Make these pictures move!
Now that camera manufacturers build video capability into their professional camera bodies, the question many photographers are asking themselves is, “why am I so hung over?” Shortly after that they ask themselves if they should be getting into this video malarkey by getting an SLR with a HD video doohickey built in.
It might be helpful to look at why camera makers did this in the first place. Or it might not, but it’s what I’m going to do anyway.
I have heard that the driving force for HD-capable stills cameras was originally the press agencies who wanted their staff to be able to shoot short video clips at news events to offer in addition to stills. I’m not entirely convinced by this, since shooting stills and video simultaneously is rather like juggling turds. It’s all going to get rather messy at some point.
My gut feeling is that the manufacturers decided they needed a new selling point for their equipment, which in every other regard has become about as sophisticated as it’s possible to get short of including a particle accelerator.
Hadron colliders being rather bulky (for now), video was the obvious choice, but they needed a valid reason to go to all the trouble, so suggested it might be a “good thing” to the picture agencies who probably said something along the lines of “knock yourselves out” – a ringing endorsement indeed.
And so it came to pass that Canon, Nikon, and probably some others which nobody bothers to buy much, built video into their pro cameras and said “Lo! for we have given the world of photojournalism the ability to multitask.” Marvellous.
Good luck shooting uprights on video.
But, this wasn’t the real reason for glueing a cine camera to a box brownie. The reality is camera manufacturers want these technologies to trickle down from the higher-end cameras to the consumer range in order that consumers, faced with the annoying fact that newer cameras can do something their poxy stills-only brick can’t, will upgrade to the newest, video-enabled model and consign their ancient, 9-month-old camera to Ebay or landfill.
Going back to the original question for professionals though, should you jump or be pushed into video, my advice is this: Bear in mind that within a few short months, every SLR will have HD video capability to some degree, and what might seem like a business advantage now (shooting high quality, cheap videos for smaller business clients) will quickly evaporate as the World and his spotty nephew equip themselves to do video just like the pro’s. Just like stills, the results will be mostly horrid and useless, but it’ll impress the boss that he can get video for “free” even if it costs him sales (he won’t notice that unless people start telling him how horrid his nephew’s efforts are, but nobody will tell him so he’ll never know).
In the meantime, being professional and understanding what’s required to achieve pro quality, you will spend thousands of Pounds on hardware and software to make video viable; you will spend weeks learning about panning, focus, lighting and sound, then converting, editing and encoding it all, only to find the prize is always just out of reach, and that clients will always want it much cheaper than it costs to produce. All this at the same time as discovering that in the commercial and weddings world, there’s already an army of well-equipped experts already doing what you hope to do. You’ll be trapped between Uncle Arthur with his video-capable Canon 60D (or whatever) shooting for free, and the seasoned video expert who has the technique, workflow and pricing honed to perfection.
Personally, I’d rather wait for the built-in CERN feature.
So what dear tim is the conclusion. Can us snappers avoid the trap by holding true to the still or are we in danger of looking as outdated as the gramophone in my living room?
The conclusion is to get into hedge fund management. Always popular, and pays well.
My plan is to stick with stills until everyone who leaps into video has gone bust. Then I can really clean up 🙂
Asking if photographers should shoot video just because their equipment can is absurd. I am sure we have all seen terrible ‘photographers’ who think they are professionals simply because they bought a $10,000 camera. The equipment you own does not dictate how good you are.
Photography and Videography are two different jobs with two different skill sets.
I do photography, videography and film production professionally and some skills (like focus, and exposure) overlap. However, from my experience in trying to hire production crew is that I can not find people who are fluent in two, let alone three.
I was going to rant as to why the skills / equipment were different but I realize that is too detailed and slightly off topic.
So in summary and as an analogy… some musicians can play multiple instruments but, most can only be good at one. The bass and the guitar look similar but the skills don’t translate and they fill two different places in the band.
Chris, clearly you agree with me. I even take it further – I don’t consider myself much of a wedding photographer. The mental skills are different, as is the workflow. Just because I have a camera, doesn’t mean I’d make a great wedding photographer. As best I can I stick to my core skills or corporate and editorial pictures of people.
This was entertaining to read (juggling turds…nice one!); however, you got it backwards.
As it’s a major point underpinning your post, dSLR video is, to my understanding, the *only* feature ever to have trickled ~up~ from the lesser cameras into the pro models. I know of not a single example of video being introduced into a top-of-the-line dSLR and then making its way down to the prosumer and entry-level models…do you?
So, it was quite clearly not driven from the pro market, but rather from the consumer market. Taking this fact into account, it’s easy to trace how dSLR video happened.
dSLR companies want to remove every last reason anyone could have for staying out of a dSLR and with a small pocket camera. One of the things keeping people from moving from that Canon G11 or smaller pocket camera to an entry-level dSLR was the lack of video functionality, particularly for those consumers that were entering the stage of life where things like cameras begin to matter (i.e., new parents, I suspect). To these folks, spending that much and committing to carry around such a device doesn’t make sense if it only does one thing, particularly when your smart phone is even capable of decent video.
So the camera companies put the money into developing video in their entry-level dSLRs. Once the investment is made, however, the significant cost is already sunk…no good reason not to put it in the entire line-up.
Besides, though the argument for video in pro cameras is not strong now, it will enable futuristic functionality as processors get more powerful. Imagine being able to take an HDR shot with a single shutter release. Imagine being able to take an extraordinarily high-res image by sampling many low-res frames, as is done in scientific imaging today. Imagine being able to take a single, relatively short time exposure of a crowded place and have all moving elements automatically removed–you’ll finally get that shot of an empty Times Square you always wanted.
I’m glad you enjoyed the article, but I have to defend my facts here. In one sense, we’re both right, but I was talking about HD video, not the very basic video functions of compact cameras you refer to. You are right in that the more primitive video abilities of compact cameras haven’t trickled up to pro-level DSLRS, but we will see more entry-level SLRs having HD video fitted as standard in future, maybe even compact cameras will have it too.
You’ll also notice if you check out the Canon website (for example) you’ll see that the very base DSLR models don’t feature full HD video. It was with the 5D MKII that HD video really came of age in Canon DSLRs and newer versions of the 1D series have caught up. It’s certainly been traditional that new high-end features are R&D’d for the top-end bodies (autofocus, built-in MD, even digital) and then trickled down until they’re in all models.
I believe some cameras already have built-in single shot HDR (Ricoh? not sure about that), but it’ll be interesting to see deserted streets in pictures again. Then we really can stop believing everything we see in photos. That WILL be a sad day.
Thanks for your insights, I hope I’ve explained my article better now.
In your original post, it seems to me that you’re saying video in pro dSLRs doesn’t make much sense because any pro is not able to maintain both his self-respect and his bottom line if he’s going to try to compete on that feature. I get this…our only point of disagreement is that I can’t understand why you think camera manufacturers did not realize this, too.
Of course they did, and the way they introduced video into the lineups is completely consistent with the idea that video is not targeted at pros, but at consumers. Already the T2i has 1080p 30fps video that is more capable in some aspects than the 5D-Mk2’s video. It’s the one feature that is indeed percolating up, not trickling down. As I say above, the *only* reason video is being introduced into pro bodies is that the cost is already sunk…given that it adds little expense or complication, why *not* include it in the higher-end bodies?
I think the manufacturers are as shocked as anyone that video is catching on in those higher-end bodies as well as it has. The latest episodes of House were shot with a 5D-Mk2. Many, many vlogs such as Rocketboom routinely use that model as well. Filmmakers like George Lucas are looking into what they can do. Even now, I don’t think many pros are clamoring for this functionality in the high-end bodies (even though they’re getting it, whether they like it or not, now), for exactly the reasons you state in your original post above.
“Then we really can stop believing everything we see in photos. That WILL be a sad day.”
What does technological capability have to do with believability of the work? Honesty is not a property of technology, it’s an attribute of the person using it.
Every aspect of a photo is a mere depiction of reality. When I choose a long shutter speed to blur a waterfall, the waterfall doesn’t appear that way to my eye (nor if I choose a fast shutter speed to freeze it). I don’t see things in black & white, though I occasionally photograph the world that way. To think this way about in-camera HDR: when manufacturers improve the dynamic range of a sensor in a new model, do you recoil at that? Either way, the result is increased dynamic range…what difference does it make how that result achieved?
Actually, the main thrust of my article is to ask if professional photographers should consider getting into video at all, and what the likely outcome will be. Some of course will carve a niche with video, but I suspect it’ll be like micro-payment stock, where a handful make decent money while the rest pile time and money into something that is nothing but a drain on their income.
I don’t think it’s a question of camera manufacturers realizing or not realizing anything. Their sole aim is to shift pretty boxes. Many features over the decades have been introduced purely to make people want the cameras, not because professionals were marching through the streets with flaming torches demanding they have them. In fact, often photographers have resisted the changes that meant more sophistication (often accompanied by lesser robustness), but change happens and as professionals we deal with it.
I don’t have the information to hand which tells me whether the T2i (550D) was introduced before, after or simultaneously to the 5D MKII, but the technology isn’t in the base SLR models. Maybe to be more accurate I should have said it was put into the middle of the range and is spreading outwards, and of course you’re right to say that having spent the R&D money on video it’s no real extra cost to put it into other models. But the end result is as I said in the article, that photographers will find they’re competing with anyone with a few quid to spare on a HD-capable SLR.
I would like to just raise one point here. You’re not the first person to say House was filmed on “a” 5D MKII. I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I suspect it was filmed on several dozen 5D MKIIs since HD video DSLRs can only film for short segments before heat kills them and they have to be rested to cool before being used again. It’s not a workflow many film makers would be happy with. Maybe cooling systems will be developed, but there aren’t any yet and Canon only had short clip use in mind (and of course a new selling point) when they put HD video onboard.
You’re certainly right that it isn’t the pro’s clamouring for video. I can’t speak for everyone, but professionals (and perhaps especially freelancers) already in the editorial industry aren’t happy that there are no plans in place to show how all the extra investment in time, money and responsibility will be paid back to them. Again there will be exceptions, but for the most part it looks like publishers demanding even more for ever less money.
Finally, I was referring to the ability to empty a street using a function on the camera. That is changing the nature of the scene. You can make a waterfall look like it’s a torrent using a slow shutter speed, but making it look as if it’s dried up completely is deception. In my articles I’m generally talking about editorial or commercial photography, and less-so the purely artistic side of things. What’s acceptable in commercial work is one thing, but it’ll be a sad day when people stop believing in the news images they see because of the ease of trickery built into cameras.
I would argue there is still some difference between good dynamic range (digital still has to compete with film on that) and HDR. If my camera ever starts churning out images that look like HDR, I’ll go back to film.
For my part, I can’t imagine getting into video. I already have 1.1TB of data to keep backed up as a still photographer…can you imagine the kind of data I’d need to be moving around if I were into video? 🙂
Also, as you rightly say, it’s a completely different discipline artistically. I agree with you 100% that if you care about the quality of your work as a photographer, you have to ask yourself if you could care as deeply about your video work unless you devote at least as much time to learning it.
“…I suspect [House] was filmed on several dozen 5D MKIIs since HD video DSLRs can only film for short segments before heat kills them…”
The finale was filmed using a standard 3 camera setup, no different than if they were using standard video cameras. I know of no overheating issue with 5D-Mk2 video other than slightly increased noise after extended use. (But that could be because I don’t know about it, not because it isn’t true…I wasn’t able to turn up any complaints, though. The chief complaint seems to be there’s no live hi-def feed, which makes the focus puller’s job tough with the shallow DoF that’s available – http://goo.gl/FLVB )
“…it’ll be a sad day when people stop believing in the news images they see because of the ease of trickery built into cameras.”
I think you missed my point here. If people find reason to stop believing news images, it won’t be because of trickery built into cameras, it’ll be because of trickery built into journalists. If you think advanced tech is required to swap someone’s head onto someone else’s body, think again–the first recorded instance of this happening was when Abraham Lincoln’s head was placed on John C. Calhoun’s body around 1860 – http://goo.gl/tXOi. In the early 20th Century, faked photos of ghosts and other nonsense was a cottage industry.
“You can make a waterfall look like it’s a torrent using a slow shutter speed, but making it look as if it’s dried up completely is deception.”
I think if you examine this line of reasoning a little more deeply, you’ll find that you’ve drawn an arbitrary line between what you consider authentic and fakery. The fact is that using simple techniques like exposure, shutter speed, aperture, and framing, I can lie quite convincingly. I can also use HDR and Photoshop to lay bare a truth that would have been otherwise very difficult to capture in an image.
I think you’re likely recoiling against the current tradition of cartoony HDR images, which many photographers claim to enjoy making not because they’re wonderful, but rather because they’re incapable of making anything else out of the source materials. (For a long time in Photoshop we’ve had the ability to oversaturate an image…if it’s so great, why did no one do it before? Why does no one do it now for non-HDR images?) I would hazard a guess that your problem, once again, is not with the technology but the person applying it. I have seen HDR that you would not have known were made from multiple exposures, and I have made them myself.
It’s all just tools and processes. It is, as it ever was, in how you use them. 🙂
Storage is a massive issue, and something else to be factored into the cost of providing the service. Something else to chip away at margins!
Interesting what you say about House, and I haven’t had time (inclination) to dig much further, but I suspect that while they would have 3 cameras on the go at any given time, I’d also imagine there would be plenty of backup bodies. I can’t see them risking an entire shoot schedule to having just three bodies almost constantly on the go. I could be wrong regarding the overheating, it might not apply to 5Ds, but it wouldn’t surprise me if regular breaks were needed. I notice from the interview link that they had to stop every 20 minutes to change memory cards anyway.
I do see your point, and yes fakery has been around since the first scalpel was taken to a print. It’s just if people already think absolutely anything can be done in Photoshop, wait until they think it can all be done in camera too! Nightmare.
Yes, how tools are used is the bottom line. So long as everyone knows when a news image has been doctored. It’s when “news” photos are pushed and pulled to be something they’re not, that’s when the problems arise.
I’ve got the 5D MarkII, which can apparently shoot video, but that’s certainly not why I bought it-I’ve shot one video, and it was just for fun to see how the feature worked. I consider myself a pretty great photographer, but a horrible videographer.
The 5D MKII had video added “apparently” because news publishers thought it would help them cover stories more. I say “apparently” because I’m still not sure that any news organisation requested it as a feature before it had been added. What I do know is that the extra investment in training, software, hardware and time to get it all working means that for the most part, video is still best left to videographers. Of course I’m speaking generally, and some people will be able to site a few exceptions.
what do you guys think of this?
http://www.diyphotography.net/a-diy-9shooter-shooting-stills-video-simultaneously-audio-too
A DIY 9Shooter: Shooting Stills & Video Simultaneously & Audio Too!
“The post below shows a simple way to capture video while taking still pictures. Sure, there is some added weight and yea, video will not get a dedicated person and will just “follow along”, yet, this is a neat way to achieve video with just one person shooting, This is also a great instructional tool for yourself to see how you interact with your model, what things work and what makes them shrink.
There are two versions for this mod – a dueler which mounts a DSLR with a video camera and a 9Shooter that also has sound attached.”