Are stills extracted from video the future?

Maybe, we don't know where technology will take us. Compacts that can shoot clean at incredibly high ISO, with stunning 18 - 400mm lens equivalents? High quality stills from video?

Doesn't seem very long ago - to me anyway - that digital was the new kid on the block. It wasn't very good, of course, and was far too expensive for most people, but..........jump forward a few years and the popular wisdom was that video on DSLRs was a gimmick. Some people still think it is. I haven't a clue, I've never tried it. Will the optical VF with its mirror and pentaprism still be around in a few years?
 
It's not the future, it's already being done. Lots of the covers shots for Vogue magazine are stills pulled from Red footage.

It's already happening ...
 
No - the method of lighting is different, with different motivations

Realitstically, in real time (not a full on production) to replicate what can be achieved with flash lighting would be virtually impossible to achieve with video
 
For everything except high speed sports, access to high powered continuous lighting is sufficient for pretty much all other applications surely? If I'm missing something please enlighten me, I can only imagine you're making reference to flash duration and the resulting sharp image capture
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
access to high powered continuous lighting is sufficient for pretty much all other applications surely?
Click to expand...

continuous lights of sufficient power are

- hot (and thus a danger)
- require a lot of energy
- make the subjects squint / pupils constrict
- are not very portable (considering the output Vs flash)
- are not really available in high enough outputs to match what you can creatively do with flash
 
Firstly hot lights are at the cheaper end of the scale. As the power goes up, and the standard of production/budget, you'll find HMI on sets. Which are cold. As are flouros. Both are much MUCH more efficient than tungsten "hot lights". LED lighting is also peering it's head as of late.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure power and output wise, HMI far exceeds that of any little flash tube.

Without wanting to be an ass, I'm confused by your initial argument still, continuous, or flash, I light the same, lights light. Same modifiers even. Unless stated specifically on a shot, nobody would be able to state definitively what was used for a still image....

If vogue covers are being shot by pros using Red one/epics, and technology filters down to consumer level, how can you so blindly state no?

Basically, you're saying continuous light isn't appropriate for photography?!
 
Last edited:
Red as a format is being widely used in feature films and is replacing the use of celluloid film and totally changing the whole industry...

As they recently in the last year or so released the SDK/codecs it's taking off been more as 3rd party workflows can now adopt the format!

This is an interesting topic.. Video is a whole different ball game and I can't really see the advantage of using a video camera to capture stills as video equipment is so much more expensive (when we're talking higher end)
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Firstly hot lights are at the cheaper end of the scale. As the power goes up, and the standard of production/budget, you'll find HMI on sets. Which are cold. As are flouros. Both are much MUCH more efficient than tungsten "hot lights". LED lighting is also peering it's head as of late.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure power and output wise, HMI far exceeds that of any little flash tube.

Without wanting to be an ass, I'm confused by your initial argument still, continuous, or flash, I light the same, lights light. Same modifiers even. Unless stated specifically on a shot, nobody would be able to state definitively what was used for a still image....

If vogue covers are being shot by pros using Red one/epics, and technology filters down to consumer level, how can you so blindly state no?

Basically, you're saying continuous light isn't appropriate for photography?!
Click to expand...

You can't really compare flash lights with HMI lighting unless you get really technical with numbers etc... Really it's horses for courses... You can't use flash lighting for Video, but you could use a high powered HMI as a constant light source for photography... The difference is though the equivalent HMI would require so much power supplied to it it would make it logistically pointless when a single mains flashead could do the job...
 
Thanks for your input Gareth.

I don't think it's totally out of turn to discuss HMI without mentioning figures to be honest. Will it crank out the lumens of a 3000w/s pack head? Nope. But what percentage of photographers use that much power?

A portrait photographer could easily get away with a couple of low wattage HMI lamps and still get a reasonable shutter speed. The sun doesn't crank out the eq light of a high output flash head, but is it unsuitable for photography?

HMI, led and flouro lamps are available plenty powerful enough for photography. In a staged studio environment I'd prefer it every time. However....

Areas where it won't work, nightclubs, weddings etc where a flash gun is often a requirement as there are other factors like time and guests etc

Anyway....back on topic lol
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Thanks for your input Gareth.

I don't think it's totally out of turn to discuss HMI without mentioning figures to be honest. Will it crank out the lumens of a 3000w/s pack head? Nope. But what percentage of photographers use that much power?

A portrait photographer could easily get away with a couple of low wattage HMI lamps and still get a reasonable shutter speed. The sun doesn't crank out the eq light of a high output flash head, but is it unsuitable for photography?

HMI, led and flouro lamps are available plenty powerful enough for photography. In a staged studio environment I'd prefer it every time. However....

Areas where it won't work, nightclubs, weddings etc where a flash gun is often a requirement as there are other factors like time and guests etc

Anyway....back on topic lol
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning out of turn to discuss, more they are totally different kind of lights with such different logistics, especially the higher power you go... :)
 
Surrey_gareth said:
I wasn't meaning out of turn to discuss, more they are totally different kind of lights with such different logistics, especially the higher power you go... :)
Click to expand...

Logistics and power requirements I'll definitely agree with. I'm not suggesting continuous is the only route for photography by any means. The previous poster had basically written off continuous lighting for any kind of photography, which is just wrong. The evidence is there on the Red site, there's no reason why top quality stills can't be extracted from moving images, it's happening. An argument of, lighting wise it's not gonna happen, just doesn't stand up. In controlled environments it's perfectly doable.

Tech advances will no doubt head toward ever more useable iso, and more efficient lighting, as we progress it should become less and less of an issue
 
however, in a controlled environment, why would you be shooting video?
 
No more pose, flash, pose, flash, pose, flash...some people find it difficult to relax in front of a camera. The ability to leave a video running, whilst talking and entertaining the subject, running them through poses etc, or actually giving them a brief scene to act out like Megan Fox and the Esquire shots. Of course you can do it with stills, I'm just questioning whether it's easier with an extraction from video. No missing shots, no posing specifically for one frame, you could set up a pose and move your lights whilst the models holding it and have frames not just in positions A and B, but everything in between
 
I'm really struggling with this one - it is philosophically the opposite of what photography is about, and utterly impracticable, the moment you are in a dynamic situation (weddings for example)

I do feel that this is sheer laziness - laziness in terms of lighting, and laziness in terms of shooting and "capturing the moment"
 
I'm not gonna disagree with that. What I will say, is somebody shooting Vogue covers, at $70,000 per day, with or without a Red, won't care what we think at all....

I do disagree that's it's not photography, a photograph is a final still image and used as such. Ever noticed "Director of Photography" in a movie credit?

Laziness is ever present in how we all shoot...don't tell me you've never ever thought or said, ah sod it I'll Photoshop that out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top