Photography vs. Videography

[silo]

how come there's so many photographers out there but so little interests in videography?
With hd now days, i figured there would be a lot more people interested in doing videograph.. especially since some of the digital photography cameras are even more expensive than the video cameras. =\

 

[ronscuba]

IMHO, it's because of the ease to post/view/send a photo vs. a video and how quickly you can scan through a set of pictures vs. a video.

You can look through 50 crappy pictures fast and it's not too painful. Can't say the same thing about crappy video.

 

[silo]

now days, most good video recorders have a snap button right? that let's you take a still photo through your video camera?

how good are these images if taken from a hd video camera?

 

[diversteve]

Part of it is the post-production time involved. I'm part of a group of 8 or so people who dive together regularly yet I'm the only videographer. Even though a couple of my friends will shoot short videos with their P&S still cameras.

Another factor is cost. A reasonable video setup starts at $1500, better ones go well over $10K as I'm sure you realize from your other post. I also think a lot of people are turned off by the fact that an effective, reliable housing can cost upwards of 2-3 times the cost of their HDV pro-sumer camcorder.

Compared to a good point/shoot setup that can yield excellent results for $1000 or so.
It is kind of surprising that given the amount of people I see at vacation destinations with video cameras that more aren't taken underwater. It's also surprising that most of my friends will buy DVD's of their various encounters (shark dives, dolphin dives etc) yet none want to do their own.

how good are these images if taken from a hd video camera?

Not as good as those taken with a $500 housed still camera. Mostly because the effective resolution of a video CMOS/CCD sensor isn't that high yet. Sony's HDR-HC9 is the first one I've seen over 4MP, that's considered dated in today's still camera sensor sizing.

 

[nereas]

The key word is costs. For a couple of hundred dollars, it is easy to buy an amphibious camera (waterproof without a housing). But it takes a whole lot more than this to buy a video kit. Eventually, still-photographers all graduate to videography, assuming that they can afford the additional costs. The rest make up the teeming swell stuck in the still-photo group.

 

[Mr.X]

The key word is costs. For a couple of hundred dollars, it is easy to buy an amphibious camera (waterproof without a housing). But it takes a whole lot more than this to buy a video kit. Eventually, still-photographers all graduate to videography, assuming that they can afford the additional costs. The rest make up the teeming swell stuck in the still-photo group.

I love the way you paint such a pretty picture of the world. Must be wonderful to be you.



As per cameras - some acrylic-cased cameras can take decent video for something less than the cost of a fully housed dedicated video system. Doesn't require the huge plunk-down of cash that it used to. Some of the hybrid camera/video systems also take HD. I'm piloting a AIPTEK camera which is pretty decent HD 720 for a total cost of under 130.00. A tad jittery, and colors not as saturated...but heck, it's really affordable.

Amazon.com: Aiptek A-HD 720P 5MP CMOS High Definition Camcorder: Electronics

Maybe they come up with an equally inexpensive housing for it? Doesn't shoot very well in low light.

 

[mjh]

I enjoy both but the process is very different for each. The great thing about video is you point, shoot and just let it roll. Of course lighting and framing are important but to me it seems "easy". It is much more forgiving than still photography. Its the editing that can really make or break video.

Still photography seems more challenging to me. Catching that perfect moment, with the prefect lighting, perfect exposure, shutter speed, no TTL for me! When I reach for a camera I still lean to the stills.

 

[fldivenut]

how good are these images if taken from a hd video camera?

There are two problems with snapping frames out of a HD stream in addition to the plain resolution.
1. Motion blur, the video is usually shot at 1/60 to 1/100 and fish that swim show motion blur and if you pan the camera you have motion blur all over.
2. NO Flash, while you may have a video light it is not as powerful as a dedicated flash. Most photos are made with flash. A flash will also remedy 1.

Using the picture "snap" button is hard on most housings since it is not postioned so you will have good firing control. Also shutter lag is long on video cameras.

My experince is from shooting video and taking photos from that. Almost exclusivly I shoot video, maybe shoot some without pan or zoom with the purpose of reducing motion blur. Then I take frames out of the HD video stream. Sometime they come out quite good but I would say the result is probably less successful than a P/S setup.

As said before, the editing is what kills you with video. It takes a long time, much longer than go diving and shooting it, and if you screw up you might not see it until you watch the final result after 2 hours of rendering and you have to do it all over again. Also you have seen your video enough times to feel sick when you are done with the edit.

--Anders

 

[Annie Crawley]

VIDEO IS THE NEXT PHOTO!

The possibilities of video have not been realized yet. There is power to our medium, but with video, you need to first think of the story you are going to tell. Most people who shoot video go in the water and just roll...but you need to have a story line that you can edit together and show people.

Youtube.com and all the other sites showcasing video are full of people telling short stories. We don't have that in diving. People get camera systems and then do not know what to do with the footage. It is so much easier when you plan a shoot...

That is my two cents because I believe it is all about the story...

 

[Marinevisions]

Most people who shoot video go in the water and just roll...but you need to have a story line that you can edit together and show people.

Youtube.com and all the other sites showcasing video are full of people telling short stories. We don't have that in diving. People get camera systems and then do not know what to do with the footage. It is so much easier when you plan a shoot...

I completely agree Annie,
In order to be successful with underwater video, you have to be disciplined! No one should expect to get in the water for a 40 minute dive and come out with 40 minutes of usable video.
If I return from any dive with a couple minutes of usable footage, I am thrilled.

Everyone should apply the "plan your dive, dive your plan" philosophy to underwater video. In our case, it would be "plan your shoot, shoot your plan". Don't get in the water planning to get some great macro shots and spend the whole dive looking for whale sharks, it just won't work well.

As Annie pointed out, you have to be able to tell a story with your footage!