The next medium...

[danalec99]

Since several months I've been trying to track down an interview by a prominent photojournalist in which he predicted along the lines that video cameras will become a primary tool to get still photographs in the near future. I never got hold of the interview. But here is a recent article in The Digital Journalist on the same topic - The Coming Earthquake in Photography (by the way, check out the title - why does it have to be 'doom and gloom' the moment a new medium shows up?! )

I think it was Robert Capa who predicted the death of of still photography when video came out. Well, obviously it has not happened yet. The article above does not explicitly suggest 'the death' of still photography; just that the video will be the prime mode for acquiring still images.

Personally I don't (or is it I don't want to ?) believe that DV will entirely 'replace' still photography. We will be able to extract meaty files from DV cams down the lane, but I'd think that the emphasis will be more on the output, which will be a multi-level platform - like they have in Magnum In Motion, MediaStorm, TIME Photo Essays etc.

Fun times ahead!

Dan
Photovideoaudioeditographer

 

[RVsForFun]

...and even HD cameras aren't as good as current DSLRs. I don't think video will EVER overtake still digital photography for one reason - the law. By LAW, a standard or HD video signal can only consume so much bandwidth, so big a picture size, certain colors. The cheapest fixed-lens digital camera already exceeds an HD video camera because still photography has no laws that limit its resolution & colorspace.

 

[terri]

I will fight this tooth and nail. :x

Seriously, I don't want to face a logo re-design for "The Photovideoaudioeditographer Forum".

Fergit it! :thumbdown:

 

[Eric Piercey]

Apples and oranges. Two entirely different philosophies sharing many of the same principals. Did photography replace painting? Did illustrating replace painting? Invariably in the future a motion camera will capture many many more FPS than they do now and with much more clarity. This makes the probability of getting more great pictures that much greater, but on the other hand they're not the same.

Even when a video (or movie) camera can capture individual frames as well as a still camera, there will still remain a vast fundamental difference between the two activities, the intention.

Aesthetics will never allow one to replace the other.

 

[DSLR noob]

Also a veido cannot do a long exposure for an image, but rather give a small image in a series of other images as frames.

 

[panocho]

Apples and oranges. Two entirely different philosophies sharing many of the same principals. Did photography replace painting? Did illustrating replace painting? Invariably in the future a motion camera will capture many many more FPS than they do now and with much more clarity. This makes the probability of getting more great pictures that much greater, but on the other hand they're not the same.

Even when a video (or movie) camera can capture individual frames as well as a still camera, there will still remain a vast fundamental difference between the two activities, the intention.

Aesthetics will never allow one to replace the other.

exactly

true you could use a videocamera to take (still) pictures -in a similar way as you could also use a ultra-fast-motor-drived (photo) camera to record a kind of primitive picture... you know: select jpg so that you don't have limited frames to store and keep shooting at 8 fps (or even faster: is there any camera faster than that?). Then you play the pictures continuosly with whatever artifact, and there you have a kind of movie, why not? and "recorded" with a photo camera!

cameras are secondary, after all. The difference between a movie and a (still) picture is not really in the camera. you think differently, shoot diferently, etc.

 

[panocho]

select jpg

by the way, I don't even know why I used this example, when I shoot film!

And that would be an even clearer comparison! 35mm vs 35mm!! same format, same film!

sometimes I'm ashamed of myself

 

[THORHAMMER]

there will always be the difference. photographers are not going to become video editors, and visa versa.

it all boils down to application, advertisers who need video need video and those whom need stills need stills. just because some far fetched company has made a 50K camera that can double as a dlsr doesnt mean anything to the end result... yeah they have cars the swim and drive, btu how many have you seen at the beach...?

 

[table1349]

"The sky is falling, The sky is falling." Dirck Halstead

 

[abraxas]

Great. I already have a tough enough time sorting out the garbage from the potential 'not garbage' in my still photos. I can imagine my life going through 20 minutes of video frames to find a 'half-asked' shot.

 

[craig]

Fun times ahead for sure! Photography is in a very uncomfortable period. On one hand I embrace the technology. On the other hand I will always be enamored by shooting frame by frame. Somehow it seems more personal then "rolling the video".

The brief story may reflect on a much larger question. Newspapers' role in the current media. I think the role of papers will be to find their niche as opposed to embracing current technology. Papers must understand that we look to them for local news. Not like we look to them for the news in Iraq. We will always need something to read while on the train or waiting in line. Papers need to understand this idea as opposed to branching out too far.

Love & Bass

 

[newrmdmike]

a little off topic, but i think i'm going backwards. my newest medium is actually medium, format that is. i just bought a mamiya 645af . . . hows that for progress

 

[xhg00]

I think you could be right - but the cycle will be DSLR's with such fast cycle times that you effectively shoot video. About a year ago Sony talked about this as part of their vision for their entry into DSLR. One of their senior guys was talking about CMOS (I think) sensors that would clcle at 60 frames a second (I think). So I don't see a Video Camera for still photography but a stills camera where you set up the shot and then take 3-5 mins of shots. You could probably have software that would rate Dynamic Range and sharpness - then a slow motion video to enable you to pick the shots that best represent your creative vision.

 

[newrmdmike]

thats right, my uncle has a canon that shoots AMAZING video for a p&s, its really really nice. i can't remember the model, but it was the ones with the flip out screen that adjusts to various angles

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I think you could be right - but the cycle will be DSLR's with such fast cycle times that you effectively shoot video. About a year ago Sony talked about this as part of their vision for their entry into DSLR. One of their senior guys was talking about CMOS (I think) sensors that would clcle at 60 frames a second (I think). So I don't see a Video Camera for still photography but a stills camera where you set up the shot and then take 3-5 mins of shots. You could probably have software that would rate Dynamic Range and sharpness - then a slow motion video to enable you to pick the shots that best represent your creative vision.

60 frames a second is twice the speed used in motion pictures, so you'd pretty much be able to make HDR video