While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so.
Its a different medium and presents the subject completely differently
Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak). Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo. Will this change the way photographers work?
culling high shot count shoots is a PITA now can you imagine going frame by frame through that to get the best shots out of it?
might sound good in theory but practicality of time invested vs how much you are charging would likely destroy this as an option for still shooting