fLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY NYC wrote:
I don't understand what some people, and Canon with their latest commercial, are trying to do by seemingly trying to kill the still image.....makes me sad.  -f

I'm not sure if killing the still is their objective.

I haven't actually worked with the new Canon and wonder if those "videos" have the ability to print out only one frame ala' still???

I think Canon is trying to turn rank amatures into getting those shots that only highly skilled and well acquainted with sports can get? I shot H.S. sports and know how much parents love those "action" shots. Until now, getting one using still camera is virtually impossible for the average GWC.

Just curious. Can those "videos" produce quality stills???

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
Just curious. Can those "videos" produce quality stills???

As I understand it, the video frames are 1920 x 1080 pixels on the better cameras.  That would print a 4 x 6 inch quality still print.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
As I understand it, the video frames are 1920 x 1080 pixels on the better cameras.  That would print a 4 x 6 inch quality still print.

Ah....there you have it! Canon can now offer those "live action" stills using the video feature because the average consumer could never hope to catch those percise moments on their own.

Talk about point and shoot.....now it's going big time!

fLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY NYC wrote:
I'll pass, on this or DSLR video.  If I'm gonna shoot motion picture I'll shoot motion picture, and preferably not video but film.

As for all the rest......I think half of being a photographer is making the decision of when to press the shutter

If you're shooting video you're not a photographer, you're a videographer, if you're shooting film you're a cinematographer.

I don't understand what some people, and Canon with their latest commercial, are trying to do by seemingly trying to kill the still image.....makes me sad.  -f

Thanks for that--but since one's time or an assistant's time costs far more than an hd video camera these days after a few sessions, by mounting the DSLR & HD camera together, one's productivity is greatly increased. 

If all of a sudden you see opportunities for epic stills, focus on shooting the stills!  But keep a video camera running, especially at 24p, and you may be amazed at the results.

For weddings and sports, why not be both the videographer and the photographer?  Even in DSLR cameras with video, one has to choose whetehr to shoot continuous stils or continuous videos.  Why not catch the winning goal or the bride kissing the groom in both stills and video?  Even if you have an assistant performing one of the tasks such as video, why not back it up with video off your own dual cameras?

lawrence James Photog wrote:
I will have to try this I'm curious of the actual turnout. the perspective of the video might be useful.

Yes--I was pleasantly surprised by this.  The thing is, one can continually adjust the relative angles of the cameras to one-another--both vertically and horizontally, and one can continually monitor both without moving one's head.  The balance is stable. 

I change my style a bit--I focus on not jerking the camera but moving it smoothly, which helps both the stills and video....

It basically lets you aim/pan/shoot a video camera with two hands, and it's smaller than this!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 … lizer.html

haha.

malibucanyonphotography wrote:
If all of a sudden you see opportunities for epic stills, focus on shooting the stills!  But keep a video camera running, especially at 24p, and you may be amazed at the results.

And honestly, video isn't all that much different from stills, only the subjects are moving, the frame could be moving, and the lighting is a little harder...

Actually, it is harder than shooting stills.

Conrad T Curtis wrote:
it was referred to earlier... but here goes another shot...

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/03/13/fi … s-scarlet/

cool!  can the scarlet shoot simultaneous bursts of 21 megapixel stills and hd video continuously?

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
Still waiting to see some sample stills and video shot at the same time. YOU made this thing right? You have to have some samples available if it's so bad ass.

Not trying to be a annoying but this just seems like a horrible idea for MANY very obvious reasons. In fact, I can't see any obvious benefits other than perhaps using it to set up stationary cameras. Could I even do that? Is there a tripod mount on the bottom of the thing?

Bottom line is that if you want good stills you shoot with a still camera, if you want good video you shoot with a video camera. Do both with simultaneously with cameras that are physically attached to each other degrades the quality of both.

Thanks Keith,

I am on the road but will post some videos in the next couple weeks.

One thing I found is that shooting video is really just shooting continuous stills, and when I shoot stills, I generally shoot continuously.

I found that while looking through the canon dslr's viewfinder with my right eye, i could open my left eye and see the video monitor too on the lower hd video camcorder!  You can see how that would work:



And I can easily and readily adjust either camera's zoom and the relative angles between them.

Of course there will be a couple off-stills when I'm suddenly zooming the video for a particular video shot, and vice-versa; but overall, given a two-hour shoot, I'm goin' in "with both guns a blazin'!"

Yes--it is new and different, and the first time I was doing it I was laughing, as I'm thinking "how come I never did this before?"  It felt good in my hands and the mass was actually stabilizing.

In my past life, I was a physics professor, and as the pivot point is where I grab the DSLR, and as the center of mass is below the pivot point, relative to the gravitational field, it gives it a stable feel.  And too, you get to control/steady the video camera with two hands.

And yes I'm working on a tripod version or two.

Well, I owe you some new video!  The video looks great & I will edit some & upload in a couple weeks.

And until then, enjoy some old video:

http://45surf.com/poetry

p.s. attaching a great dslr to a great hd video camera detracts form neither one's power... your style will change to become more continuously steady (out of conscious respect for the video), but that is not a bad thing.  shooting vertacle stills (or changing between vertical and horizontal stills can still be an issue, but you and still rotate the camera to grab a few!)

malibucanyonphotography wrote:

Thanks for that--but since one's time or an assistant's time costs far more than an hd video camera these days after a few sessions, by mounting the DSLR & HD camera together, one's productivity is greatly increased. 

If all of a sudden you see opportunities for epic stills, focus on shooting the stills!  But keep a video camera running, especially at 24p, and you may be amazed at the results.

For weddings and sports, why not be both the videographer and the photographer?  Even in DSLR cameras with video, one has to choose whetehr to shoot continuous stils or continuous videos.  Why not catch the winning goal or the bride kissing the groom in both stills and video?  Even if you have an assistant performing one of the tasks such as video, why not back it up with video off your own dual cameras?

Wow, ok, way to not read the posts in your own thread.  If you'd only read a little further down from this post of mine, you'd say I made another post, about how you would be wanting to shoot stills and video of things like photojournalism (like sports) and events (like weddings).  My issue with it is in things like model shoots, since in your post you have a girl who is clearly either a friend and/or model and that it's neither an event or photojournalistic moment. 

I'll never agree that you should do both at the same time though, only maybe if you're a journalist in the field by yourself.

If I'm shooting stills I'm looking for the right angles, and not concerned about how I move the camera to get there.  The video from this would look more like a clip out of Cloverfield or something.

If I'm shooting video Im' concerned about composition and movement of myself and the subjects, the whole time.

IE I don't see how you could do both without making one of them suffer from trying to do the other, if not make both of them. 

If it was Dad doing it, and not me trying to do it as a professional, then it's fine, but I don't think the product would be up to my standards.

fLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY NYC wrote:
Wow, ok, way to not read the posts in your own thread.  If you'd only read a little further down from this post of mine, you'd say I made another post, about how you would be wanting to shoot stills and video of things like photojournalism (like sports) and events (like weddings).  My issue with it is in things like model shoots, since in your post you have a girl who is clearly either a friend and/or model and that it's neither an event or photojournalistic moment. 

I'll never agree that you should do both at the same time though, only maybe if you're a journalist in the field by yourself.

If I'm shooting stills I'm looking for the right angles, and not concerned about how I move the camera to get there.  The video from this would look more like a clip out of Cloverfield or something.

If I'm shooting video Im' concerned about composition and movement of myself and the subjects, the whole time.

IE I don't see how you could do both without making one of them suffer from trying to do the other, if not make both of them. 

If it was Dad doing it, and not me trying to do it as a professional, then it's fine, but I don't think the product would be up to my standards.

Thanks for feedback,

Yes--it actually changed my style a bit, but just a tiny bit.  I'm just a bit more conscious about keeping the camera steady and moving smoothly--which is good for both stills & video!  And if all of a sudden I want a still or two, I go for it.  Then I quickly glance down with my left eye and see whether or not the the subject is still framed in the camcorder.  And generally, there they are!  The zoom and thus field of view can easily be adjusted for both the camcorder and the dlsr easily.

And I consider shoots with models out on the beach events akin to weddings/sports events/etc., as while shooting the model, things just "suddenly" happen, like the clouds break at sunset (like they did just last night), or the wind kicks up, or a set of huge wave rolls in, or a flock of birds lands behind her.  In such cases you only have a few minutes to catch it all, as it's a semi-controlled environment; and now I can catch them both in stills and video.

And if need be I can turn the video camera off or ignore it, and vice versa. 

For outdoor, active shoots on the beach with swimsuit models, it's awesome!  Everyone has limited time, and shooting video and stills independently would cost twice as much.

My former solution was to tape the shoot from a small, set tripod, but that actaully would miss a lot more shots, as we are always moving around and out of frame, and I would have to reset the tripod on rocks/sand which takes time to do right. 

Now the model is always right there, wherever I am aiming.  And too, unlike the camcorder-set-on-tripod model, the camcorder now shoots all the coolest angles which I am finding with the DSLR! So it makes sense for me.  Not all of the vidoe footage will be perfect, but 90%+ will rock out, and even be better than the tripod-mounted, stationary camera!

Last night I shot with a Canon 5D Markii under shich was mounted an HV30 tape (24mbps) camera shooting 24p.

The model showed up @ 3 pm, so we had two and only two hours before sundown.  & it's awesome fun shooting with both simultaneously.  I'll be out there with this new rig.



p.s. and as cheap as cameras, storage, and tapes are getting, as this system saves hours of models/photographers/assistant videographer's time, it pays for itself in a few shoots.

malibucanyonphotography wrote:

Thanks for feedback,

Yes--it actually changed my style a bit, but just a tiny bit.  I'm just a bit more conscious about keeping the camera steady and moving smoothly--which is good for both stills & video!  And if all of a sudden I want a still or two, I go for it.  Then I quickly glance down with my left eye and see whether or not the the subject is still framed in the camcorder.  And generally, there they are!  The zoom and thus field of view can easily be adjusted for both the camcorder and the dlsr easily.

And I consider shoots with models out on the beach events akin to weddings/sports events/etc., as while shooting the model, things just "suddenly" happen, like the clouds break at sunset (like they did just last night), or the wind kicks up, or a set of huge wave rolls in, or a flock of birds lands behind her.  In such cases you only have a few minutes to catch it all, as it's a semi-controlled environment; and now I can catch them both in stills and video.

And if need be I can turn the video camera off or ignore it, and vice versa. 

For outdoor, active shoots on the beach with swimsuit models, it's awesome!  Everyone has limited time, and shooting video and stills independently would cost twice as much.

My former solution was to tape the shoot from a small, set tripod, but that actaully would miss a lot more shots, as we are always moving around and out of frame, and I would have to reset the tripod on rocks/sand which takes time to do right. 

Now the model is always right there, wherever I am aiming.  And too, unlike the camcorder-set-on-tripod model, the camcorder now shoots all the coolest angles which I am finding with the DSLR! So it makes sense for me.  Not all of the vidoe footage will be perfect, but 90%+ will rock out, and even be better than the tripod-mounted, stationary camera!

Last night I shot with a Canon 5D Markii under shich was mounted an HV30 tape (24mbps) camera shooting 24p.

The model showed up @ 3 pm, so we had two and only two hours before sundown.  & it's awesome fun shooting with both simultaneously.  I'll be out there with this new rig.



p.s. and as cheap as cameras, storage, and tapes are getting, as this system saves hours of models/photographers/assistant videographer's time, it pays for itself in a few shoots.

Stop peddling your product. 

In that last post you stopped asking for opinions, feedback, and comments and just made it a cliche sales pitch.

Regardless of what you tell me I will never like this idea.  Also the more you talk about cost in relation to excusing this, the more annoyed I am.

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:

Exactly

+1

are we so cheap we can't find someone to shoot the video while another does stills?   how about tf*?

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Here's a better way to shoot both video and still at the same time. If it's good enough for Time magazine, it's good enough for me. It's a little more expensive than the $10 I would have spent at Home Depot.

http://www.red.com/

I could trade all my cameras, lenses, lighting for this and still wouldn't quite be in the Red. 

malibucanyonphotography wrote:

Thanks for feedback,

Yes--it actually changed my style a bit, but just a tiny bit.  I'm just a bit more conscious about keeping the camera steady and moving smoothly--which is good for both stills & video! And if all of a sudden I want a still or two, I go for it.  Then I quickly glance down with my left eye and see whether or not the the subject is still framed in the camcorder.  And generally, there they are!  The zoom and thus field of view can easily be adjusted for both the camcorder and the dlsr easily.

honestly, this sounds like half-assing 2 different ways of capturing images rather than approaching each method creatively and professionally.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

honestly, this sounds like half-assing 2 different ways of capturing images rather than approaching each method creatively and professionally.

Glad someone else agrees with me

It's like people today rather have more of a crappy product rather than less of a really good one....doesn't make sense.

malibucanyonphotography wrote:
anyone else shoot video?
happy holidays!

80% of my shoots are filmed... I would love the RED system.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

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

Hell I thought she was the rig and figured it was a one off custom job.

Kelli Kickham wrote:
I think in cases it could be a good idea.

Just make sure the model knows.

I don't know that I'd be happy if I went to a shoot and there was a video camera that I didn't know would be there.

heh heh.... how on earth could you not know THAT was there?

It ain't exactly covert.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

heh heh.... how on earth could you not know THAT was there?

It ain't exactly covert.

I meant before the shoot silly.

But that would be a pretty funny thing to overlook.

It seems like it would be really annoying and limit mobility though. I would think setting it up from a tripod would be more effective, or having an assistant filming.

fLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY NYC wrote:

Glad someone else agrees with me

It's like people today rather have more of a crappy product rather than less of a really good one....doesn't make sense.

oh puhleeze.  I don't  even have to begin to tell you...the shit that's being passed off as professional video right now.

I mean it's one thing if it's "home movies" like old super 8 only modern.

But if someone handed me a video made from someone trying to simultaneously keep a still and video camera in focus with a subject that isn't immobile, I'd be tempted to break their C clamp contraption right then and there....

lawrence James Photog wrote:
I will have to try this I'm curious of the actual turnout. the perspective of the video might be useful.

yes--the relative angles between the camcorder and the dslr are adjustable for various persepctives.  plus the zooms on both cameras can be varied. takes a bit of learning, but it's kinda like putting a sail on a surfboard--the board's still cutting through the same water, but now it's both the wind and waves one must pay attention to. . .

malibucanyonphotography wrote:  the relative angles between the camcorder and the dslr are adjustable for various persepctives.  plus the zooms on both cameras can be varied. takes a bit of learning, but it's kinda like putting a sail on a surfboard--the board's still cutting through the same water, but now it's both the wind and waves one must pay attention to. . .

Nah, It's like putting a sail on one hull of a catamaran and a V6 engine on the other hull.

Mark Ellison wrote:
Wow I know I'm about to really get flamed but...

I think it's a great ideal!!

(Hear me out before anyone douses me with gas)

My main function is as a photographer.  That means my MAIN concern is still images.  However, I'm looking for every single value-added step that I can take to gain extra profit with low/no extra effort.  If I can add a rig like this to my shoots , I can run video as a secondary option.  The video camera isn't important at that point as the stills are what my client's ORIGINALLY came to me for.

After the shoot, I'll keep my normal workflow for the images.  I 'll slice up the video into individual clips, eliminating the 90% of it that shows my feet as I talk to the model, is shaky, etc.  I'll take the best of those clips, use something automated like ANIMOTO to make it look "shiny and purty", and offer that up as an extra service to the client.  Every client loves it when I show it big-screen because it makes them look like a "SupaStar" when they put it on FB, MySpace, etc. 

It cost me nothing but the annual subscription (which I can easily recoup in two or three shoots) and after that, I can even use it to promote the studio and my services as much as I like, for free.

We, as photographers, have to see the extra value that we can provide the clients these days.  Anyone can take a good picture with today's technology.  You have to separate yourself from the crowd by what you can offer...

Okay. I'm getting in my Speedos now, preparing for my gasoline bath...

EDIT:  It's not a good system if you want a linear video of any good length but it's excellent for grabbing clips that can be used elsewhere...

+1

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Why is this thinly veiled spam thread still open? I agree that there are valid discussions regarding shooting video at he same time as stills but that discussion should be restarted in a new thread without the sales pitch.

What sales pitch?

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:

Ah....there you have it! Canon can now offer those "live action" stills using the video feature because the average consumer could never hope to catch those percise moments on their own.

Talk about point and shoot.....now it's going big time!

Yeah I dont know.  The shutter speed cant be too high and since the actual mechanical shutter is jammed open, can never be truly crisp which is one of the hallmarks of those great action sports shots.  Soo...  IDK.  You'll get a shot you probably would have missed, but there's going to be an awful lot of blur in it.  Maybe it doesnt matter at 4x6 anyway.  Its an improvement over a point and shoot, but the camera in general is an improvement over the point and shoot.  Seems ridiculous to pay that much for a high end camera just to shoot video with it.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

What sales pitch?

I'll give you a hint. The OP of this thread is selling this thing and the sales pitch is in the first post. It starts with http://