Video: The future of photography

[Everythingisnt]

Interesting article: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in-photography.html

I found it particularly fun because I actually use one of the cameras in question (the sony Z1U) for my job, and have a hard time believing that there is any way to get quality stills bigger then, say, 8mp off of it (it's 1/3 of an inch CCD's have a total effective 6 million pixels each I think).


Anyways, tell me what you think!

I don't *really* think that what he says is true about PJ's only carrying video cameras, as I bet that there will still be photo cameras unaproached by video (say, 100mp still cameras).

I DO see what he means about video technology approaching the quality of stills though.
Did you know that the current industry standard Movie Quality camera (The Panasonic Genesis) uses three high speed CMOS sensors each with 14million effective pixels? It's output res is basically 30 frames of 14megapixel images per second.
Of course, it costs 100k body alone, but you can see how much technology is advancing.



So.. What do YOU think?


(P.S. -> I really think he's off the mark when he said 'only Canon will survive'...)

 

[Mantat]

The first thing that come to my mind after reading this is how they are planing to store all of these files (in raw format please).

And imagine how much time it would take to browse hours of video after coming back from a 1 hour shoot with 108.000 pics ( 30 fps x 60 sec x 60 minutes) !!! But I guess paparazzi would love it ;-)

That being said, google a bit and you will find some awesome movies made by people with their MarkII or III, they are not 30fps, but still the quality is insane!

 

[Everythingisnt]

The first thing that come to my mind after reading this is how they are planing to store all of these files (in raw format please).

And imagine how much time it would take to browse hours of video after coming back from a 1 hour shoot with 108.000 pics ( 30 fps x 60 sec x 60 minutes) !!! But I guess paparazzi would love it ;-)

That being said, google a bit and you will find some awesome movies made by people with their MarkII or III, they are not 30fps, but still the quality is insane!

That's the crux of the matter - data storage and transportation.

As it is now, shoots involving high def. cameras like the Genesis use high capacity / high speed data storage. A typical setup would be a dual optical output into a temporary storage unit (like a solid state drive).

Recent cameras are beginning to use cards, so everything is digital.

As for logging, I am sure that people will find time. Check the credits on the next movie you watch. It's highly likely that one of the roles will be 'logger'.

 

[seenew]

If anything, this would only affect photojournalism. There will always be a market for still images.

 

[compuwar]

Anyways, tell me what you think!

I bet that there will still be photo cameras unaproached by video (say, 100mp still cameras).

I think anyone who thinks a 100Mp camera is a possibility probably doesn't understand digital photography or physics.

A full-frame 35mm sensor at 100Mp will be diffraction limited starting at f/4.7, with an APS-C sensor it is diffraction limited starting at f/3.2.

 

[ChrisA]

Interesting article: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in-photography.html

I found it particularly fun because I actually use one of the cameras in question (the sony Z1U) for my job, and have a hard time believing that there is any way to get quality stills bigger then, say, 8mp off of it (it's 1/3 of an inch CCD's have a total effective 6 million pixels each I think).


Anyways, tell me what you think!

I don't *really* think that what he says is true about PJ's only carrying video cameras, as I bet that there will still be photo cameras unaproached by video (say, 100mp still cameras).

I DO see what he means about video technology approaching the quality of stills though.
Did you know that the current industry standard Movie Quality camera (The Panasonic Genesis) uses three high speed CMOS sensors each with 14million effective pixels? It's output res is basically 30 frames of 14megapixel images per second.
Of course, it costs 100k body alone, but you can see how much technology is advancing.



So.. What do YOU think?


(P.S. -> I really think he's off the mark when he said 'only Canon will survive'...)

I seriusly doubt wetter we will ever see a consumer 100MP camera. Already we've reached to point where the pixels are to small and already a few of the more educated consumers are starting to know this. The only practical use for a 100MP camera is if the sensor is very large, like about the size of a traditional medium format film frame, at least 6cm square and also it only mke sense if yo have a lens that can deliver that kind of resolution. Basically a Hasselblad. A usfull 100MP camera siply can't be made much smaller then a Hassblad 500CM with it's 80mm lens. This is physics not technology that ets this limit, so even if we wait 100 years it ain't going to happen. Many pros would really like a camera like this. I want one. But it will NOT be popular with the general public and will not be made in large numbers and so will never be affordable.

We make the mistake to think that because technology move fast now that it will continue to move fast. Technology nwever works this way. When airplans were new in the early 20th century they mad rapid advances in speed and size. But look at today's airliners. They reach a practical limit and stopped. Same with film camera. In every case technology move very fast when it is new and then at some point it becomes mature and slows down. Digital camera technology is becoming mature. I expect the dSLR feild will settle down. and the standard SLR will be a full frame 24MP body while the low end entry level will be a 12MP "crop body". Procs in the studios will be using 50 to 100MP medium format bodies.

Video is the same way. consummers will always want a small palm size device. But you can't cram 24MP into a small sensor and video does not need 24MP.

If you look at acmaera like "Red One" there is just no way ever to make them small. The whole point of those camera is that they have huge sized sensors, three times the size of a DSLR.

 

[Everythingisnt]

Did you read the article?

 

[sarge]

Be still my heart

Having not read the article, I cannot speak to it but I have already come to that conclusion myself. As someone who has actively taken pictures for 15 years, I have never been sentimental when it comes to technology,whether it's a view camera, a rangefinders, film or digital I don't much care. The tool is a means to an end, and the end for me is in sight. I no longer feel challenged constructing a static image.

If the Flip camera is any indication of where we are headed, then the still image is going to succumb to the moving image in short order -a still photo will be the new black and white. As an image maker we should be aware that we can take pictures, but that doesn't mean people have to look at them.

Tim Burton shoots his animation features w/a Canon btw...

 

[cube]

Video cameras do not approach the quality of still cameras. Still cameras are surpassing the abilities of video cameras.

Think Casio EX-F1.

 

[sarge]

Video cameras do not approach the quality of still cameras. Still cameras are surpassing the abilities of video cameras.

Think Casio EX-F1.

I have two words for you: Red One

 

[cube]

That is not a video camera, it's a film camera.

 

[sarge]

from the Red One FAQ

Where does the film go?
Last Updated at Apr 28 by admin
Don’t laugh, it gets asked. The RED ONE is a Digital Cinema camera recording digital information to a recording media, either hard drive or flash based drive. There is a provision via the CF Module (a highly recommended recording solution) to record directly to Compact Flash internally in the camera with no external drive required. Each 8GB card records the equivalent of a 400′ film reel, approximately 4-5 minutes, depending on compression settings.

http://www.red.com/faq/where-does-the-film-go/

RED uses a sensor measured at 4520 x 2540 pixels, more than 4 times the number of pixels of the very best HD cam and records the signal as a RAW input, similar to a DSLR, with no color subsampling. All information travels in a single channel, as opposed to three separate RGB channels. ...The greatest benefit to the cinematographer is the fact that the sensor on a RED One is Super 35 sized at 24.4mm x 13.7mm, offering 35mm Depth of Field

 

[juanm]

That is not a video camera, it's a film camera.

No, it's a video camera! Like the ARRI D21, the Genesis, the Epic, the Scarlett...
Oh, and there are already 100MP digital cameras! Or you can even shoot in 8"x10", scan, and get even more definition, if what you really want is quality.

 

[atari1356]

I know someone who has worked for many years as a photojournalist for a city newspaper. Over the past year or so he has been "retrained" to shoot video and do video editing... the reasoning for switching to video is that they can publish the videos online, and the video resolution is high enough that they can use stills from it for printing in the newspaper.

It probably also means that the newspaper has to pay fewer people since they can have one person gathering both video and stills.

So, for photojournalism, I think that in many cases video will indeed supplant still photography. However, I maintain hope that some higher end publications will still see the merit in still photography.

 

[cube]

No, it's a video camera! Like the ARRI D21, the Genesis, the Epic, the Scarlett...

No, I repeat, those are DIGITAL film cameras, they are not video cameras.

 

[juanm]

No, I repeat, those are DIGITAL film cameras, they are not video cameras.

Really? Just splitting hairs, but those are not film or digital film cameras. They are movie cameras. And they record video on hard drives.

From Wikipedia:

Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion.

Leicas, Canon Eos 1, Nikon F80, Mamiya 645, large format, Arri III, 435, Arricam, Photosonics, Panavision Millenium, all film cameras.

I know what you mean, though, and I'm aware that many people use the term digital film for high-end digital movie cameras.

 

[leighonigar]

I think he's nuts when he says:

"Because video cameras now all feature a 16:9 "wide-screen" aspect ratio, the old 4:3 box that we used to associate with movies will be gone."

Then following through to images will be used and printed in that ratio. That would be so unwieldy. Not to mention the fact that photographs generally have subjects that aren't 16:9 ratio...

I also think there will be a lot more print out there than he seems to think.

 

[sarge]

No, I repeat, those are DIGITAL film cameras, they are not video cameras.

You must be joking. They may be digital but they sure as shootin' ain't FILM cameras. Anyhow, what I was attempting to illustrate was the very idea that this camera straddles the definition between photo and video (not videoTAPE mind you).

 

[cube]

Cinema is still called film.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Cinema is still called film.

So you're talking about consumer vs pro. Everyone knows that consumer still cameras have higher resolution than CONSUMER "video" cameras (aka camcorder). Don't kid yourself though, still cameras are only surpassing the abilities of SD consumer video cameras. Consumer HD video cameras are just in a different field than consumer still cameras.

*Sorry about all the uses of the word "consumer." Just trying to be as specific as possible.

 

[juanm]

Cinema is still called film.

Yeah, but we're not talking about the name of the industry, but rather about technology, so the Red One is still not a film camera.

 

[cube]

No, I am the one who called it a film camera, meaning cinema, not the support on which it records.