Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2009, 10:57 PM   #76
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by RawheaD Quote
Some pompous commenter up there somewhere suggested this mode of photography as being blasphemous. I laugh. You've never used a motor drive with your film cams back in the day? You've never shot "continuous" or even "burst" mode on your Pentax? You can ridicule this idea if you answered no to all those questions, and will continue not to. If you have, then WTF? It's the same principle.
Your whole post is pretty damn pompous if you ask me.

I can answer 'no' to all your questions, so by your own admission, I can ridicule your idea.

Burst mode is the same principle as video??? Amazing.

05-14-2009, 11:00 PM   #77
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Venturi Quote
I'd just like to interject that there is a high degree of uncertainty that you just opened a rift in space-time with that post.
LOL

I almost had to break out a calculator to make sure I followed the logic correctly.
05-14-2009, 11:23 PM   #78
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
Your whole post is pretty damn pompous if you ask me.

I can answer 'no' to all your questions, so by your own admission, I can ridicule your idea.

Burst mode is the same principle as video??? Amazing.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim burst mode being the same as video, but there's an important point to ponder there. Where do you draw the line as to what's "real" photography and what's not? At what framerate can we still claim we're taking still pictures, and at what framerate would we be "cheating" by picking out 1 frame out of a burst? 3fps? 5? 10? 24? 60? Interesting discussion point. I don't have an opinion on that necessarily; just wanted to point out that the assertion isn't as ridiculous as it might sound off hand.

Those who don't want to take video with their DSLRs can still live comfortably with the ability to completely ignore the inevitable video functionality that will be built into just about every DSLR from here on out (there's some debate as to whether pro DSLRs will have it, as shooting rights for still and video are negotiated separately at venues these days). Those who are keen to explore a new artform or just want to have 1 device that primarily takes photos but can do video reasonably well will welcome the inclusion of video on their DSLRs. Whether you like it or not, it's coming. You don't have to embrace it, but it will be there.

I wasn't too hot on the idea of video in a DSLR when the D90 came out, but I've since warmed to the idea. So far the implementations have been pretty lame--weak continuous AF if any, and no manual controls (GH1 might have it?). DSLR video is very much in its infancy, so Pentax have a big chance to do things right with their first try. We'll see if they do.
05-14-2009, 11:48 PM   #79
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
Those who don't want to take video with their DSLRs can still live comfortably with the ability to completely ignore the inevitable video functionality that will be built into just about every DSLR from here on out
Except that we'll also have to live with the inevitable compromises required to accomodate both, not to mention being forced to pay for features that will go unused.

05-15-2009, 01:15 AM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 548
Where to begin with all this frothing?

If I don't switch over to a DSLR that shoots HD video then I will have been left way, way behind... behind what? Have you switched over to a full frame DSLR that shoots video, why leave yourself behind with just an APS-C DSLR that shoots HD video? What it only shoots 720p and 1080i? Well, you and I are in the same boat, I neither have a full frame DSLR, nor do I have one that shoots HD video. I am being left behind, but I still don't know from what. I forgot to mention, I shoot film, black and white to boot, how much further behind am I being left. Wait, what are we in line for again??

QuoteOriginally posted by RawheaD Quote
So, go ahead, be that last guy that switches over, like those last of the breed film photographers that are now, finally, moving over to digital (btw, I have a lot to thank those guys; I recently made several sweet, sweet MF lens acquisition from such folk). In the mean time, the world will move on, and unless you are among the cream of the crop photographers, it will have left you way, way behind.
05-15-2009, 02:11 AM   #81
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by yurihuta Quote
I forgot to mention, I shoot film, black and white to boot, how much further behind am I being left. Wait, what are we in line for again??
Exactly. If we don't wave our money with glee in front of the latest technology bandwagon, we're labeled as contrarians, dinosaurs, technophobes. I'm not any of those things, nor am I a lemming.
05-15-2009, 02:30 AM   #82
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Taipei
Posts: 34
QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
Exactly. If we don't wave our money with glee in front of the latest technology bandwagon, we're labeled as contrarians, dinosaurs, technophobes. I'm not any of those things, nor am I a lemming.
No. You're part of a rather vociferous chorus crying, "If you want it, go buy another camera. Hands off my tools." It's a tiresome refrain, often repeated, and would shrink the potential market for the camera. So you can't be surprised if some users who have been waiting for something like this for many years push back and the company goes off in a different direction. Besides, the marginal cost to purists is a fraction of that of a second camera.
05-15-2009, 02:38 AM   #83
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
Video means processing has to become faster. How is that a problem for stills ?
At worse case, it doesn't change anything.
At best case, it will allow faster shooting.

Why would anyone complain?

05-15-2009, 03:25 AM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
QuoteOriginally posted by RawheaD Quote
I laugh at the "purists". You're the type that resisted computers (I'm doing fine on my IBM, thank you!), resisted Photoshop, resisted digital cameras, and in the end, you're shooting with a K20D, tweaking your RAWs with Lightroom/Aperture on your Mac, and, yeah, why not, use Photoshop now and again.

It will be the same for this "video thing", and 10 years from now, you will all be shooting a cam that does video, and importantly, you'll be loving it. You can quote me on that. 10 years from now. You really can, because I've been RawheaD on the 'net since 1995, so I'll be RawheaD on the 'net in 2020 :-)


The debate about whether or not video on DSLR will replace dedicated video cams (and/or vice versa) is besides the point. The point is, if you're not bound by technological limits, the possibility is there so that you can, e.g., depress the shutter, and it will record 4K HD video for the duration @ 120fps, and if you so choose, can select the best frame as your shot.


Some pompous commenter up there somewhere suggested this mode of photography as being blasphemous. I laugh. You've never used a motor drive with your film cams back in the day? You've never shot "continuous" or even "burst" mode on your Pentax? You can ridicule this idea if you answered no to all those questions, and will continue not to. If you have, then WTF? It's the same principle.


I'm not suggesting *all* shots should be taken like that, and I don't need lectures on the art of "capturing the moment." I also shoot 120 film, thank you very much. The question I posed was "Who wouldn't want such a capability in your cam". Now, if you only do landscape photography or highly controlled studio photography, maybe your answer is "Not I". But, if you're honest, and you do sports photography, bird or any kind of animal photography, anything with movement, really, then you are going to want it, and if the capability is there, you are going to use it. Hell, even in the studio, fashion photographers would definitely use it, like that Vogue cover (or whatever it was) that was shot with a RED cam.

Similarly, on the video camera side (RED is a great example), there have always been lame "still" shot capabilities, lame because the sensor size was always lame. But, when you get high quality video, like RED, you suddenly have the capability to extract a high quality still from video, and you can bet you'll see more and more such stills. E.g., movie posters where the still image is a direct extract from the motion picture that was shot using 4K HD. And a lot of those shots are gonna be better looking "stills" than what many of you could ever shoot (yeah, that includes me).


So, go ahead, be that last guy that switches over, like those last of the breed film photographers that are now, finally, moving over to digital (btw, I have a lot to thank those guys; I recently made several sweet, sweet MF lens acquisition from such folk). In the mean time, the world will move on, and unless you are among the cream of the crop photographers, it will have left you way, way behind.
i am not sure if you were refering to me, but to be clear: i am not completely against the concept, and, as i said on another occasion, though i have my reservations, i realitically hope pentax gets it right with the k7, because it will mean a lot for their market share, _and_ it is a great interesting feature.

my point about not using video to select stills is not about blasphemy, i will generally use anything available to get the job done, i don't mind "cheating", it's just that it doesn't work like that. try it with a video cam, and you will see: stills are different, and you have to think differently, if you don't, you will only be getting average results at best, getting more of them will not help.

i think you have good points hidden somewhere in there , mostly, but your rant is a bit off-base: my feeling is that people here are cautious about such a change, and would like to be sure they don't get "ripped off" in the process, which is normal, from this to calling them ludites is a bit of a stretch.
05-15-2009, 03:37 AM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I agree to what you wrote.

In the first point, You're right, you need a counter and read-out electronics at each photosite, say 100 transistors, or 1bn transistors altogether. Not cheap but feasible. The best is that this way, you can start detecting single photon events ... Maybe even their energy, aka color (now, we're in future land)
leaving the futureland aside (it sounds good, but would mean technology the existence of which we are not sure about yet) i've been thinking: instead of reading, maybe something like capacitors behind those photosites would be a better compromise (you would be able to charge them several times over what the photosite can take, not have to digitally read the signal during the exposure, and still get significantly improved highlight DR)? after you are done exposing, you read the capacitors behind instead of the photosites themselves, so you have the "sum" already made for you physically, and the photosites are always ready to take more charge (until the "capacitors" "fill up" themselves), which should fix the speed problem, sounds like it would be cheaper to do, and also should be less computationally expensive. it's just a wild (and mostly uninformed) idea though.

QuoteQuote:
In the second point, the important word is "quantum efficiency" (QE). You're right, there is room for improvement. But QE isn't that bad now. Even approaching 100% in dedicated B&W cooled astro equipment...
that's interesting, i was hoping you have more precise info about this, i was under the impression we are not yet near exploiting the QE of the current sensors (i am talking about handholdable digital cameras, astro applications are a different can of spineless creatures ), interesting to know my perception was wrong.

QuoteQuote:
And again, we left the topic of this thread and I propose to continue this discussion some day in a more appropriate thread
you are right of course, but i am unsure if that's truly a bad thing . it sure is an interesting discussion (joking; my appologies to the original poster for the hijack)
05-15-2009, 03:46 AM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to claim burst mode being the same as video, but there's an important point to ponder there. Where do you draw the line as to what's "real" photography and what's not? At what framerate can we still claim we're taking still pictures, and at what framerate would we be "cheating" by picking out 1 frame out of a burst? 3fps? 5? 10? 24? 60? Interesting discussion point. I don't have an opinion on that necessarily; just wanted to point out that the assertion isn't as ridiculous as it might sound off hand.
i don't (draw the line), why should i? rest assured, i would not be ashamed to take 100fps if that gets me what i want in the end easier. but, imho, it doesn't, and the line, if you must have one, must be drawn where it is actually pointless to have more fps, and hinders your shooting more than it helps it (not to mention the huge data processing involved, selection process and so on). it's different for different people, but i am pretty sure that, with very few exceptions, the line is drawn well bellow 10fps (for instance, even though i shoot sports, i never used the burst mode, i tried once or twice, but i feel it stops me from being in control of what i shoot; i also don't play the lottery, so that might explain it)
05-15-2009, 04:05 AM   #87
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to claim burst mode being the same as video, but there's an important point to ponder there. Where do you draw the line as to what's "real" photography and what's not? At what framerate can we still claim we're taking still pictures, and at what framerate would we be "cheating" by picking out 1 frame out of a burst? 3fps? 5? 10? 24? 60? Interesting discussion point.

I wasn't too hot on the idea of video in a DSLR when the D90 came out, but I've since warmed to the idea. So far the implementations have been pretty lame--weak continuous AF if any, and no manual controls (GH1 might have it?). DSLR video is very much in its infancy, so Pentax have a big chance to do things right with their first try. We'll see if they do.
Yohan,

Your post hit home with me ... I'm was pretty old school as far as photography is concerned, but I use digital now and will never go back to film, I just bought two new K20D's and IMHO they are far superior to my older K10D's. The next generation K-7 I'm sure will be light years ahead of my K20D's.

I use to think it was cheating but now the media has changed and what we used to think of as photography in the pure sense has become image capturing and we are using new tools to do it.

I think the "He's/She's a Still Shooter" days are over and the "He's/She's a Recorder" days have begun. Not necessarily a good thing but something that will happen. As the late great singer Sam Cook said "A change is gonna come"


wll
05-15-2009, 06:30 AM   #88
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
...it might be that video composition is a superset of still composition. That is, with video you have to deal with all of the factors of still composition PLUS additional factors due to motion, whether it be subject motion or camera motion.
This is exactly the way I approach video much of the time...as a series of compositions. For me, video and still photography have been entertwined for the last 30 years or so. I started out as a rabid still photographer and got into tv as a way to make a living. TV wasn't my first love, but it was still a way to use cameras, lenses, lights, etc... and get paid for it. So I've shot video and stills for quite a while. Despite the similarities between the two forms, they've always been somewhat separate in my mind. By that I mean, I've traditionally given a lot more weight to my still pics than I have to still frames from my video. With video, no matter how much I liked a particular composition, I have very little attachment to any single frame because I know it's just one of...geez...how many?...300 for a 10 second shot? Whereas, still pics seem more precious because the really good ones may only be one out of 3 or 4 and sometimes may be the ONLY one of it's kind. Very rarily have I been able to shoot stills and video of the same scene. I've tried, but it's never worked out to my satisfaction. SO...I'm sitting her wondering how my attitude will change once I can shoot both, high quality stills and video, with just the flick of a switch. Will I start to value video as much as stills or will my opinions of still pics be diminished? Or will it land somewhere in-between or perhaps go to someplace entirely new? I'm curious to see what happens.
05-15-2009, 07:00 AM   #89
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Jaboney Quote
No. You're part of a rather vociferous chorus crying, "If you want it, go buy another camera. Hands off my tools." It's a tiresome refrain, often repeated, and would shrink the potential market for the camera. So you can't be surprised if some users who have been waiting for something like this for many years push back and the company goes off in a different direction. Besides, the marginal cost to purists is a fraction of that of a second camera.
If they were really waiting for this as you say, they would have jumped on the D90 or 5D long ago. I have as much right to voice my preferences as you or anyone else. You're basically telling me to shut up so you can have your way.
05-15-2009, 07:17 AM   #90
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
The next generation K-7 I'm sure will be light years ahead of my K20D's.
Light years ahead? No. Incremental upgrade? Yes.

QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
I use to think it was cheating but now the media has changed and what we used to think of as photography in the pure sense has become image capturing and we are using new tools to do it.
No, what we used to think of as photography is still photography. "Image Capturing" as you call it is a new medium.

QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
I think the "He's/She's a Still Shooter" days are over and the "He's/She's a Recorder" days have begun. Not necessarily a good thing but something that will happen..
Again, see above. "Those days" are not over - both types will continue to exist side by side, for better or worse.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
change, day, device, film, movie, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hope and Change , "Hey mister can you spare some change?" seacapt General Talk 19 04-13-2010 05:56 AM
Photographic Bravery Rondec Photographic Technique 30 09-07-2009 07:53 AM
A philosophical question wildman Photographic Technique 12 02-03-2009 07:21 PM
Photographic portfolio MrA Photographic Technique 7 04-21-2008 12:11 AM
Photographic accidents Chako Post Your Photos! 5 09-02-2007 09:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top