1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Poll - Are you impressed or appalled at the idea of using...

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Sep 16, 2014.

  1. Graham_RM13

    Graham_RM13 Well-Known Member

    Precisely... There are more than enough pixels to do the job. Had they used something producing 4 times as many they would most likely been interpolated down to fit the page format anyway, kissing goodby to any of the original resolution.

    I'm often very impressed by the quality of prints from even the most basic cameras. With Digital Projection they all get compressed to the resolution of the projector, so all those precious pixels count for very little when they hit the screen.
  2. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Very true. It's pretty near impossible to differentiate between the 10Mp of my 40D and the 3Mp of the old D30 when sized for projection. The only thing that can sometimes do it is very fine detail which the old camera sometimes fails to properly resolve in the first place...:rolleyes:
  3. Ffolrord

    Ffolrord Well-Known Member

    Neither. I think picking a still from a video will at some point result in a high quality image. I regard it as no more cheating as firing off 100 digital images to find one good'un. I just don't see much fun in the process. Part of the fun of getting a great shot is that it is difficult.
  4. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Its not just about number of pixels. Most jpeg shooters would have no problem with 4k stills. I do like the ability to do a bit of tone mapping from 14 bit raw. You don't have to be an expert to get significant improvements over jpeg from 14 bit raws (although I suppose that it probably helps). I understand that the limitations on manipulation of video is even worse than jpeg, although I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary.
  5. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    That depends on the quality of the "video" though "video" doesn't really cover it any more.
    Although not 4k, my Blackmagic Digital Cinema Camera shoots 2.5k 12 bit Cinema DNG files with 13 stops dynamic range. At 25 fps that works out at 1,000 mbits per sec.
    A Red Epic Dragon is even more extreme. We're getting to the point where video is turning into digital cine, in the same way a cine camera shoots a rapid sequence of still frames, a digital cine camera shoots a rapid sequence of raw images. Each one standing on its own without compression.
  6. George W Johnson

    George W Johnson Well-Known Member

    From what I gather you can grab some video and it's so damn good you can pull stills from it? Assuming that's roughly right, where's the need for a photographer? Simply set up some cameras, film the whole event and pull the stills you want. Obviously you will need some form of artistic director to move viewpoints I suppose but no need for years of skill to be learned to capture the key moment.

    Sounds like another case of stunning technology killing more brain cells by making like too easy. Sometimes it's fun to make things hard for ourselves as human beings, we get a great sense of achievement from overcoming hardship.

    Years ago Tomorrows World promised us we'd all have computers that would make life easier, we'd be in work less and be living on the moon! I work with computers as a career and I seem to spend more time in the office every year that passes and I'm still not commuting from the moon every day yet! :D

    I have to ask, why did you have to use a scantily clad young woman to "sell it" to the readers? Why not a typical sports event with a mixture of men and women taking part in something? I'm not off on a sexism/equaity trip but this sort of thing reinforces the sad old stereotype that photographers seedy blokes lurking in darkrooms leering over pictures of women, when we all know that's most certainly not the case.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2014
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    You mean this is a video camera that you can select to shoot single frames with?

    I suppose there is a market. I canot really understand why stills cameras now have a switch to shoot video with as it is not something I am really interested in but maybe someone who is essentially interested in video might one time want to take a still.
  8. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Fairs fair, that's the first cover of this type for some while. Back in the notorious '80s the cover were nearly always like this - but with fewer scanties...:D
    Got so bad it was siad the P in AP stood for another word ending in 'ographer'...
  9. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    The inference here is that video photography is somehow easier than stills photography!

    I'd say that with a moving image, and the consequential increase in the variables of the composition Video photography is probably a lot harder.

    So to answer the question: I'm very impressed at the skills needed to do this well.
  10. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    That's been around a loooong time.

    My old Panasonic mini DV tape camcorder could record a 2.3mp image to a separate SD card when my SLR was pulling in a staggering 6mp.

    As mentioned by others, its the ability to record a scene and take a still from the recording and have it high enough resolution to use as a decent quality still...

    Standard definition TV was about 0.3mp.

    720 HD was about a megapixel. Getting there.

    Full 1080 HD... now that is about 2mp - the first SLR's were this or less and we managed to have some great quality from those... so even with the camera you have now, you may be able to try this kind of thing as long as you can extract a Jpeg from it, which is possible in some editing software...

    And 4K gives you about 8mp which we would have happily got our credit cards out for in 2007.

    And lets not mention 8K, which is on the way too, which, ahahhahha, has a screen dimension of at least 33mp depending on the aspect ratio, so i would not expect a 16mp still to be too unrealistic...

    The only way I can put it is thus:

    Good grief, Charlie Brown!
  11. CharlieJ

    CharlieJ Member

    I could certainly see a use for this.

    I personally enjoy motorsport and would welcome the ability to film a sequence of, say, 20 seconds of track action and be able to pick the decisive moment from that.

    Another thing I enjoy photographing is people in costume (historical re-enactments, Whitby Gothic Weekend, etc.) but rather than posed photos I try to capture more natural expressions - again, the ability to shoot a short sequence (just a couple of seconds in this case) would be useful.

    I'm not going to dash out and buy a 4K camera though - I'll stick with my Pentax K5-II and Sony NEX-7 and the challenge of just grabbing that decisive moment.
  12. jbhhall

    jbhhall Well-Known Member

    Why have they changed the voting page, as soon as I pick my book up to see what to vote for, I would go to ap on front page and vote straight away. Now it tells you to go some where, go some where else I had a job last week voting , don't think I will bother anymore . You could see straight away how many percentage people were voting .Now I don't see anything.
  13. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

  14. Nigel_Atherton

    Nigel_Atherton Group Editor

    Sports subjects bomb on the cover. ALWAYS. It's pretty much a no-go zone, as a cover subject. In fact it's at the top of a fairly long list! The portrait we chose was quite 'girl next door' and not especially sexy or revealing.
  15. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Got to be a bit of a problem for Golf Monthly and Rugby World then...;)

Share This Page