Aug 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm #1306870
@robertm2sLocale: Lake Tahoe
On this site's "Post Trip Reports" section, there is a great 4 minute video, labeled "Greenland." Maybe only Art Wolfe will be allowed to publish still photos with the humongous abilities of videos now availablr.Aug 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm #2018014
Nick GatelBPL Member
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
Not at all, especially for many of us. Video requires large memory (extra cards), more battery power, tripods and/or head gear, more set-up time, more post production time, etc., etc.
My camera will shoot 30 minutes of video at a time. Not worth the time or effort to me. Plus, often I don't even take the camera and taking a video camera is not worth it.
I like to view pictures. I also like to watch video. But at the end of the day I most enjoy a well written account.Aug 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm #2018019
Peter SBPL Member
To me, Video, Stills and Words are very different. They can't replace each other.
I prefer stills.Aug 23, 2013 at 2:43 pm #2018022
Try to shoot video, then do a frame grab, and try to make a quality 20×30 print to hang on the wall. I don't think that it can be done.
–B.G.–Aug 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm #2018046
@sgiachettiLocale: Boulder, CO
Video has become a lot more accessible (production, editing, publishing) as of late, so we're seeing a lot of cool stuff. I think still images resonate in a different way. How many iconic video clips can you think of off the top of your head? Iconic photographs?
IMO video is better suited for conveying narrative, stills for crystalizing and idea or feeling. Obviously a lot of gray area when looking at the potential of each medium, but I def wouldnt underestimate the power of the still. Just look at instagram, facebook or anywhere on the web. Its not just an issue of bandwidth, its about the immediacy of a photograph.Aug 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm #2018050
Richard MayBPL Member
I hesitated to post this at first. I got on my soap-box. This is a topic I love to think about so there's a bit of a ramble here.
< ramble >
You can't replace stills with movement.
Stills remind me of change by comparing what has been recorded with the present. The better I experience that which was captured in another time the more powerful the image becomes. Film reminds me of change by showing the continuity of this change through time. The more I connect with these fluid changes the more compelling a piece of film becomes.
As a photographer I am obviously drawn to stills. I love the way a good image allows me to re-live an instant. With each viewing, a masterful image will somehow be a different experience. I will discover new details or approach it with a different frame of mind that in turn can renew a given experience in my life. Just looking at childhood pictures and remembering when they were taken, by who, where I was, is a trip!
Film has a different quality to it. I admire, even envy a little, those who can master the art of creating a story the carries me from beginning to end. It is a very different experience. As a viewer I am led and carried from one moment inexorably to the next. It is a much more structured experience.
The two are very different.
< /ramble >Aug 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm #2018059
Jason GBPL Member
@jasongLocale: iceberg lake
"Try to shoot video, then do a frame grab, and try to make a quality 20×30 print to hang on the wall. I don't think that it can be done."
Bob, it can be done! Check out the new Canon EOS 1D CAug 23, 2013 at 5:02 pm #2018060
Dondo .BPL Member
@dondoLocale: Colorado Rockies
Great video of what looks like a wonderful trip.
But can video replace stills?
No. Two very different mediums.
The best stills capture a moment of time that can, like haiku, give you a glimpse into eternity.Aug 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm #2018063
Jason, I did not see them printing anything at 20×30 inches.
Edit: Good Grief! The camera body alone is $12K
–B.G.–Aug 23, 2013 at 6:06 pm #2018078
Tom D.BPL Member
@dafiremedicLocale: Southern California
I'm a video enthusiast, but the fact is that people will always want to see pictures. Family, friends, etc. will always want pictures that they can see without sitting in front of a video. Mine sure do.
The ability to make good high definition video has been around for years now, but it hasn't slowed the still picture folks at all. Many do both, especially with the video quality being produced with DSLR and mirrorless cameras now. My Sony NEX-5 shoots just as good video as my $4000 video camera from 3 years ago. It doesn't have nearly as many manual controls, but it weighs a lot less.Aug 23, 2013 at 6:09 pm #2018080
Ross BleakneyBPL Member
Two different things from a user standpoint, let along a producers standpoint. From a user's standpoint, I often prefer still photographs. I don't like fast forwarding through video trying to find the best moments. I prefer it if the author did that for me, or gave me a set of small pictures from which I can choose. Videos, on the other hand, are great for things that are moving (such as a person skiing or a waterfall).Aug 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm #2018089
Franco DarioliBPL Member
Getting there but…
That Canon 1D C
As Bob pointed out it is about 14k and about 4lbs with a decent lens, say a 24-70mm F2.8
So not exactly affordable, in price and weight, for the average hiker.
As for the Pros, the prints examined in that video were A3 max (11×16) so large enough for some applications but not all.
Note also that 1Gb is only 15sec of video (at 24fps) so be prepared to spend a lot of money on 64gb cards….Aug 23, 2013 at 7:07 pm #2018091
Yes, and each one of those gets you only 16 minutes of video.
Plus, it is a big jump from quality prints at 11×16 to get up to 20×30.
–B.G.–Aug 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm #2018106
Franco DarioliBPL Member
Even better stills from video :
(new today at Gizmodo)
RAW stills from a 6K sensor.
but again not for the LW thruhiker on a budget….Aug 23, 2013 at 10:43 pm #2018132
@sgiachettiLocale: Boulder, CO
well said, Richard May. Thanks for chiming in.Aug 23, 2013 at 10:54 pm #2018134
Edward JursekBPL Member
@nedjursekgmail-comLocale: Pacific Northwest
In an ever wired and hectic world I find solace in still photographs. In the hands of a skilled photographer a still image can convey a powerful narrative. I recently saw an old school slide show of 35mm pictures taken in the Rockies that were a mix of 70's family hiking pictures and landscapes that was amazing. It told a totally different story then a video or Super 8 film would have told. Stills give you a lot of room to fill in the narrative, and I fear we are losing that quality with too much video. It is bad enough people don't read books any more. The end of still photography would be a sad mile stone towards the end of imagination.Aug 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm #2018139
"It is bad enough people don't read books any more."
They don't need to read books. They can find answers in Wikipedia. Everything else is on Facebook.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.