grab still images from video at DVinfo.net

Mike Lebeda · May 24th, 2004, 01:45 PM

How good are the still images grabbed from video? I want to take video of non-moving subjects, like inside of museum, church, etc. by doing a very slow pan. Then transfer video to PC and use Studio or Adobe Premiere to grab a frame for small size printing to put in a photo album (4 x 6). I realize frames are interlaced, but if my pan is slow will I be able to get reasonable pictures?

I am a 35mm and digital camera user and new to video. I have lots of still photo equipment, but want to be able to grab images I might have missed with my still shots. I am looking at the Canon Xi and would consider the GL2 if the progressive mode would get me better results.

Any help or experience out there?

Trond Saetre · May 24th, 2004, 02:52 PM

Based on the experience with my Canon XM2:

Indoors:
Pictures grabbed from video shot indoors, are generally not great. They are often more or less grainy. Stills taken with this camera is better (1,7MP), but the picture quality is lower than (any?) still camera will give you. (I have only compared with a 2,1MP and a 3,2MP still camera.)

Outdoors:
In good light, the pictures are much better.
(But you can still see some differences compared to a still camera)

Roger Golub · May 25th, 2004, 04:01 PM

If you have a "progressive scan" camera, or a fake progressive scan camera (ala the GL2) you can get non interlaced images that look "OK" at small sizes. At 4x6, you will definately notice image degradation compared to virtually any still digital camera.

With all the attendant hassle and low resolution you might be better off with a large media card on a digital still and shoot and modest resolution to a jpeg format.

This is quite fast on most modern cameras and will leave you with a bunch of pictures to contend with.

Justin Boyle · May 30th, 2004, 08:20 AM

The biggest problem with this camera is that it uses a process called pixel interpolation which adds the resolution of all ccd's and then interpolates more resolution by using pixel shifting technology to create a 1.7mpixel image. These is mere marketing and only helps to sell the camera to the general public. my camera is 3.0mpixles and the photos taken at this setting aren't really any better than when taken at 640x480 which is the low res setting. Don't think you are getting a camera that can be used as a digital still.

Justin

May 24th, 2004, 01:45 PM	#1
Mike Lebeda Tourist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Laguna CA Posts: 1	grab still images from video How good are the still images grabbed from video? I want to take video of non-moving subjects, like inside of museum, church, etc. by doing a very slow pan. Then transfer video to PC and use Studio or Adobe Premiere to grab a frame for small size printing to put in a photo album (4 x 6). I realize frames are interlaced, but if my pan is slow will I be able to get reasonable pictures? I am a 35mm and digital camera user and new to video. I have lots of still photo equipment, but want to be able to grab images I might have missed with my still shots. I am looking at the Canon Xi and would consider the GL2 if the progressive mode would get me better results. Any help or experience out there?

May 30th, 2004, 08:20 AM	#4
Justin Boyle Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 207	The biggest problem with this camera is that it uses a process called pixel interpolation which adds the resolution of all ccd's and then interpolates more resolution by using pixel shifting technology to create a 1.7mpixel image. These is mere marketing and only helps to sell the camera to the general public. my camera is 3.0mpixles and the photos taken at this setting aren't really any better than when taken at 640x480 which is the low res setting. Don't think you are getting a camera that can be used as a digital still. Justin __________________ jlboyle

May 24th, 2004, 02:52 PM	#2
Trond Saetre Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 3,375	Based on the experience with my Canon XM2: Indoors: Pictures grabbed from video shot indoors, are generally not great. They are often more or less grainy. Stills taken with this camera is better (1,7MP), but the picture quality is lower than (any?) still camera will give you. (I have only compared with a 2,1MP and a 3,2MP still camera.) Outdoors: In good light, the pictures are much better. (But you can still see some differences compared to a still camera)

May 25th, 2004, 04:01 PM	#3
Roger Golub Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Sitka, AK Posts: 46	If you have a "progressive scan" camera, or a fake progressive scan camera (ala the GL2) you can get non interlaced images that look "OK" at small sizes. At 4x6, you will definately notice image degradation compared to virtually any still digital camera. With all the attendant hassle and low resolution you might be better off with a large media card on a digital still and shoot and modest resolution to a jpeg format. This is quite fast on most modern cameras and will leave you with a bunch of pictures to contend with.