Stills in Photo Mode VS Movie Frame mode? at DVinfo.net

Dave Heltzel · January 21st, 2004, 09:54 AM

Howdy,
I have a GL-2 now and gave my GL-1 to my dad. Last night we were discussing the difference between a still taken in Photo mode vs. a still grabbed from Movie Frame mode. He was trying to take a still taken in Photo mode and enlarge it to an 8x10. He said that the picture did not look clear and couldn't tell the difference between it and a Movie Frame still grab. In the past I have taken stills in Photo mode and was able to enlarge them and still have good quality. I even used a portion of a still that was the main subject in a 13x19 poster. Yeah, there was some resolution loss but from a few feet away it looked fine. Now I can't remember what I did to accomplish this. I think I upped the resolution because when I went back to the source pic it had a 240dpi. I use Photoshop for stills and I am teaching him to do the same. I have produced 8x10's from Photo mode and they look great. But once again I can't remember what I did.

I gues what my question would be: What is the difference between a still taken in Photo mode and a still grabbed from Movie Frame mode, captured to DV tape on a GL-1? Are the resolutions different? What is the best way to take a still with a GL-1 if it is intended to be enlarge? Or what do I do in Photoshop to get a better looking enlarged pic?

Once again, I have done it before, I'm just trying to remember how and maybe get an explanation that will help me explain the process to my technology challenged dad.

Any advice or comments would be great! Thanks.

Adios

Dave Heltzel · January 22nd, 2004, 11:22 AM

I was looking through some other threads and I think I found one with some subject matter I am looking for. It was a thread Steve Nunez had that dealt with some stills of a hawk captured by a GL-2.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=6759

The stills were of a hawk in a tree captured originally in Normal "Easy" video mode and then sent through photoshop to produce the stills. The images looked great and even seems as though he increased the size and maintained resolution. I think this is what I need to be doing but I'm not sure how. I think in the thread he mentioned sending it through some compression then doing some other steps before going to photoshop. A step by step process of what he did would be great. Maybe Steve can inform us about this process.

Anyone know about this? I would love to find out more because I would like to do some printing of pics (like 8x10's) and not just putting on websites. Is this possible?

By the way, I am pretty much an amateur when it comes to this. I am using Adobe Premiere for video editing and fairly knowledgeable in Photshop.

Thirsty for knowledge!

Chris Fangio · January 22nd, 2004, 04:53 PM

Dave,

I strongly recommend using the still image feature (CARD) of the XM2 / GL2 as the resolution is much higher (2x). You cannot use as low shutter speeds as in normal tape mode, but most time this should be ok. Still images in tape mode are 720x576 (XM2), in card mode 1488 x 1128. So this is a big difference.

You don't even need a special software to transfer your images to your computer if you're running Windows 2000/XP or Mac OS X. Just switch your cam to PLAY/CARD postion, connect it via USB to your computer and it will show up as a disk drive.

Hope that helps,
Chris (it's damn cold here in germany right now ...)

Steve Olds · January 22nd, 2004, 09:15 PM

I have some very nice photos from the SD card. And they look and print out great on an old crappy HP 722 desk jet. (not HP's fault, but mine) I use a mono pod or tri for most photos of wildlife from a blind. Good luck!

Jeff Donald · January 22nd, 2004, 09:30 PM

Open the image in Photoshop. Go to image>size and check the box that says resample image. Adjust size to finished print size (8x10, 5x7 etc.) and set pixels per inch (PPI) to 300 and click OK. Adjust the levels and make any color corrections that are necessary. Final step before printing is to sharpen the image. Always sharpen last. Go to filter>unsharp mask and adjust sliders. A properly sharpened picture will look crunchy (overly sharp) on the screen. If you have questions post back.

Dave Heltzel · January 23rd, 2004, 07:20 AM

Thanks guys!

The reason I was asking about stills from video is for my dad. He has my GL-1 now and uses it to video his whitetail deer. Using the photo mode on the GL-1 can cause you to miss alot of good poses (6 sec delays!) so we like to use video to capture the footage and then grab a still from it. In his situation he doesn't have the card as an option and the GL-2 (I use) also has the delay in photo mode. That's why I am so intrigued about Steve Nunez's hawk pics. It seems we would benefit from the process he is using to grab stills for our pics of deer.

Chris, Steve:
I will be using the photo card on my GL-2 and love the USB hook up. It's great to be able to open it up in Explorer and there the pictures sit.

Jeff:
I will try what you have mentioned. It would be wonderful to take the stills from video and produce something of decent quality for print.

Dave Heltzel · January 23rd, 2004, 07:23 AM

Jeff,
Great pics! Do you have any stills you have captured from video? Would love to see them if you do.

Jeff Donald · January 23rd, 2004, 07:34 AM

Dave, unfortunately I do not. I experimented with video captures a few times but I've always been disappointed with the results, especially when compared to more traditional (film and digital) photographic results. I shoot both, but not at the same time.

Since I pursue wildlife photography professionally, my emphasis from still to video changes with market demand. Currently I find more demand for my still work and my video documentary work takes a backseat. The video field is somewhat flooded right now, but I anticipate demand will increase as HD video increases in popularity. Then the cycle will continue with HD video in greater demand.

Dave Heltzel · January 23rd, 2004, 09:36 AM

Jeff
I agree with the results video stills provide. We use the video stills as a marketing tool for the deer my dad sells, so some quality loss is ok but not to the point the pics do injustice to the deer. The video stills are more a convience and we defintely would not use them to sell reproductions. Just given the nature of animals, being able to capture every move on a time limit then get a half way decent still from the footage is so convenient.

I see you use the 10D for your stills. I've been thinking about one for myself also. I also noticed Canon's new Rebel digital SLR. Do you have any insight to this camera? I think the price is what attracts me the most.

Steve Olds · January 23rd, 2004, 09:53 AM

Even better I bought a jump trio USB and I dont even need to drag the camera out put put the photos on hard drive!

January 21st, 2004, 09:54 AM	#1
Dave Heltzel New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 23	Stills in Photo Mode VS Movie Frame mode? Howdy, I have a GL-2 now and gave my GL-1 to my dad. Last night we were discussing the difference between a still taken in Photo mode vs. a still grabbed from Movie Frame mode. He was trying to take a still taken in Photo mode and enlarge it to an 8x10. He said that the picture did not look clear and couldn't tell the difference between it and a Movie Frame still grab. In the past I have taken stills in Photo mode and was able to enlarge them and still have good quality. I even used a portion of a still that was the main subject in a 13x19 poster. Yeah, there was some resolution loss but from a few feet away it looked fine. Now I can't remember what I did to accomplish this. I think I upped the resolution because when I went back to the source pic it had a 240dpi. I use Photoshop for stills and I am teaching him to do the same. I have produced 8x10's from Photo mode and they look great. But once again I can't remember what I did. I gues what my question would be: What is the difference between a still taken in Photo mode and a still grabbed from Movie Frame mode, captured to DV tape on a GL-1? Are the resolutions different? What is the best way to take a still with a GL-1 if it is intended to be enlarge? Or what do I do in Photoshop to get a better looking enlarged pic? Once again, I have done it before, I'm just trying to remember how and maybe get an explanation that will help me explain the process to my technology challenged dad. Any advice or comments would be great! Thanks. Adios

January 22nd, 2004, 09:30 PM	#5
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Open the image in Photoshop. Go to image>size and check the box that says resample image. Adjust size to finished print size (8x10, 5x7 etc.) and set pixels per inch (PPI) to 300 and click OK. Adjust the levels and make any color corrections that are necessary. Final step before printing is to sharpen the image. Always sharpen last. Go to filter>unsharp mask and adjust sliders. A properly sharpened picture will look crunchy (overly sharp) on the screen. If you have questions post back. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 23rd, 2004, 07:34 AM	#8
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Dave, unfortunately I do not. I experimented with video captures a few times but I've always been disappointed with the results, especially when compared to more traditional (film and digital) photographic results. I shoot both, but not at the same time. Since I pursue wildlife photography professionally, my emphasis from still to video changes with market demand. Currently I find more demand for my still work and my video documentary work takes a backseat. The video field is somewhat flooded right now, but I anticipate demand will increase as HD video increases in popularity. Then the cycle will continue with HD video in greater demand. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 22nd, 2004, 11:22 AM	#2
Dave Heltzel New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 23	I was looking through some other threads and I think I found one with some subject matter I am looking for. It was a thread Steve Nunez had that dealt with some stills of a hawk captured by a GL-2. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=6759 The stills were of a hawk in a tree captured originally in Normal "Easy" video mode and then sent through photoshop to produce the stills. The images looked great and even seems as though he increased the size and maintained resolution. I think this is what I need to be doing but I'm not sure how. I think in the thread he mentioned sending it through some compression then doing some other steps before going to photoshop. A step by step process of what he did would be great. Maybe Steve can inform us about this process. Anyone know about this? I would love to find out more because I would like to do some printing of pics (like 8x10's) and not just putting on websites. Is this possible? By the way, I am pretty much an amateur when it comes to this. I am using Adobe Premiere for video editing and fairly knowledgeable in Photshop. Thirsty for knowledge!

January 22nd, 2004, 04:53 PM	#3
Chris Fangio Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Koblenz, Germany Posts: 70	Dave, I strongly recommend using the still image feature (CARD) of the XM2 / GL2 as the resolution is much higher (2x). You cannot use as low shutter speeds as in normal tape mode, but most time this should be ok. Still images in tape mode are 720x576 (XM2), in card mode 1488 x 1128. So this is a big difference. You don't even need a special software to transfer your images to your computer if you're running Windows 2000/XP or Mac OS X. Just switch your cam to PLAY/CARD postion, connect it via USB to your computer and it will show up as a disk drive. Hope that helps, Chris (it's damn cold here in germany right now ...)

January 22nd, 2004, 09:15 PM	#4
Steve Olds Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rolla, Mo Posts: 116	I have some very nice photos from the SD card. And they look and print out great on an old crappy HP 722 desk jet. (not HP's fault, but mine) I use a mono pod or tri for most photos of wildlife from a blind. Good luck!

January 23rd, 2004, 07:20 AM	#6
Dave Heltzel New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 23	Thanks guys! The reason I was asking about stills from video is for my dad. He has my GL-1 now and uses it to video his whitetail deer. Using the photo mode on the GL-1 can cause you to miss alot of good poses (6 sec delays!) so we like to use video to capture the footage and then grab a still from it. In his situation he doesn't have the card as an option and the GL-2 (I use) also has the delay in photo mode. That's why I am so intrigued about Steve Nunez's hawk pics. It seems we would benefit from the process he is using to grab stills for our pics of deer. Chris, Steve: I will be using the photo card on my GL-2 and love the USB hook up. It's great to be able to open it up in Explorer and there the pictures sit. Jeff: I will try what you have mentioned. It would be wonderful to take the stills from video and produce something of decent quality for print.

January 23rd, 2004, 07:23 AM	#7
Dave Heltzel New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 23	Jeff, Great pics! Do you have any stills you have captured from video? Would love to see them if you do.

January 23rd, 2004, 09:36 AM	#9
Dave Heltzel New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 23	Jeff I agree with the results video stills provide. We use the video stills as a marketing tool for the deer my dad sells, so some quality loss is ok but not to the point the pics do injustice to the deer. The video stills are more a convience and we defintely would not use them to sell reproductions. Just given the nature of animals, being able to capture every move on a time limit then get a half way decent still from the footage is so convenient. I see you use the 10D for your stills. I've been thinking about one for myself also. I also noticed Canon's new Rebel digital SLR. Do you have any insight to this camera? I think the price is what attracts me the most.

January 23rd, 2004, 09:53 AM	#10
Steve Olds Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rolla, Mo Posts: 116	Even better I bought a jump trio USB and I dont even need to drag the camera out put put the photos on hard drive!