Is video still needed in DSLRs?

[Tugela]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

This is a common misconception. The optimal shutter speed for shooting video is double the frame rate (1/60th second for 30 frames per second). This might be fine for some purposes, but for anything moving you won't get a sharp image. In fact, the slight blurring that occurs when shooting at the slower shutter speed is desirable for video as the eye fills in the gap. Doesn't work for stills.

This is another common misconception. Setting shutter speed at double the frame rate is only important at low frame rates where there is rapid movement. The resultant blur gives the impression of fluid movement. At higher frame rates it is unnecessary, nor is it necessary if your scene doesn't have rapid movement. Most TV sets nowdays have some sort of frame doubling or quading going on, on those sets slow shutter speeds is more of a detriment than an advantage.

 

[Proscribo]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

I somehow doubt this. While it may be true for very fast action and at some point the equipment does allow that, shooting video for stills (let's say video means at least 30fps, however this could be way up too) will in most cases just produce way too much data for us photographers to work with. Heck there's been multiple times when I've just deleted a bunch of photos of a single burst because they all looked good, I don't have time to pixel-peep every single photo I take. And this is with my 70D that has only 7fps and doesn't always produce perfect pics... but ofc there are times when I (and many others?) could use video-like 30fps speed but simply put, it's just not worth the work most of the time.

Equipment will get faster and faster but people mostly don't. However I do wish picking out those just-right frames later would be that easy.. it would ease up things already.

PS. I hope you people understand what I write here.

 

[Kmccarthy]

The original appeal of the 5DII (for video) was the large sensor, high quality lenses, in a light weight, cost effective package. Nothing like that existed at the time. The fact that it was also a DSLR was not really a factor for most videographers. Now there are several dedicated video cameras that meet those requirements, along with better video ergonomics and features. Videographers now have better options than DSLRs.
However, video should continue to be supported in DSLRs for semi-pros and amatures that want an all-in-one solution.

 

[Don Haines]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

I somehow doubt this. While it may be true for very fast action and at some point the equipment does allow that, shooting video for stills (let's say video means at least 30fps, however this could be way up too) will in most cases just produce way too much data for us photographers to work with. Heck there's been multiple times when I've just deleted a bunch of photos of a single burst because they all looked good, I don't have time to pixel-peep every single photo I take. And this is with my 70D that has only 7fps and doesn't always produce perfect pics... but ofc there are times when I (and many others?) could use video-like 30fps speed but simply put, it's just not worth the work most of the time.

Equipment will get faster and faster but people mostly don't. However I do wish picking out those just-right frames later would be that easy.. it would ease up things already.

PS. I hope you people understand what I write here.

Let's say I want to shoot video at 30FPS..... I want my shutter speed at around 1/40 second. If there is action, every one of the stills extracted from the video will be blurred. When we watch it as a movie, our brain interprets these blurred images and puts them together as smooth action and we do not notice the blur.

If you shoot video with a high shutter speed, the images have no blur and when watched, the brain interprets this as jerky motion.

In short, you really don't want to take stills from properly done video....

 

[Tugela]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

I somehow doubt this. While it may be true for very fast action and at some point the equipment does allow that, shooting video for stills (let's say video means at least 30fps, however this could be way up too) will in most cases just produce way too much data for us photographers to work with. Heck there's been multiple times when I've just deleted a bunch of photos of a single burst because they all looked good, I don't have time to pixel-peep every single photo I take. And this is with my 70D that has only 7fps and doesn't always produce perfect pics... but ofc there are times when I (and many others?) could use video-like 30fps speed but simply put, it's just not worth the work most of the time.

Equipment will get faster and faster but people mostly don't. However I do wish picking out those just-right frames later would be that easy.. it would ease up things already.

PS. I hope you people understand what I write here.

Let's say I want to shoot video at 30FPS..... I want my shutter speed at around 1/40 second. If there is action, every one of the stills extracted from the video will be blurred. When we watch it as a movie, our brain interprets these blurred images and puts them together as smooth action and we do not notice the blur.

If you shoot video with a high shutter speed, the images have no blur and when watched, the brain interprets this as jerky motion.

In short, you really don't want to take stills from properly done video....

That is only true at low frame rates if you are displaying at that frame rate. Modern TV sets usually run at 120 or 240 fps and interpolate frames. With those sets you can shoot at any shutter speed you feel like at there will be no stuttering. Even at 60 fps stuttering is not really an issue. It is primarily a problem with stuff shot at 24 or 30 fps.

 

[Tinky]

I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.

The advice always is shoot to broadcast system of your country, as that is what the tvs in the shops have been specc'd for.

Before I run a programme out for broadcast I check it on an led tv and a crt tv. Lowest common denominator and all that.

Also, if you start using very high shutter speeds you also start shuttering out light, which you wither have to add with em, more light (I'm fine with this, my reds and cfds play niceat different shutter speeds, led panels.... hmm, not everybody carries lights or wants the hassle), more iris (and so less depth of field options) and / or higher iso (generally not desirable)

I think the option of dual use material is great, but they are not settings you would want to use all the time just in case, as they would be to the detriment of both your video and your stills.

A true hybrid device would probably need to have a prism splitter and two seperate image devices, with different sensor read off rates (a conventional shutter on one imager would probably introduce vibration to the other) different shutter speeds (probably ekectronic shutters) abd different colour soace gamuts (srgb for video, adobe rgb for print)

Yes 4k has the potential for printable grabs, but to be fair, 1080 grabs are more than up to internet and newsprint standards, I can't reasonably think of other situations where I wouldn't want to have a dedicated stills photographer... say portraits, covers etc.

The still image isn't dead, we just seem to keep willing it so. I'm all for divergance. Accountants might not get it. A lot of arrogant photographers might not get it, but video abd stills are totally different... composition is pivotal in stills, a self contained story in a frane essential for photojournalism, wheras video guys can play with sequences and montage, not to mention sound.

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

 

[dolina]

Video helps sell more slrs so one hope is lowers over all selling price.

Without video prices would be higher like those of the Nikon DF.

 

[Don Haines]

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....

 

[Nitroman]

I used my 5D2 just a couple of weeks ago to shoot this video ... And i took stills from the screen grabs for my portfolio.

I absolutely still need video in my dslr as I don't want two lots of kit to carry around !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0PJwV3mEs

 

[Tugela]

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....

Why do you have to accept mediocrity at both? A camera is a camera, the processing of the data, whether it is done as video or as stills, is a computing problem. Clearly it is possible to have high quality at both, as demonstrated by cameras like the NX1 and others like it. I am shocked that any enthusiast would accept anything less than excellence at both in any enthusiast camera because there is no excuse for mediocrity at all.

The only reason manufacturers think they can get away with it is because of attitudes like yours, where "knowledgeable" people believe they need two separate cameras even though they don't really. The manufacturers like that sort of attitude because it allows then to sell two cameras instead of one.

 

[Don Haines]

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....

Why do you have to accept mediocrity at both? A camera is a camera, the processing of the data, whether it is done as video or as stills, is a computing problem. Clearly it is possible to have high quality at both, as demonstrated by cameras like the NX1 and others like it. I am shocked that any enthusiast would accept anything less than excellence at both in any enthusiast camera because there is no excuse for mediocrity at all.

The only reason manufacturers think they can get away with it is because of attitudes like yours, where "knowledgeable" people believe they need two separate cameras even though they don't really. The manufacturers like that sort of attitude because it allows then to sell two cameras instead of one.

I think we have a slight misunderstanding......

You can set up a DSLR for great stills.
You can set up a DSLR for great video.
but you can't do both at the same time on the same camera body or you have to make too many compromises.

 

[Tugela]

I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.

The advice always is shoot to broadcast system of your country, as that is what the tvs in the shops have been specc'd for.

Before I run a programme out for broadcast I check it on an led tv and a crt tv. Lowest common denominator and all that.

Also, if you start using very high shutter speeds you also start shuttering out light, which you wither have to add with em, more light (I'm fine with this, my reds and cfds play niceat different shutter speeds, led panels.... hmm, not everybody carries lights or wants the hassle), more iris (and so less depth of field options) and / or higher iso (generally not desirable)

I think the option of dual use material is great, but they are not settings you would want to use all the time just in case, as they would be to the detriment of both your video and your stills.

A true hybrid device would probably need to have a prism splitter and two seperate image devices, with different sensor read off rates (a conventional shutter on one imager would probably introduce vibration to the other) different shutter speeds (probably ekectronic shutters) abd different colour soace gamuts (srgb for video, adobe rgb for print)

Yes 4k has the potential for printable grabs, but to be fair, 1080 grabs are more than up to internet and newsprint standards, I can't reasonably think of other situations where I wouldn't want to have a dedicated stills photographer... say portraits, covers etc.

The still image isn't dead, we just seem to keep willing it so. I'm all for divergance. Accountants might not get it. A lot of arrogant photographers might not get it, but video abd stills are totally different... composition is pivotal in stills, a self contained story in a frane essential for photojournalism, wheras video guys can play with sequences and montage, not to mention sound.

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Not necessary. Modern digital TV sets adjust their frame rates to the input signal. Display complications come in when you try to change the frame rate in your editor. You should be shooting to match the frame rate of your output device.

If your TV can interpolate between frames (as most mid to high end sets can) then the shutter speed doesn't matter since the interpolation will create the illusion of fluid motion (that is what it is there for). Low shutter speeds will at motion blur, and on an interpolated frame that will simply become smudging. IIRC the human eye requires about 40fps for the illusion of fluid motion, anything over that and shutter speed is not a big issue. When you shoot at 30fps or 24fps then you start to encounter problems because the eye can see the difference at those intervals. The main problem occurs not on modern TV sets, but on computer monitors, which are much more limited in terms of display options.

The basic rule is to match your shooting rate to the output. In general terms it means that good practice for the widest possible selection of display devices is to shoot at 60fps.

 

[Tugela]

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....

Why do you have to accept mediocrity at both? A camera is a camera, the processing of the data, whether it is done as video or as stills, is a computing problem. Clearly it is possible to have high quality at both, as demonstrated by cameras like the NX1 and others like it. I am shocked that any enthusiast would accept anything less than excellence at both in any enthusiast camera because there is no excuse for mediocrity at all.

The only reason manufacturers think they can get away with it is because of attitudes like yours, where "knowledgeable" people believe they need two separate cameras even though they don't really. The manufacturers like that sort of attitude because it allows then to sell two cameras instead of one.

I think we have a slight misunderstanding......

You can set up a DSLR for great stills.
You can set up a DSLR for great video.
but you can't do both at the same time on the same camera body or you have to make too many compromises.

Of course you can. If you are still stuck in the old paradigm of shooting on film, you might think so, but it is not true in the modern world.

 

[that1guyy]

I used my 5D2 just a couple of weeks ago to shoot this video ... And i took stills from the screen grabs for my portfolio.

I absolutely still need video in my dslr as I don't want two lots of kit to carry around !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0PJwV3mEs

Nice images. I sometimes forget that the 5D II is still very capable in the right hands.

 

[Don Haines]

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....

Why do you have to accept mediocrity at both? A camera is a camera, the processing of the data, whether it is done as video or as stills, is a computing problem. Clearly it is possible to have high quality at both, as demonstrated by cameras like the NX1 and others like it. I am shocked that any enthusiast would accept anything less than excellence at both in any enthusiast camera because there is no excuse for mediocrity at all.

The only reason manufacturers think they can get away with it is because of attitudes like yours, where "knowledgeable" people believe they need two separate cameras even though they don't really. The manufacturers like that sort of attitude because it allows then to sell two cameras instead of one.

I think we have a slight misunderstanding......

You can set up a DSLR for great stills.
You can set up a DSLR for great video.
but you can't do both at the same time on the same camera body or you have to make too many compromises.

Of course you can. If you are still stuck in the old paradigm of shooting on film, you might think so, but it is not true in the modern world.

If you wish to convince me that there is no compromise in trying to shoot video and extract stills from it, all you have to do is teach me how, using a video file of 8 bit heavily compressed 2Mpixel mpeg, I can extract 3 x 14 bits of 20+ Mpixel RAW file.

 

[Tinky]

being technically possible and being creatively or aesthetically desirable are of course two different things.

on something as carefully lit and cinematographered as a feature film (not to mention footage with minimal compression) yeah, the 8mp grabs will look great for pr purposes...

stills from xavcs or h265 temporalily and spatially reconstructed... technically poorer

set yo for srgb (for video) or adobe rgb, either print or the display is losing out...

yes you can do it. good luck to those who will accept those kind of compromises.

one useful situation? evidence. another? medical reference. another? photojournalism.

otherwise, you are better with a dedicated brain for each task. folk who don't get this have never done video seriously.

 

[Tinky]

I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.

The advice always is shoot to broadcast system of your country, as that is what the tvs in the shops have been specc'd for.

Before I run a programme out for broadcast I check it on an led tv and a crt tv. Lowest common denominator and all that.

Also, if you start using very high shutter speeds you also start shuttering out light, which you wither have to add with em, more light (I'm fine with this, my reds and cfds play niceat different shutter speeds, led panels.... hmm, not everybody carries lights or wants the hassle), more iris (and so less depth of field options) and / or higher iso (generally not desirable)

I think the option of dual use material is great, but they are not settings you would want to use all the time just in case, as they would be to the detriment of both your video and your stills.

A true hybrid device would probably need to have a prism splitter and two seperate image devices, with different sensor read off rates (a conventional shutter on one imager would probably introduce vibration to the other) different shutter speeds (probably ekectronic shutters) abd different colour soace gamuts (srgb for video, adobe rgb for print)

Yes 4k has the potential for printable grabs, but to be fair, 1080 grabs are more than up to internet and newsprint standards, I can't reasonably think of other situations where I wouldn't want to have a dedicated stills photographer... say portraits, covers etc.

The still image isn't dead, we just seem to keep willing it so. I'm all for divergance. Accountants might not get it. A lot of arrogant photographers might not get it, but video abd stills are totally different... composition is pivotal in stills, a self contained story in a frane essential for photojournalism, wheras video guys can play with sequences and montage, not to mention sound.

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both

Not necessary. Modern digital TV sets adjust their frame rates to the input signal. Display complications come in when you try to change the frame rate in your editor. You should be shooting to match the frame rate of your output device.

If your TV can interpolate between frames (as most mid to high end sets can) then the shutter speed doesn't matter since the interpolation will create the illusion of fluid motion (that is what it is there for). Low shutter speeds will at motion blur, and on an interpolated frame that will simply become smudging. IIRC the human eye requires about 40fps for the illusion of fluid motion, anything over that and shutter speed is not a big issue. When you shoot at 30fps or 24fps then you start to encounter problems because the eye can see the difference at those intervals. The main problem occurs not on modern TV sets, but on computer monitors, which are much more limited in terms of display options.

The basic rule is to match your shooting rate to the output. In general terms it means that good practice for the widest possible selection of display devices is to shoot at 60fps.

Actually, it's 24fps.
But you are better shooting for the broadcast system of your region, which for half the planet isn't NTSC or 60fps.

Modern tv sets can handle different signals. But if you are shooting for broadcast you need cognisence of what the briadcast system is, and of what broadcasters will accept. When it goes over the tx system it's a standardised container, no matter how it was shot, so even the smartest telly in the world will only see the standardised 50i or 60i input and treat your fast shutter, deliberately strobing band if brothers esque the same as it would a game show, tennis match, wildlife documentary or sofa advert.

I.e. Relying on your fancy telly to fix it it in your front room is fine for you, if your footage is only for you.. and even then it might just undo a carefully selected shutter angle artefact, but heys...

 

[Don Haines]

Actually, it's 24fps.
But you are better shooting for the broadcast system of your region, which for half the planet isn't NTSC or 60fps.

Modern tv sets can handle different signals. But if you are shooting for broadcast you need cognisence of what the briadcast system is, and of what broadcasters will accept. When it goes over the tx system it's a standardised container, no matter how it was shot, so even the smartest telly in the world will only see the standardised 50i or 60i input and treat your fast shutter, deliberately strobing band if brothers esque the same as it would a game show, tennis match, wildlife documentary or sofa advert.

I.e. Relying on your fancy telly to fix it it in your front room is fine for you, if your footage is only for you.. and even then it might just undo a carefully selected shutter angle artefact, but heys...

Flying birds are great for artifacts. It is rare to see footage of flying birds where the wings are flapping at the true speed..... usually because the flap so fast they would be a blur.... but with some of the larger birds (think geese) you can get a beat frequency where each frame is synchronized with the wings and you get the appearance of the bird flying without moving it's wings and if you are really lucky, with multiple pairs of wings. My favourite was one clip I saw which showed a Canada goose with 3 pairs of stationary wings fly across the sky... no TV is going to fix that one......

 

[Tinky]

Exactly.

Everybody is getting all het up about the super slo-mo capabilities of the RX100iv and the RX10ii. Whats the point of shooting at 1/32'000 and 500fps to get the beat of a bumblebees wings if your snazzy telly thinks it knows better and tries to fix the 'artefacts' which were actually intended.

I think sometimes consumers can have too much choice and that a little knowledge is usually a dangerous thing.

 

[Don Haines]

Exactly.

Everybody is getting all het up about the super slo-mo capabilities of the RX100iv and the RX10ii. Whats the point of shooting at 1/32'000 and 500fps to get the beat of a bumblebees wings if your snazzy telly thinks it knows better and tries to fix the 'artefacts' which were actually intended.

I think sometimes consumers can have too much choice and that a little knowledge is usually a dangerous thing.

It is good if you want to slow things down to examine it.... but with the bird example, EVERYONE plays it slowed down and people who watch TV have no idea how fast the wee beasties flap....

Here's an example of chickadees.... some of the footage is at normal speed and the wings show up in random positions.... and some of the footage is slowed down by a factor of 20 so you can see... Apologies for the quality... just fooling around and couldn't be bothered putting in sound....

https://vimeo.com/119292758