View Full Version : Stills from video? Good or Bad?
Clive McLaughlin January 27th, 2014, 03:07 AM So a friend of mine (not a very close friend in fairness) has asked about video. But she said she can't afford both video and photography. She has noticed that on social networking that I sometimes upload frame grabs, and so she asked if i can provide the photography (basically stills from the video).
I have some reservations but clearly if I say no, she has to choose a photographer and no video.
Has anyone ever done this? what would the advice be?
Chris Harding January 27th, 2014, 03:20 AM Hi Clive
I shoot with 3 cameras AND 2 still cameras solo! It's hard work but it's quite possible. My Sony's can also shoot 16mp stills (apart from frame grabs) and I seriously wouldn't use them for wedding photography!! I still prefer my Nikons to do the serious photo stuff. Bear in mind that often the video guy has nothing to do while the family groups are being done so that's an ideal time to use a proper still camera ...if you have to crop a frame grab that's a mere 2 mp from video by lets say 50% then you have a very low res still not really suitable for anything except a fuzzy 4"x6" print.
I have a dual DSLR shoulder harness that holds the two cameras at my sides (like the wild west cowboys) and it quite easy to put the shoulder mount Sony down and bang off a few stills during the ceremony.
Chris
Danny O'Neill January 27th, 2014, 03:54 AM Remember, a 1080p still is about 2mp. A photographer will capture at around 20mp. What photographers do with this extra mp is it not only allows them to print off larger sizes but also gives them space to crop as needed.
Your shutter speed of 1/50 will also introduce motion blur. A photographer, if the light is good enough will shoot at around 1/200 or above, especially during the dancing. You can do the same to help reduce motion blur on your stills, however this will affect how your film looks and feels.
A video screen grab prints out fine at 4x6inches but any bigger and it will be come noticeably softer.
We tried our hand at photography and realised that it's a whole different discipline. You have that one frame to get a shot with everyone looking happy, eyes open and well composed. Video is a LOT more forgiving.
My advice, can you pull 300 good stills from any of your films? If so then by all means give it a go.
Steve Bleasdale January 27th, 2014, 03:59 AM If you go the screen grabs way then you have to make her fully understand they are not really good enough for prints apart from what Danny says 4x4, 6x4, 5x4 ect. For the web ok
Roger Gunkel January 27th, 2014, 05:13 AM I do both Video and Photography together, usually solo and enjoy the freedom it gives me. Both videographers and photographers tend to take shots when it is not neccessary, often just to fill time when they don't want to look like they are doing nothing. When you are doing both, it's easy to balance the two.
You have to wear two different hats though, as still photography requires a good eye for setting up group shots, arranging poses, getting people to stand properly, laying out the dress properly. Most importantly, you need to be able to communicate well, make people feel at ease, but take control. Video requires far less of those things, as you are capturing atmosphere, action and sound.
I use a DSLR and bridge camera for stills and video, and Panasonic video cameras for video and some stills. My video cameras are capable of taking 14mp stills while they are taking video, which is great for stills when flash and shutter sounds are not allowed. I always point out that the stills from the video cameras will be lower res than the other cameras, but will often get shots when I can't use the others.
Stills lifted from the video are only used if they capture a missed moment, and the lower resolution is secondary to the content.
Roger
Byron Jones January 27th, 2014, 05:54 AM I think this is doable for you as long as you explain that during the ceremony, you are putting video first and the frame grabs are lower res. Take Chris's advice and have a stills camera on a harness, that way once you setup a video shot (using a tripod), then you can snap a couple pictures too. If you have a multiple camera setup than this isn't too bad either way. Please don't use the video camera for the formal pictures in-between. Even if you warn the bride, she will not be happy later. I think you shoot video with a DSLR, so you should be ready to go for the formal pictures. Just make sure it's not a manual lens, or it will be a bit tougher on you during picture time. If posing people is not you thing, it might not be too hard to find someone that can help with that. Oh, make sure to have a shot list for the formal pictures approved by the bride before the big day as use it as a checklist (with the pictures of extended family first, then bridal party, then end with just the couple). Without a shot list, you might look a lot less professional as you try to think through the process while shooting. Plus an important picture might get missed.
Roger Van Duyn January 27th, 2014, 07:01 AM Speaking as a corporate videographer who only does occasional weddings, if you have a DSLR, and decent photography skills, you can offer to do some portraits while you are on site for the wedding, not during the ceremony, along with any good framegrabs from during the ceremony. I don't try to compete with the wedding photographers, but that's what I offer to couples who can't afford both a videographer (me) and a photographer.
Plus, friends will likely be snapping away with their phones. Friends will probably get some video clips too, but their audio of the vows probably won't be very good.
A lot of my corporate events are both video and photography. The weddings I've done I only needed to do the video, but a few times brides were grateful for framegrabs of scenes the photographer missed.
Noa Put January 27th, 2014, 08:49 AM Has anyone ever done this? what would the advice be?
If your friend understands the limitations I"d just do it.
Peter Riding January 27th, 2014, 05:11 PM I think you're inviting trouble.
You would need to shoot the stills on a camera dedicated to that purpose, screen grabs just won't cut it except for some fillers. Then you will need to be comfortable with posing and auxiliary lighting for the all important group and portrait shots otherwise your results will be indistinguishable from those of the guests.
Don't rely on "she knew what she was letting herself in for". She won't get it till too late. You may or may not get bad feedback from her but you are guaranteed bad feedback from anyone else.
If you do already have the skills to shoot good wedding stills remember that many cameras can now be fired automatically using cheap radio triggers readily available on Ebay. They may give you a safety net if you struggle to do combined stills and video during the ceremony and speeches.
Pete
Chris Harding January 27th, 2014, 06:10 PM It's actually quite refreshing to see totally opposite advice running on this thread. Normally it's always "Buy the best camera or use the highest bitrate" Now we have advice saying don't use a still camera for stills just use frame grabs.
I still have to agree with Peter though .. I think you are inviting disaster using frame grabs for the photography! It's really not that hard to use a still camera during the ceremony for a few nice shots but seriously, if you are just going to use frame grabs it would probably be more beneficial to give a still camera to a family member or even a guest so you can use decent size stills to crop with otherwise the guests shots are highly likely to be far better than yours.
Chris
Byron Jones January 27th, 2014, 07:52 PM Got a 4k camera? You might be able to pull off some screen grabs...
Dave Blackhurst January 27th, 2014, 09:29 PM I think the advice is actually pretty spot on - it CAN be done, but requires some limitations and perhaps reduced expectations... doing BOTH stills and video is a bit of a challenge for a "one man band" - if you could add a second "crewmember" at a discounted rate, that would seem preferable.
Pulling stills from a good HD video camera will "work", but will be soft if blown up (60p is better to pull stills from). As noted, SOME cameras can shoot stills and video simultaneously, but at reduced qualities for one or the other or both. But your brain has to be thinking two different directions to pull it off!
With some of the latest generation cams, you CAN manage to use a single camera and get usable results, but again, your brain has to be on two "channels", and you may miss some things.
There's also the question of expectations - can you run a couple video cameras and let 'em run unattended and get decent video that will "work"? Then you've got more brainpower to put towards shooting good stills.... can you shoot limited stills and get enough for the bride to be happy with the video and the stills?
Clive McLaughlin January 28th, 2014, 02:48 AM Thanks for all the feedback guys. I said no. For a lot of the reasons above, but also out of respect to the stills trade. I've made a lot of good friends through it. I actually really admire the work of good photographers.
I told her that she probably deserves to get herself a top photographer at the risk of opting for uncle Bob and a video camera.
Ideally she should have both, but if she had to choose one, I honestly - friend to friend had to advise her to invest in photography.
Byron Jones January 28th, 2014, 06:46 AM Clive, I frequently agree with you on this forum, and I understand why you said no. However, I do disagree with the "friend to friend" advice. I think the video is much more valuable in the future. If just having one or the other, I would pick video. Also, I would be much more happy with the pictures Uncle Bob took with a decent stills camera on auto, than I would ever be with his video.
Chris Harding January 28th, 2014, 07:30 AM Hi Clive
If you don't do her video and she is a true friend then she will invite you to the wedding as a guest. Then you can give her a video as a wedding gift.
If you are going anyway you might as well get mega brownie points by shooting her wedding. I do agree with Byron though! Most domestic still cameras offer a pretty good image and you should get a decent result even with an amateur operator and that's not the same as video which needs a lot more skill. Maybe shoot her video and then take someone (maybe her friend/brother/relative) and give them a few pointers about shooting a few stills ...I would personally get someone like that to do still when you cannot but put down the video gear after the ceremony and do the stills shoot yourself...that IS the most important bit and the part where video can take a break!!
Chris
Peter Riding January 28th, 2014, 07:50 AM There is a huge gulf between what modern cameras - even smartphones - can achieve in the right hands and the actual reality.
I know this because I allow my clients to include guest images in their professional albums - which I design - and I have to say that the norm is for the technical quality to be shockingly bad. It is very unusual for these photos to be anything approaching decent. Where I do include them I can't think of a single occasion when I could use an image other than in a very small size plus possibly camouflaged by conversion to black and white or some other special effect.
Then there is the whole areas of composition and lighting. Again its quite unusual for expressions to be flattering, posture to be acceptable, and any detail retained in the highlight and shadow areas. When flash is used it is invariably direct leading to shiny skin tones and over-dark backgrounds. "Point and shoot" simply does not work for weddings because for much of the day the shooting conditions are too extreme, and well outside the comfort zone of most hobbyists even if they have the right equipment.
The sorts of images that get included tend to be the goofy sort that might otherwise be shot in a photo booth with props - which after all is just a form of evening entertainment and NOT photography.
Pete
Byron Jones January 28th, 2014, 10:46 AM Pete, I was not implying the results would be on the same level as a professional. I have been shooting stills longer than video, and I know it takes knowledge and skill to produce good results even in less stressful environments. I am not belittling the role of photographers. I just know from experience that a good stills camera in the hands of an amateur stands a better chance at an acceptable photo, than giving them a video camera and expecting an acceptable video. As much as we make fun of the introductory photographer using the "spray and pray" approach, normally a few actually turn out usable (not amazing, but usable all the same). I was recommending Clive actually do the formal photo shoot and just have someone else snapping away during the ceremony. To be honest, I do not ever recall seeing someone blow up a shot from the actual wedding and hang somewhere. It is always the posed shots. The others are printed small and put in an album. That leaves a lot of cropping room, so composition (and in some cases- critical focus) are not quite as vital as with the bigger prints. Even if the couple want a specific shot from the ceremony and the amateur doesn't pull it off, Clive could easily get them back on the stage after for the shot, where it would be an obvious retake with the video (and take much more effort). If she could only afford one and Clive was willing to do the formal shots in between while he would normally be just getting a little B roll, I would definitely recommend the video option. If filming in HD, there might be some ceremony frame grabs that could also go in an album. Not the same as a professional, and not able to be printed bigger, but better than nothing if she can't afford both.
Roger Gunkel January 28th, 2014, 12:35 PM I would have to agree with Byron in as much as my clients invariably tell me after the event that the video is the thing that really captures the day. I often see past clients at other weddings and they often mention how the photo album sits in the draw gathering dust, whereas the video is watched quite often.
I also agree with Peter that the quality of stills from a skilled photographer is way above that of most amateurs both on technical quality and composition. Photography is also traditional and expected at a wedding but video is not. I do think though that a proper video record of the day has much more long term and historical value than photographs.
A vogue style romantic still of the bride and groom at their very best has immediate and high impact effect, but it will always be a frozen silent moment in time. The video will allow personalities, sounds and emotions to live on long after the people have passed on. A balance of both is the perfect solution, but to my mind, the video always wins. Peter, as you are coming from a long photographic background and with the emphasis on the photography, I respect your opinion and don't expect you to agree but that's what makes the forum interesting.
What I will add in passing, is that since we added the joint photographic package to our wedding options, many that previously would not have had a video are now booking us. Our bookings this year are already 30% up on any previous year and 80% are now the joint package.
Roger
Nigel Barker January 29th, 2014, 06:15 AM Screen grabs will be more than acceptable image quality if you are shooting with something like a C100/C300 BUT it's not a photograph & won't have been framed, posed or taken as such. Motion blur is a big problem. It might seem that you have 24/25/30 frames per second to choose from but as you step though them you will find that a hand is blurred & then the next shot the hand is still but the eyes are shut etc etc So if you video camera is good enough then technically it's do-able but results are likely to be disappointing.
Robert Benda January 29th, 2014, 08:36 AM Nigel, I was just thinking about the screen blur. I think to effectively and reliably use screen grabs from our video (shooting 24fps), we'd have to follow the photographer's rules of shutter speed faster than the lens. At 24fps, we'd end up using shutter 100 or 200, which would change the entire look of your video.
|
|