malibucanyonphotography wrote:
the videos and stills are both smooth as if you are shooting continuous stills, you need to keep the camera steady, just like if you are shooting continuous video.

I don't know how you shoot but I shoot mostly portrait orientation. I shoot some frames, drop the camera to the side, give some instructions, bring the camera back to my eye, shoot some more, point the camera down and chimp, set the camera down, fix something, etc.

You get the idea. That video will look like crap.

c_d_s wrote:
What's the point?

Exactly

malibucanyonphotography wrote:
i've been working on a documentary which features a lot of photography.

a lot more photorgaphers are shooting video now too...

Yeah it's common for a model to show up for a nude shoot and the photographer just happens to have a video camera there without discussing it with her too.

malibucanyonphotography wrote:

Sorry, but can you take this picture down so I stop looking at her ass and start reading the thread?

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:

Yeah it's common for a model to show up for a nude shoot and the photographer just happens to have a video camera there without discussing it with her too.

I keep mine well hidden behind a two way mirror in the changing room.

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
At the very least you should probably post some sample video and stills that were shot at the same time dontcha think?

yes!  working on it.

it's a bit of a different mindset, but it's way fun too... and productive.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

Sorry, but can you take this picture down so I stop looking at her ass and start reading the thread?

Gah!!! Noooo! Don't do that... I like her ass... It's purty

fLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY NYC wrote:
If you're shooting video you're not a photographer, you're a videographer, if you're shooting film you're a cinematographer.

"Director of photography" - look it up sometime, you'd be surprised.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
"Director of photography" - look it up sometime, you'd be surprised.

Okay,

director of photography 
–noun Movies.
the person who is responsible for all operations concerning camera work and lighting during the production of a film.
Also called cinematographer.

cin⋅e⋅ma⋅tog⋅ra⋅pher  [sin-uh-muh-tog-ruh-fer]  Show IPA
–noun
1.    a person whose profession is motion-picture photography.
2.     director of photography.

pho⋅tog⋅ra⋅phy  [fuh-tog-ruh-fee]  Show IPA
Use photography in a Sentence
–noun
1.    the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.
2.     cinematography.

vid⋅e⋅og⋅ra⋅phy  [vid-ee-og-ruh-fee]  Show IPA
–noun
the art or process of making films with a video camera.
Related forms:
vid⋅e⋅og⋅ra⋅pher, noun

Hmmmm....funny, I still don't see where they call him a photographer.

Let's not confuse words here.  Photography is a process...as you can see, when you add motion to that process, it becomes Cinematography.  Vittorio Storaro seems to agree with me,

AC:Why do you prefer the title of "cinematographer" to "director of photography" in the credits?

Storaro: Because we aren't directing. That is Warren's job. We are writing with light and motion to tell a story. That distinction is very important.

....and to finish, the definition of a photographer

pho⋅tog⋅ra⋅pher  [fuh-tog-ruh-fer]  Show IPA
–noun
a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.

See -graph means 'drawn' or 'written', -graphy means the process of the drawing, writing, recording, cine is adding the motion picture aspect, and -er is used in forming nouns designating persons from the object of their occupation or labor.

Thanks for the recommendation to look up these terms, makes me feel good when I am reminded I know what I'm talking about.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
I keep mine well hidden behind a two way mirror in the changing room.

That would be illegal.
And quite pervy.

malibucanyonphotography wrote:
anyone else shoot video?

happy holidays!

Yes, I shoot video!  I've done some two fisted shooting, but I don't use a rig like that, plus I'm picky about when and where I do it.  I've done it fairly successfully at well lit concerts and red carpet events, but I'm pretty close up for those things and I'm rolling with auto focus.  I tried two fisted shooting at a fashion show and failed badly!  It's too hard to do both stills and video well.  I could see that the quality of my work suffers.  Much better to partner up with another photographer of videographer.

空 wrote:

That would be illegal.
And quite pervy.

It's only illegal if you get caught and only pervy if a pet chimp is operating the camera.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

It's only illegal if you get caught and only pervy if a pet chimp is operating the camera.

good luck in jail

空 wrote:

good luck in jail

My chimp cannot be compelled to testify against me.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

My chimp cannot be compelled to testify against me.

Too true.
that was funny.
Back to the topic shall we?

I believe the future is multlple recordings of big shoots.

Especially as the big flicker free HMI's are used more.
But hey, photographers have been shooting on film sets with silent boxes for ages.
This concept is not new.
Stills from movie sets have most often been a separate entity/separate person shooting than the actual film.
Look it up to those that do not know.

William Steel wrote:
That's retarded. Thanks for the gratuitous ass shot; it has spared you from further mocking.

Get a grip.
It is called a bikini at the beach.
What a concept.

空 wrote:

Get a grip.
It is called a bikini at the beach.
What a concept.

no, click his link

空 wrote:

Too true.
that was funny.
Back to the topic shall we?

I believe the future is multlple recordings of big shoots.

Especially as the big flicker free HMI's are used more.
But hey, photographers have been shooting on film sets with silent boxes for ages.
This concept is not new.
Stills from movie sets have most often been a separate entity/separate person shooting than the actual film.
Look it up to those that do not know.

Well the person shooting a feature film, and the one taking the stills in the blimps have two different goals out of their respective materials. 

I feel that the OP has different feelings in mind.

I work in the motion picture industry, so I know all about that, but how I view what I shoot in motion picture film vs what I shoot in my still photography, are two different things.

The only exceptions to this to me are photojournalism and event documentation(a la weddings)....the unpredictable and unrepeatable nature of moments in these fields make them ideal candidates.

While I can see the appeal of this to use on models, I just have different views on it all.

In photojournalism and say for a wedding, you're there capturing someone else's moments.  That news story, or those vows.....aren't yours, they're someone else's.  So to be sure to capture every possible moment that they want....makes sense.

In say fashion photography though, it is your moment, yours and the model's.  You two decide what moments are special as you go, as we all know, most moments captured here aren't special, it's the few that make it, while in the other fields, those people tend to cherish a good many of those moments from you, because that whole event was special for them.  Either that or it's that one image or action that summarizes a story, and you want to maximize your odds of getting it. 

For these approaches for fashion photography would be like every shoot is a wedding, which is silly, or like covering the same news story every time, I'd figure we'd eventually figure out the best places to be etc. 

As for multiple format recordings, we're already there.  They send video crews along to document still shoots, and still photographers along to document film shoots.  I just don't see the two as interchangeable in this context as the OP at least seems to.  It'd be like taking a screen-grab off a video shooting behind the scenes for SI swimsuit and putting it in the magazine as final product, think how the photographer on that shoot would feel.

I love motion pictures, and for certain things seeing a video can tell more than a still, but I could never replace the still image because often that frozen moment can be even more powerful than the moving one.

William Steel wrote:

no, click his link

Hey, when you're selling a C bracket with hole in it, you have to spice it up with some T&A.

William Steel wrote:

no, click his link

Clearly the OP is an ass man.......and maybe a little pervy.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Hey, when you're selling a C bracket with hole in it, you have to spice it up with some T&A.

lul

malibucanyonphotography wrote:
anyone else shoot video?

happy holidays!

I've mentioned this in another thread, but the biggest issue for me in using a dual camera for still and moving image isn't the camera but rather being cognizant and trying to deal with the barrel throw vis a vis focus pulls (for instance). You probably don't care about this issue with a lens if you're just using it for stills, but for a motioned picture, different needs/issue.


That plus modern AF lenses for still cameras don't have an witness marks and why would they? So then you have to start thinking about accessory focus rigs ala redrock which are of course more money.   And focusing with your eye through the viewfinder vs attaching a monitor for critical focusing.  And what about audio?

etc etc.


So the photograph of a hot model shooting with a dslr video is nice, but it's not realistic to me as a real world solution to shooting quality video.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

Sorry, but can you take this picture down so I stop looking at her ass and start reading the thread?

here here ... but don't take it down...