Digital Photography and Video

Thanks for bearing with me for the short video break yesterday. The digital cameras are all making incredible advances regardless of the brand, there are some pretty impressive selections out there.

Having said that, right now, I am effectively using about 50% of the capabilities of the cameras that I own.

Digital video, while amazing, and having its place, is about how I would approach having a third thumb. It is a great conversation piece, it certainly may prove useful in the future, but right now, well, right now is about the learning curve and the choice of medium.

One of the interesting components of digital video inside of a D-SLR, is when you decide you want a high resolution image, you interupt the video, just for one second, while the picture is taken by the camera, and then the camera resumes with the job of recording video. This is basically the math associated with the resolution of the image, most high definition video is captured at a much lower resolution than your best resolution still image.

Because the video is interrupted, the photographer needs to either have an uncanny sense of predicting the future, or be shooting as part of a team, one person or more shooting still images, with one person shooting strictly video. So, even though the cameras can shoot both still images and video, they cannot shoot them at the same time…

I will be approaching video, cautiously, as it is a very effective choice in capturing memories, but amazing quality video isn’t the reason I become enamored with photography in general. It is much easier to identify on a personal level with an image, than it is to identify with a video recording.

There is a much deeper personal connection with photographs than with videos. Videos are certainly entertaining, and will develop into much more as more people find creative ways of using them, but at the time of this writing, very few are calling for the release of the Osama bin Laden videos, but millions of people are waiting for the release of the photographs. There are also those afraid of the damage, the repurcussions of the emotional impact the release of those photos may cause.

Dewayne

So, video or stills, what’s your take?

Comments are closed.

16 Responses

  1. DeWayne,
    I’m a bit confused. I’m pondering buying a Digital Video Camera for live events in part to avoid having to deal with the downside of tape. If the recording is in a set/stable lighting conditioning is there still good reason to not buy the Digital Video Camera? They are running about $6000 give or take 50%. Seems like editing the DVC is going to be much easier.
    Thoughts?

  2. Rachel Robinson says:

    I prefer stills over video in general. Maybe it’s because a still shows how a person or thing felt in one unique moment. While video catches a variety of emotions and expressions I feel it holds people at a distance while often a still will invite the observer into the moment.
    Leadership Is A Choice

  3. John Moulder says:

    Both are good . Stills are a microsecond of time being captured whereas video is a continuation . Video great for growing children .

  4. Steve C says:

    Each has its place, although I see video as the more powerful and influential media going into the future.

    Steve C

  5. Peggy Larson says:

    That’s an interesting question. I look at family pictures more often than I watch family videos. BUT when my mom was killed I was, and am still, glad to have the videos to hear her voice once in a while.

    When I ponder this from my genealogy hobby viewpoint, I think it’ll be cool a hundred years from now if descendents would be able to hear and see us via video. But I like to scrapbook family genealogy too so photographs are very important and useful for that.

    What an interesting question you posed.

  6. Eva Palmer says:

    I did not know that the camera could do “almost” both, video and recording at the same time. It makes sense that for a good quality, in can “pause” for a moment…is that correct??