Video stills vs DSLR images.

Matt Taylor

Matt Taylor

Messages
100
Name
Matthew
Edit My Images
Yes
A couple have accepted our quote for a wedding photography package and have also chosen a videographer. Evidently the videographer has offered to do 200 video stills burnt to a DVD and the bride is now not so sure that she still needs a photographer, I have no idea what the videographer is using nor do I know a great deal about video cameras etc but would I be right in thinking that video stills will not be comparable in quality to DSLR images?

Got a meeting with the bride on Friday and need to come up with some kind of truthful reason why she cannot do without a photographer.
 
not a patch on a dslr!

not much help but im sure the wedding togs can give you more usefull info to use in the meeting
 
I presume it depends on what they use to video - if its a DSLR like the 5D2 then they will be high quality.
 
No, video stills will be in no way comparable in quality, resolution etc. You would not want to print them at any decent size whatsoever, even if they film in HD.

The actual quality of the video stills depends on the camera and the modes and types of recording, but in short, no, get a photographer as well =)

If you make a post on here, I'm sure that some local pros will be happy to get in touch with you and show you their work.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
No, video stills will be in no way comparable in quality, resolution etc. You would not want to print them at any decent size whatsoever, even if they film in HD.

The actual quality of the video stills depends on the camera and the modes and types of recording, but in short, no, get a photographer as well =)

If you make a post on here, I'm sure that some local pros will be happy to get in touch with you and show you their work.
Click to expand...

You presume that a DSLR is not been used to video the event..........
 
Matt Taylor said:
But if they were using a DSLR with video capability you would imagine they would advertise themselves as a photographer first and a videographer second.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Why ? some people buy DSLR's primarily for the video functions and its ability to capture still images is a secondary function.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
You presume that a DSLR is not been used to video the event..........
Click to expand...

But even so, pulling stills from the video would still only give you a 1920x1080 image, which it prety tiny compared to the resolution of a still taken on the same DSLR. I think that's the point being made anyway :thinking:
 
chris321 said:
But even so, pulling stills from the video would still only give you a 1920x1080 image, which it prety tiny compared to the resolution of a still taken on the same DSLR. I think that's the point being made anyway :thinking:
Click to expand...

No my 5D2 still take 21Mpix stills while videoing - you just press the shutter button while videoing and it takes a still.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
No my 5D2 still take 21Mpix stills while videoing - you just press the shutter button while videoing and it takes a still.
Click to expand...

Oooh, that's clever, didn't know it could do that :)

In that case, it depends on what the videographer's offering. If he's shooting the wedding on a DSLR and taking full resolution shots simultaneously, then it may be a different kettle of fish to just pulling a frame from the footage. Can't really advise more, but I reckon she'd regret not having a photographer there!
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
No my 5D2 still take 21Mpix stills while videoing - you just press the shutter button while videoing and it takes a still.
Click to expand...

Yes but that is a still image from a dslr. Not a video still. That is one frame grabbed from the 30 taken every second.

The videographer is very unlikely to be shooting anything like a red one and would be daft to video with a DSLR, mainly coz it looks stupid :P. More likely a Sony hdv-Z5 or similar. Therefore giving 1920x1080. And the aspect ratio will be 16:9 which for stills is AWFUL

Tell the bride this and the fact that she REALLY does need a tog.
 
kingbling11 said:
Yes but that is a still image from a dslr. Not a video still. That is one frame grabbed from the 30 taken every second.

The videographer is very unlikely to be shooting anything like a red one and would be daft to video with a DSLR, mainly coz it looks stupid :P. More likely a Sony hdv-Z5 or similar. Therefore giving 1920x1080. And the aspect ratio will be 16:9 which for stills is AWFUL

Tell the bride this and the fact that she REALLY does need a tog.
Click to expand...

Your having a laugh............... :cuckoo: why not a DSLR

This videographer didnt mind looking stupid
 
Last edited:
Meh. I stand corrected, just what ive seen of dslr video has always left something to be desired, and really I've never seen nor heard of people doing weddings with them. Still frame grabs are not acceptable wedding photos.
 
I've found the videographer's site and he is using a Sony VX1000, whilst I don't doubt his abilities as a videographer the stills images on the site are really not great. They are in 4:3 format with lots of bad backgrounds, heads partially chopped off, poor lighting etc.

The is no comparison between these stills and DSLR quality, but can I convince a client of that?.:thinking:
 
Matt Taylor said:
The is no comparison between these stills and DSLR quality, but can I convince a client of that?.:thinking:
Click to expand...

Show them? Compare your portfolio to the stills, but don't be overly critical of the other guy's work (word it very carefully!), you don't want to get yourself in trouble! Perhaps "Here's my portfolio, here's the guys's website, have a look"?

Also have a look at what sizes you can realistically print to from a vid cap, and say that if they want to print larger than 6x4 or whatever, they'll need a photographer!
 
Last edited:
Matt Taylor said:
I've found the videographer's site and he is using a Sony VX1000, whilst I don't doubt his abilities as a videographer the stills images on the site are really not great. They are in 4:3 format with lots of bad backgrounds, heads partially chopped off, poor lighting etc.

The is no comparison between these stills and DSLR quality, but can I convince a client of that?.:thinking:
Click to expand...

Ah........Point the client at his site and get them to compare with your site ?

Cross post.
 
Matt Taylor said:
I've found the videographer's site and he is using a Sony VX1000, whilst I don't doubt his abilities as a videographer the stills images on the site are really not great. They are in 4:3 format with lots of bad backgrounds, heads partially chopped off, poor lighting etc.

The is no comparison between these stills and DSLR quality, but can I convince a client of that?.:thinking:
Click to expand...

Video stills! they would be like those taken from Uncle Jimmy with his compact! That's how you tell them the difference. A videographer's job is very different.

Like noted above a photographer will look for the right backgrounds/light etc. Videographers capture a continuous story of the day and their image quality just doesn't compare.

You should have images you can show them and explain why a video camera can't capture the detail.

Also if it were something that was capable, why isn't every videographer doing it?.... Simple, it's not capable of doing the job right. Yes cheap and if that's what they want then good luck.
 
A VX1000? 0.o I know very little about videography, but looking that model up, it's a camera that was introduced in 1995?! One reason she needs a photographer is her cameraman is using a video cam from last century!

He should forget about offering video stills, and try considering getting a video camera that's up to date.

Wikipedia says of it "The image is created using three 1/3" CCD chips by prismatically splitting the optics into red, green, and blue, and processing each of these channels individually; this preserves quality especially with red hues. The camera imaged in 410,000 pixels with horizontal resolution of better than 530 lines."

So, she can either have a photographer offering 10+ million high quality pixels, or his or her 410,000 pixels from their video camera, which is designed for video first and stills second.

Added to that you'll be aiming to take good stills, not video. Any good stills they get will be less planned than your stills, and as discussed, lower quality.
 
It has been known that some videographers take with them a DSLR to take pictures in between videoing with their cam-corder!
 
Perhaps I'm missing something here? Video is not the same as high speed shots? If it was? Why would anyone use a DSLR hfps shooting ... ?
 
Boopop said:
A VX1000? 0.o I know very little about videography, but looking that model up, it's a camera that was introduced in 1995?! One reason she needs a photographer is her cameraman is using a video cam from last century!

He should forget about offering video stills, and try considering getting a video camera that's up to date.

Wikipedia says of it "The image is created using three 1/3" CCD chips by prismatically splitting the optics into red, green, and blue, and processing each of these channels individually; this preserves quality especially with red hues. The camera imaged in 410,000 pixels with horizontal resolution of better than 530 lines."

So, she can either have a photographer offering 10+ million high quality pixels, or his or her 410,000 pixels from their video camera, which is designed for video first and stills second.

Added to that you'll be aiming to take good stills, not video. Any good stills they get will be less planned than your stills, and as discussed, lower quality.
Click to expand...

yeah or as most punters believe the more megapixels the better then say, this videographer would have 0.4 megapixel stills (or less than half a megapixel) compared to your multi-million pixel 'big' camera.
 
mastertrinity said:
yeah or as most punters believe the more megapixels the better then say, this videographer would have 0.4 megapixel stills (or less than half a megapixel) compared to your multi-million pixel 'big' camera.
Click to expand...

True. If this person believes the marketing camera companies put out, just tell her you'll have "MORE MEGAPIXELS, MORE MEGAPIXELS, MORE MEGAPIXELS!"
 
How does a videographer cope with low light say-inside the church or the speech, disco afterwards, can he open up the stills on PS, lighten them as they won't be RAW files and will look awfully noisier than shot with a DSLR !
 
I would suggest that the OP gets the bride to obtain a decent sized print from the videographer (using the equipment he'll be using at her wedding) to compare with a similar size print from the OP's kit. Ideally, the subject should be the same to provide a fair comparison but that may be impossible.
 
I would say that lighting will be one of the main differences between stills from a video and a dedicated stills photographer. Flash guns are far more versatile for weddings than video lights so any decent tog will be able to get far better results than someone just taking stills taken from a video.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
No my 5D2 still take 21Mpix stills while videoing - you just press the shutter button while videoing and it takes a still.
Click to expand...

BUT this is not a still grabbed from video. It stops the video and takes the photo and then carry on with the video, this will show in the video a jump so I can not see this being done for a wedding
 
Chaz Photos said:
BUT this is not a still grabbed from video. It stops the video and takes the photo and then carry on with the video, this will show in the video a jump so I can not see this being done for a wedding
Click to expand...

Not when a finished video is produced - anyway the OP's answered the question and a DSLR is not being used so its all academic :)
 
I know of film makers that now use 5D2's and 7D's to shoot most dtuff! TV programs are often shot on DSLR's now! they are very cheap compared to other pro makes of video gear, and the quality is great! so no one using one to shoot a wedding is going to look stupid.. well.. maybe to the uninformed.. the rigs and steadycam attachments you can get for these things makes them every bit as good if not better than the big lumps they have been using...
 
Canons new printers are being marketed on the fact that you can easily print a frame from the movie..eg the MG8170
How well it looks i dont know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top