Video killed the Radio Star (digital Camera)

jogiba · 07-12-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

well i don't think a $59 digital camera can be used for professional photography when you are talking about people paying for a photography service

Wake up, it's 2009 and DSLRs that do video are used to make commercial videos and movies.

DVXuser.com - The Filmmaking Community

LeDave · 07-12-2009, 06:33 PM

Wont be long before they get 60fps too, that way they can actually record real commercials and don't have to record things in slow motion and speed it up. Motion blur XD

jogiba · 07-12-2009, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Wont be long before they get 60fps too, that way they can actually record real commercials and don't have to record things in slow motion and speed it up. Motion blur XD

Wrong, most movies and commercials are filmed at 24fps.

LeDave · 07-12-2009, 06:54 PM

I believe they are filmed at higher FPS.

They are just dumbed down when they are being put into DVD's and such, because the human eye can already see the fluidity of the movie at 24FPS. It's kind of difficult to explain actually, if it were to be recorded at 24FPS, I'm pretty sure the blur would be horrible choppy quality. That is why there is Blu-Ray disc! Movies are no longer being compressed at a lower quality and can now play at 60FPS with a higher resolution. Unless you were referring to something else which I'm sure you are.

vincentgargano · 07-12-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

Wake up, it's 2009 and DSLRs that do video are used to make commercial videos and movies.

DVXuser.com - The Filmmaking Community

I know what year it is thanks for the update ...Ill tell you what ...go get a photography gig charge a few thousand dollars and show up and shoot the whole thing with an apple i touch....see how far that gets you...Remember this was a thread talking about A DSLR CAMERA and usually bought buy photographers...it seems like all you videographers are bent out of shape at my thread it was not to offend video guys ...i could care less if you use a fisher price My First Video Camera to do your films....maybe you might suggest that the k7 should have a fold out knife, can opener, and tooth pick , like a swiss army knife because that could come in handy too....unreal

nostatic · 07-12-2009, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by petercrane

A few weeks back we decided to shoot part of a corporate documentary with a panasonic GH1 and Canon 5Dii. People who were paying us actually approached us and questioned our ability. We decided to switch back to video cameras and finish it off not causing a stir. At a meeting 2 weeks later we screened a draft edit, and they admitted that they liked the look of the slr footage, and that they wished they hadn't said anything.

Anyway. It's marketed as a bonus on the K7. Not a professional feature. Get something like the 5Dii if you want quality and are selling a product. If you dislike video on the K7 either don't use it or go get a job making decisions at Pentax.

That is a whole 'nother discussion - perception vs. reality. The customer is always right except when they aren't. There is a funny story about Chuck Rainey playing on the Steely Dan "Aja" album. They were tracking "Peg" and Chuck wanted to do a slap bass bit in the chorus. Becker and Fagan both said, "no," as slap was somewhat trendy at the moment and they had something else in mind. So Rainey played the part, but as they did take after take he started turning his chair slowly so that Becker and Fagan couldn't see what he was doing. And he started slapping. The track you hear to this day has that slapping part on it.

On our last project we shot everything in HD mostly with Panny HX-200. Of course since I was writer and producer I wasn't going to be a luddite about things, and in fact we ended up running some of the footage through rounds of VHS transfers to get "the look" we were looking for. My boss questioned why we bothered to shoot HD if we were going to go that treatment. My answer was that if it didn't work in post I wanted other options.

Another way that digital has changed everything is that "post" has taken on far more meaning for the typical user. In the past what you shot was what you got unless you were highly skilled in post production techniques. Now you can do a few clicks and get ridiculous amounts of tweaks done. Then click "undo" if you don't like it.

I don't see any of this as "bad" or "good." It just is change - the real constant.

pingflood · 07-12-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

Another way that digital has changed everything is that "post" has taken on far more meaning for the typical user. In the past what you shot was what you got unless you were highly skilled in post production techniques. Now you can do a few clicks and get ridiculous amounts of tweaks done. Then click "undo" if you don't like it.

I don't see any of this as "bad" or "good." It just is change - the real constant.

That was true for Joe Sixpack shooting, but people who were "into" photography would either do their own prints or tell the pro lab to "dodge here" and "burn here" and so forth.

Sure, it's easier now...

...but you can give any monkey a typewriter and chances are that he WON'T produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Same goes for Photoshop.

nostatic · 07-12-2009, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

That was true for Joe Sixpack shooting, but people who were "into" photography would either do their own prints or tell the pro lab to "dodge here" and "burn here" and so forth.

Sure, it's easier now...

...but you can give any monkey a typewriter and chances are that he WON'T produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Same goes for Photoshop.

I agree, but it is a question of scale. Go back 30 years and count the number of people who would do their own prints and dodge/burn. Now fast forward to today and count the number of people who shoot digital and click the "red eye" button or "auto expose" button in a photo program. I would guess a couple orders of magnitude change in numbers.

GLXLR · 07-12-2009, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by bentax

Then dont.

Painters must have been pissed off when photography was invented...

:-D
I sure remember my grandpa going on and on about how photography was so stupid (he was a violinist, cellist, author, poet, mayor, chinese character calligrapher, and an artist). He kept saying why spend so much money on a camera when you can simply pick up a piece of paper+ brush and paint?

Video on a dSLR is useful to some but not all. Sure it adds to the cost, but if you were Pentax (and looking at the current market), to stay in the game you have to do what the big companies are doing (+more).

ozlizard · 07-12-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Video on a dSLR is useful to some but not all. Sure it adds to the cost, but if you were Pentax (and looking at the current market), to stay in the game you have to do what the big companies are doing (+more

If Pentax want to match it with the big guys (and I hope they do) then they need to produce a 20+ megapixel FF camera aimed at the serious photographer and professional. I understand the market pressures to include all the bells and whistles (or gimmicks for the more cynical) but please foreget the video, move on from the K7 and give us a camera to match the best!

vincentgargano · 07-12-2009, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by ozlizard

If Pentax want to match it with the big guys (and I hope they do) then they need to produce a 20+ megapixel FF camera aimed at the serious photographer and professional. I understand the market pressures to include all the bells and whistles (or gimmicks for the more cynical) but please foreget the video, move on from the K7 and give us a camera to match the best!

Amen Brother

you said what i wanted to say just used a few hundred less words then i did.

take care

smokey · 07-12-2009, 09:00 PM

I was getting excited when I heard a new camera was coming from Pentax. Had been holding off upgrading my K10 to the K20 waiting for the next generation. But when I found that there wasn't a whole lot of improvements (ok, there are some, but I was looking for higher MP) and included video and a $1300 price tag, They lost my sale. Hoping the next generation camera will lose the video. I already have several digital video cameras.

nostatic · 07-12-2009, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by smokey

but I was looking for higher MP

Higher MP count in an APS-C sensor? Why would you want that?

jstevewhite · 07-12-2009, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

I believe they are filmed at higher FPS.

They are just dumbed down when they are being put into DVD's and such, because the human eye can already see the fluidity of the movie at 24FPS. It's kind of difficult to explain actually, if it were to be recorded at 24FPS, I'm pretty sure the blur would be horrible choppy quality. That is why there is Blu-Ray disc! Movies are no longer being compressed at a lower quality and can now play at 60FPS with a higher resolution. Unless you were referring to something else which I'm sure you are.

No, he's right. Most pro workflow systems are all about 24fps because that's the standard for film and it's still what most pro workflows are built around. Read the pro video forums, and you'll hear them complaining that in order to fit into a pro studio, the DSLR *must* shoot 24 fps. And they're projected in theaters at 24fps. Lots of people want it to change ( like James Cameron search for fps and read his complaints that *everything is shot in 24fps right now* ) but right now, it's 24fps just as above. Blueray and broadcast TV are 'pulled up' (google it) to 30fps/60fields-per-second. 720P is 30frames-per-second, 1080i is 60 field-per-second (half the scanlines are in each field). You can also check out the wikipedia article for more information: 1080i - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary: jogiba knew of what he spoke.

jstevewhite · 07-12-2009, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by vincentgargano

...go get a photography gig charge a few thousand dollars and show up and shoot the whole thing with an apple i touch....

There is no Apple i touch; there's an iPod touch, and it doesn't have a camera. And it costs as much as some DSLRs. But yeah, they'd be pissed, 'specially since it doesn't have a camera.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Video but not the K-7. Looking for advice on a video camera	Peter Zack	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	09-11-2009 05:24 PM
My Camera Waves Internet Radio Interview Part 3	benjikan	Photographic Technique	0	08-01-2009 03:44 PM
My Camera Waves Internet Radio Interview Part 2	benjikan	Photographic Technique	0	07-31-2009 04:49 PM
Digital Filters in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4?	lawsonstone	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	07-19-2009 04:44 PM
The PENTAX Digital SLR Camera K10D's Video Output Format	Timon@pentaxforums	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	09-20-2006 08:44 PM

07-12-2009, 06:26 PM	#16
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Quote: well i don't think a $59 digital camera can be used for professional photography when you are talking about people paying for a photography service Wake up, it's 2009 and DSLRs that do video are used to make commercial videos and movies. DVXuser.com - The Filmmaking Community

07-12-2009, 06:33 PM	#17
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Wont be long before they get 60fps too, that way they can actually record real commercials and don't have to record things in slow motion and speed it up. Motion blur XD

07-12-2009, 06:45 PM	#18
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by LeDave Wont be long before they get 60fps too, that way they can actually record real commercials and don't have to record things in slow motion and speed it up. Motion blur XD Wrong, most movies and commercials are filmed at 24fps.

07-12-2009, 06:54 PM	#19
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	I believe they are filmed at higher FPS. They are just dumbed down when they are being put into DVD's and such, because the human eye can already see the fluidity of the movie at 24FPS. It's kind of difficult to explain actually, if it were to be recorded at 24FPS, I'm pretty sure the blur would be horrible choppy quality. That is why there is Blu-Ray disc! Movies are no longer being compressed at a lower quality and can now play at 60FPS with a higher resolution. Unless you were referring to something else which I'm sure you are.

07-12-2009, 06:56 PM	#20
vincentgargano Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 33 Original Poster	Originally posted by jogiba Wake up, it's 2009 and DSLRs that do video are used to make commercial videos and movies. DVXuser.com - The Filmmaking Community I know what year it is thanks for the update ...Ill tell you what ...go get a photography gig charge a few thousand dollars and show up and shoot the whole thing with an apple i touch....see how far that gets you...Remember this was a thread talking about A DSLR CAMERA and usually bought buy photographers...it seems like all you videographers are bent out of shape at my thread it was not to offend video guys ...i could care less if you use a fisher price My First Video Camera to do your films....maybe you might suggest that the k7 should have a fold out knife, can opener, and tooth pick , like a swiss army knife because that could come in handy too....unreal

07-12-2009, 07:05 PM	#21
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by petercrane A few weeks back we decided to shoot part of a corporate documentary with a panasonic GH1 and Canon 5Dii. People who were paying us actually approached us and questioned our ability. We decided to switch back to video cameras and finish it off not causing a stir. At a meeting 2 weeks later we screened a draft edit, and they admitted that they liked the look of the slr footage, and that they wished they hadn't said anything. Anyway. It's marketed as a bonus on the K7. Not a professional feature. Get something like the 5Dii if you want quality and are selling a product. If you dislike video on the K7 either don't use it or go get a job making decisions at Pentax. That is a whole 'nother discussion - perception vs. reality. The customer is always right except when they aren't. There is a funny story about Chuck Rainey playing on the Steely Dan "Aja" album. They were tracking "Peg" and Chuck wanted to do a slap bass bit in the chorus. Becker and Fagan both said, "no," as slap was somewhat trendy at the moment and they had something else in mind. So Rainey played the part, but as they did take after take he started turning his chair slowly so that Becker and Fagan couldn't see what he was doing. And he started slapping. The track you hear to this day has that slapping part on it. On our last project we shot everything in HD mostly with Panny HX-200. Of course since I was writer and producer I wasn't going to be a luddite about things, and in fact we ended up running some of the footage through rounds of VHS transfers to get "the look" we were looking for. My boss questioned why we bothered to shoot HD if we were going to go that treatment. My answer was that if it didn't work in post I wanted other options. Another way that digital has changed everything is that "post" has taken on far more meaning for the typical user. In the past what you shot was what you got unless you were highly skilled in post production techniques. Now you can do a few clicks and get ridiculous amounts of tweaks done. Then click "undo" if you don't like it. I don't see any of this as "bad" or "good." It just is change - the real constant.

07-12-2009, 07:14 PM	#22
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by nostatic Another way that digital has changed everything is that "post" has taken on far more meaning for the typical user. In the past what you shot was what you got unless you were highly skilled in post production techniques. Now you can do a few clicks and get ridiculous amounts of tweaks done. Then click "undo" if you don't like it. I don't see any of this as "bad" or "good." It just is change - the real constant. That was true for Joe Sixpack shooting, but people who were "into" photography would either do their own prints or tell the pro lab to "dodge here" and "burn here" and so forth. Sure, it's easier now... ...but you can give any monkey a typewriter and chances are that he WON'T produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Same goes for Photoshop.

07-12-2009, 07:21 PM	#23
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by pingflood That was true for Joe Sixpack shooting, but people who were "into" photography would either do their own prints or tell the pro lab to "dodge here" and "burn here" and so forth. Sure, it's easier now... ...but you can give any monkey a typewriter and chances are that he WON'T produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Same goes for Photoshop. I agree, but it is a question of scale. Go back 30 years and count the number of people who would do their own prints and dodge/burn. Now fast forward to today and count the number of people who shoot digital and click the "red eye" button or "auto expose" button in a photo program. I would guess a couple orders of magnitude change in numbers.

07-12-2009, 07:25 PM	#24
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Originally posted by bentax Then dont. Painters must have been pissed off when photography was invented... :-D I sure remember my grandpa going on and on about how photography was so stupid (he was a violinist, cellist, author, poet, mayor, chinese character calligrapher, and an artist). He kept saying why spend so much money on a camera when you can simply pick up a piece of paper+ brush and paint? Video on a dSLR is useful to some but not all. Sure it adds to the cost, but if you were Pentax (and looking at the current market), to stay in the game you have to do what the big companies are doing (+more).

07-12-2009, 07:38 PM	#25
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	Quote: Video on a dSLR is useful to some but not all. Sure it adds to the cost, but if you were Pentax (and looking at the current market), to stay in the game you have to do what the big companies are doing (+more If Pentax want to match it with the big guys (and I hope they do) then they need to produce a 20+ megapixel FF camera aimed at the serious photographer and professional. I understand the market pressures to include all the bells and whistles (or gimmicks for the more cynical) but please foreget the video, move on from the K7 and give us a camera to match the best!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2009, 08:07 PM	#26
vincentgargano Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 33 Original Poster	Originally posted by ozlizard If Pentax want to match it with the big guys (and I hope they do) then they need to produce a 20+ megapixel FF camera aimed at the serious photographer and professional. I understand the market pressures to include all the bells and whistles (or gimmicks for the more cynical) but please foreget the video, move on from the K7 and give us a camera to match the best! Amen Brother you said what i wanted to say just used a few hundred less words then i did. take care

07-12-2009, 09:00 PM	#27
smokey Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salina, KS Posts: 92	I was getting excited when I heard a new camera was coming from Pentax. Had been holding off upgrading my K10 to the K20 waiting for the next generation. But when I found that there wasn't a whole lot of improvements (ok, there are some, but I was looking for higher MP) and included video and a $1300 price tag, They lost my sale. Hoping the next generation camera will lose the video. I already have several digital video cameras.

07-12-2009, 09:06 PM	#28
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by smokey but I was looking for higher MP Higher MP count in an APS-C sensor? Why would you want that?

07-12-2009, 09:28 PM	#29
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by LeDave I believe they are filmed at higher FPS. They are just dumbed down when they are being put into DVD's and such, because the human eye can already see the fluidity of the movie at 24FPS. It's kind of difficult to explain actually, if it were to be recorded at 24FPS, I'm pretty sure the blur would be horrible choppy quality. That is why there is Blu-Ray disc! Movies are no longer being compressed at a lower quality and can now play at 60FPS with a higher resolution. Unless you were referring to something else which I'm sure you are. No, he's right. Most pro workflow systems are all about 24fps because that's the standard for film and it's still what most pro workflows are built around. Read the pro video forums, and you'll hear them complaining that in order to fit into a pro studio, the DSLR must shoot 24 fps. And they're projected in theaters at 24fps. Lots of people want it to change ( like James Cameron search for fps and read his complaints that everything is shot in 24fps right now ) but right now, it's 24fps just as above. Blueray and broadcast TV are 'pulled up' (google it) to 30fps/60fields-per-second. 720P is 30frames-per-second, 1080i is 60 field-per-second (half the scanlines are in each field). You can also check out the wikipedia article for more information: 1080i - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Summary: jogiba knew of what he spoke.

07-12-2009, 09:44 PM	#30
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by vincentgargano ...go get a photography gig charge a few thousand dollars and show up and shoot the whole thing with an apple i touch.... There is no Apple i touch; there's an iPod touch, and it doesn't have a camera. And it costs as much as some DSLRs. But yeah, they'd be pissed, 'specially since it doesn't have a camera.