 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005The future of photography?
Hi all... Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will not be around any more? E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you pay a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and pick the best of 100 images? The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports. Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model. > Hi all... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of > photographer be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model. It already is: plenty of front page stop-the-presses images have been grabbed off satellite feeds and published as first-available deadline-makers.  SignatureFrank ess >> Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of >> photographer be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model. > > It already is: plenty of front page stop-the-presses images have been > grabbed off satellite feeds and published as first-available > deadline-makers. And usually look it. But that is news, it's acceptable, even desirable for fast breaking news to use whatever is available quickest that helps the story. But real still photography will trump video frame grabs when available. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution > do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and > pick the best of 100 images? Video cams won't have that resolution. They don't need it for anything, and it's *obscenely* expensive. Think of the data rates those video cams would have to handle; that's what guarantees they'd be obscenely expensive. Besides, what's a good frame as one frame of a video isn't the same thing as what's a good frame for a still photo. The video frames *need to* be slightly blurry in the faster-moving areas, to avoid flickering badly, for one thing. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution >> do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >*need to* be slightly blurry in the faster-moving areas, to avoid >flickering badly, for one thing. I can only relate this to amateur astronomy, but the most detailed pictures of the moon and planets are being done by taking the "footage" from 30fps webcams and combining thousands of shots into one. This yields the most detail and sharpest images, after processing. But, the subjects are "static" enough so that the frames being combined show no change in the planet's aspect. But, a race car would be out of the question. -Rich <snip> > Video cams won't have that resolution. They don't need it for > anything, and it's *obscenely* expensive. Think of the data rates [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *need to* be slightly blurry in the faster-moving areas, to avoid > flickering badly, for one thing. I have to disagree with you there.. Resolution is an obvious area for improvement and has been the one constant improvement in video over the years. VHS to video 8 to hi 8 to DV25 to DV50 to Hi definition it keeps on increasing all the time. As for data rates. When I bought my first computer in 1995 my 2 Gb drive was incredibly expensive. In 10 years I can buy a drive with more than 200x more capacity for half the price and it's getting cheaper all the time. At the same time video editing on that computer was out of the question, now I can transfer and edit 13Gb per hour of footage as easy as you like. but I guess only time will tell.... > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > but I guess only time will tell.... We are not saying it will never happen but not anytime soon because it needs thousands of a second to stop a fast motion. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > improvement in video over the years. VHS to video 8 to hi 8 to DV25 to DV50 > to Hi definition it keeps on increasing all the time. Sure, it'll improve. But current still cameras have considerably more resolution than what's needed for theatrical projection, so why bother with more? > As for data rates. When I bought my first computer in 1995 my 2 Gb > drive was incredibly expensive. In 10 years I can buy a drive with > more than 200x more capacity for half the price and it's getting > cheaper all the time. At the same time video editing on that > computer was out of the question, now I can transfer and edit 13Gb > per hour of footage as easy as you like. You did notice that you're mostly addressing *capacity*, not *rate*, right? Capacity has been going up *immensely* faster than rate. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > Hi all... > > Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution > do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will > not be around any more? 1) The resolution of video is nowhere close to a $200 P&S digital, never mind an SLR at 5 Mpix and more. I'm not even sure if the dynamic range of video is up to that of the same P&S. 2) For video, the eye is following action and movement. Not the same experience as photogrphy at all. 3) Star Wars is rendered at something on the order of 1.4 Mpix / frame, yet gives the audience a very, very rich visual experience (which hasn't helped the dialog one bit). 4) Photography (still) and videography have different objectives in what they capture. 5) You can disperse dozens of still photographers with sparse equipment loads all over a sports event. Video is less flexible, and more BW is needed to relay the signal to the van. (Each camera can tape too, of course). So, no I don't think the 'still' photographer will disappear from sporting events. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Still photography and vidography are opposite sides of the same coin. However, the art forms are much different in that Still photography requires much talent to get the shot in time. Where as the vidiographer just pulls the trigger and has the pick of the liter following the event. It's two different perspectives. The still photographer will always be necessary for still shots. The vidiographer on the other hand will never require the same skill or talent to capture the moment. Robert King >> Hi all... >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So, no I don't think the 'still' photographer will disappear from sporting > events. > >> Hi all... > >> > >> Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing > >> resolution do you think there will come a time where certain fields of > >> photography will not be around any more? >>>Snip<<< > > So, no I don't think the 'still' photographer will disappear from sporting > > events. > Still photography and vidography are opposite sides of the same coin. > However, the art forms are much different in that Still photography requires [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still shots. The vidiographer on the other hand will never require the same > skill or talent to capture the moment. Well, I don't know if I'd consider the sports photographer a true photographer in the classic sense of the word-- he or she is mostly a five-frames-per-second videographer, standing on the sidelines with an image-stablized, pre-focussed long lens, a pre-metered exposure setting and holding a finger on the shutter button as a play unfolds, hoping that one of the cranked-out auto exposures will catch "the moment", as they often do. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but sports "photography" is to still photography as MacDonalds is to good home cooking. >At 25fps (PAL) why would you pay >a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo >Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video >editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and >pick the best of 100 images? 1/25 of a second is an epoch in the world of instantaneous action photography. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Hi all... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer > be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model. I notice you neglected to mention curling, the most photo-friendly sport in existence. To me, capturing that frenetic broom action is the sole reason cameras were invented. > Hi all... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer > be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model. Whereas this might happen someday I rather doubt that it will happen in 5 years, or even 10 for that matter. With more and more DH video there will be more stills taken off of video but it still will not compare to a good still camera. Still I expect the frame rate of digital cameras to continue to increase. But someone who is really good can time the shutter very well, so the fame rate would have to be very high before you could do better then just pushing the shutter at the right time. Scott > > Hi all... > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott Walked up to the sink and took this on the first shot http://harryphotos.com/droplogo.jpg took about another 200 and didnt get one as good lol. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.