill and experience allows a good photographer to capture those moments in sports, in around a 500th of a second. Why do you need 5 seconds and 600 frames, when only one frame will do it?

 

[rexbobcat]

Indeed, because it's not like 8K video will be prohibitively expensive to the average photographer or anything.

A 128GB SSD hold something like 30 minutes of 1080p 24fps RAW video.

 

[KmH]

Pro sports shooters and PJ's usually don't have a lot of time and are required to send JPEGs ASAP.

It's the kind of business that 'if you snooze, you lose', and sifting through several 10's - 100's of thousands of video frames to cherry pick some stills likely won't feature.

If they shoot video, it will probably be shown as video.

 

[TheLost]

Pro sports shooters and PJ's usually don't have a lot of time and are required to send JPEGs ASAP.

It's the kind of business that 'if you snooze, you lose', and sifting through several 10's - 100's of thousands of video frames to cherry pick some stills likely won't feature.

Have you ever worked with high-end video editing equipment? The production team would just quickly scan through the video stream to find the last play... pull out a few frames as 'stills' and move on... You'd actually get images out faster.

If they shoot video, it will probably be shown as video.

That is my point exactly... They are already shooting video... It won't be hard to pull stills from that video feed that are 'print' quality. Who needs a 'still' photographer any more on the sidelines.