nikon finally gets canon quality 1080p hd (24p, 30i, 60i) hd video. lol!

sorry, it just looks like a crop compared to the full shot. i was deliberately harsh because i think this discussion is pretty silly. if it works for you that's great but most people probably wouldn't work like that so it's not really a solution to anything.
 
Roxy, nothing wrong with using two camera's at the same time but the point other are trying to make is the control factor... if you are taking stills of a model, you may want to make a close up of her knees and after that a close-up of her face so you move your still camera up, so your video cam will go up as well, but assing your video cam is in wide angle, there is not reason for going up because the model is in frame already anyway and by moving the cam up, she will move out of frame.

Like I already said, I do it too but then I put the other camera on a separate tripod. You showed some stills, can you also show a part of a video that you shot at the same time as the stills?
 
The tone of this thread is really disappointing.

I have never seen such a "can't do" attitude before on DVXuser. Guys it's about problem solving and innovation. This is someone working through those steps. I find it refreshing actually rather then just the incessant complaining about gear that so overpopulates these boards.

John Caballero said:
LOL! Just hilarious!
Click to expand...

John, because of the order of the posts I know it looks like I was responding to you, but my comments were not directed solely at you.
 
i would say the opposite. i've shot very little porn but wouldn't that be exactly the type of situation when you'd want to shoot your closeup stills and your wides from different angles?
 
Whether you shoot porn or glamour of fashion, yes it makes sense to shoot close-ups and wides at the same time especially when the model is very expensive (lol!) but again I would never do that using two camera's attached to each other. John called it Siamese twins and what is the advantage of being part of a Siamese twin? It would only make sense if one was shooting 3D.
 
polfilmblog said:
Hey for porn that looks downright brilliant.
Click to expand...

why do so some photographers, like the above, automatically associate film/stills with porn and the adult industry?

i have a theory as to why this is.

1) their own personal consumption of film and video alongside stills is by and large porn, as opposed to say watching more exalted videos or films such as lord of the rings or the matrix or star wars, or watching news clips on youtube or comedy shows or dramas on hulu, or science videos across the web, or reading national geographic and watching their documentaries, or enjoying documentaries such as "inside job," or behind-the-scenes fashion shoot videos. so when they see any mention of digital "video" alongside stills, their brains automatically go "lzozlzozo pron! lzozlzl omglzozl pov pron! lzozlz!" like they are living in 1995.

2) some photographers/videographers are opposed to having to learn a new skill such as video or photography. so when they see other photographers utilizing video, they try and belittle them and put them down by associating online video/stills with porn and the adult industry, as if we are living in 1995, and not 2010. this is unbecoming of them, while also tipping their hand. no?

but truth be told, as victor hugo said, "one cannot not stop an idea whose time has come." one ignores industry trends--and the rising demand for video--at one's own peril. the fact is that more and more clients are requesting/demanding video. i blog about these trends here: http://9shooter.blogspot.com

"From the luminous landscape website:
Chris Sandberg

I attended a lecture/slide show/presentation by photographer Sam Abell last week, as part of the National Geographic Live! season in Minneapolis. Mr. Abell has had a 25-year career shooting for National Geographic, and he was asked what an aspiring young photographer who wanted to follow in his footsteps should do, He responded that the National Geographic now looks to only hire still photographers who are also video-trained! His advice was that young photographers should be sure they are versed in both disciplines.
So, we may be seeing not only the tip of the iceberg on the technology side, but truly a convergence on the artistic side, as well."

Great issue of DIGITAL SLR PHOTOGRAPHY magazine from the UK on the stands right now!!! "pros will be eventually expected to deliver web-worthy package of movies and stills."

Check out the very last page where Caroline Wilikinson writes:

“…. HD video is slowly entering the marketplace as standard in DSLRs and pros will be eventually expected to deliver web-worthy package of movies and stills. There are already examples of where stills and moves have been merged. For instance, have you noticed the moving magazine covers or corporate portraits on website? Video is already starting to take the place of pictures on news provider’s websites too. It was always said a picture is worth a thousand words, well now you can get 24 frames-per-second—now that’s a lot more words…."
Click to expand...
 
RieniO said:
Roxy, nothing wrong with using two camera's at the same time but the point other are trying to make is the control factor... if you are taking stills of a model, you may want to make a close up of her knees and after that a close-up of her face so you move your still camera up, so your video cam will go up as well, but assing your video cam is in wide angle, there is not reason for going up because the model is in frame already anyway and by moving the cam up, she will move out of frame.

Like I already said, I do it too but then I put the other camera on a separate tripod. You showed some stills, can you also show a part of a video that you shot at the same time as the stills?
Click to expand...

yes! i generally have one or two cameras on separate tripods during the shoot. can you see the extra camera in this picture off to the right? it is a canon 7d shooting video:
the cameras can be rotated relative to one-another. each one can be zoomed in or out. the field of view can be adjusted on either throughout the shoot.



 
Last edited:
RieniO said:
Roxy, nothing wrong with using two camera's at the same time but the point other are trying to make is the control factor... if you are taking stills of a model, you may want to make a close up of her knees and after that a close-up of her face so you move your still camera up, so your video cam will go up as well, but assing your video cam is in wide angle, there is not reason for going up because the model is in frame already anyway and by moving the cam up, she will move out of frame.

Like I already said, I do it too but then I put the other camera on a separate tripod. You showed some stills, can you also show a part of a video that you shot at the same time as the stills?
Click to expand...

yes this article contains both stills and video shot simultaneously:

http://www.diyphotography.net/a-diy-9shooter-shooting-stills-video-simultaneously-audio-too

stills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/picturesofautumn/archives/date-posted/2010/08/19/
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFb-SvjcMxU

and i have more too. :)
 
mattsand said:
sorry, it just looks like a crop compared to the full shot. i was deliberately harsh because i think this discussion is pretty silly. if it works for you that's great but most people probably wouldn't work like that so it's not really a solution to anything.
Click to expand...

well, you said it "sucks." and i still don't understand what you meant. a crop off a canon 5d mark ii is HUGE:
 
Last edited:
William_Robinette said:
The tone of this thread is really disappointing.

I have never seen such a "can't do" attitude before on DVXuser. Guys it's about problem solving and innovation. This is someone working through those steps. I find it refreshing actually rather then just the incessant complaining about gear that so overpopulates these boards.



John, because of the order of the posts I know it looks like I was responding to you, but my comments were not directed solely at you.
Click to expand...

thanks william! yes in every thread the two most consistent comments are generally "omg that would be great for pron lzozlzlzloozzl!" and "omg that sucks and is dumb and stupid because what if you want a portrait shot? because if you crop a portrait out of a landscape it sucks!" check it out again here:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=638411

and then comes the "but the cameras have different fields of view!" yes--both of which are freely adjsutable. sometimes i shoot head shots with the dslr while shooting full body video with the video camera & vice versa.

and then people say, "well, it might work for the OP, but that doesn't mean it will work for everyone." yeah--just like every other camera and piece of equipment ever made, and every philosophy ever conceived of. i'm not sure why some think this is news.

and then comes "the camera shake will kill it!" two things: have you been to see a hollywood film lately? the camera shake is insane! also, have you used the new canons or sony's with dynamic image stabilization? it completely smooths out the transitions/motion so that your little video has less shake than a hollywood blockbuster.

and all the criticisms have this startling fact in common--not one of the critics has tried it. it is like criticizing a restaurant without ever having eaten there, or a film without ever having seen it.
but too i understand that most do not mean ill. :) "Be kind," said Plato, "for we are all fighting a tough battle."
If at first an idea does not seem insane, there is no hope for it. --Einstein

I am but mad North-North-West--when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw. --Shakespeare's Hamlet

There is a method to his madness. --Shakespeare's Hamlet

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. --Steven Jobs

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
Click to expand...


have fun!

 
Last edited:
roxyphotography said:
thanks william! yes in every thread the two most consistent comments are generally "omg that would be great for pron lzozlzlzloozzl!" and "omg that sucks and is dumb and stupid because what if you want a portrait shot? because if you crop a portrait out of a landscape it sucks!"
Click to expand...

When you post a new idea on an internet forum people will never react the way you would like them to react. Also, what kind of reaction are you hoping for? Your idea is not new or unique it's been tried a million times before and most people who tried it concluded that it doesn't work for them. Maybe it is you who should accept that people don't like the idea. Just do your thing, if it works for you, great, go on with it, don't waste your time and energy on trying to convert others to what works well for you. If I would invent something really original myself and it would work for me I would surely not try to convert others, I would keep it for myself :-)

I checked out your video on youtube and I find it useless. Too much movement, you can see the flashing from the still camera, exposure is set horribly, the model isn't posing for video but for stills, etc etc. It only confirms the points that were made earlier; if you shoot with two camera's that are attached to each other, it is impossible to control both camera's in an optimal way; you'll always have to compromise. All you are trying to achieve is more quantity (more material) rather than better quality. I would feel bad about myself if I was working like that. If I need both stills and video, I just book the model for long enough so that I have enough time to get my material; usually I book models for 2 or 3 days in a row with 8 shooting hours per day that consist of separate still and video shoots. The only thing I do to save time is to use same make-up, set and outfit for photo and video.

So in short.... it's impossible to create quality material like this. I still wish you good luck with it.
 
RieniO said:
When you post a new idea on an internet forum people will never react the way you would like them to react. Also, what kind of reaction are you hoping for? Your idea is not new or unique it's been tried a million times before and most people who tried it concluded that it doesn't work for them. Maybe it is you who should accept that people don't like the idea. Just do your thing, if it works for you, great, go on with it, don't waste your time and energy on trying to convert others to what works well for you. If I would invent something really original myself and it would work for me I would surely not try to convert others, I would keep it for myself :-)

I checked out your video on youtube and I find it useless. Too much movement, you can see the flashing from the still camera, exposure is set horribly, the model isn't posing for video but for stills, etc etc. It only confirms the points that were made earlier; if you shoot with two camera's that are attached to each other, it is impossible to control both camera's in an optimal way; you'll always have to compromise. All you are trying to achieve is more quantity (more material) rather than better quality. I would feel bad about myself if I was working like that. If I need both stills and video, I just book the model for long enough so that I have enough time to get my material; usually I book models for 2 or 3 days in a row with 8 shooting hours per day that consist of separate still and video shoots. The only thing I do to save time is to use same make-up, set and outfit for photo and video.

So in short.... it's impossible to create quality material like this. I still wish you good luck with it.
Click to expand...

well, of course you are going to say that. but how come you don't link to any stills or video taken from your 24 hour marathon shoots with models? is that fair for you to bash my work while hiding your own? if we went head-to-head on video and stills, that would make this a far more useful debate! so thanks in advance for sharing your work!

as an experiment, i have been posting video and stills on various sites, without telling people that i captured them at the same time; for when people see the camera setup (especially "pros"), they pre-judge the results.

here are the comments for the video:

Well done, Great Video...


Great quality, I wish i had that camcorder.


The quality of your video is excellent (the chica too). Please, could you tell us what editing software and what codec and rendering settings you used for your YouTube upload? Thanks.


Wow, Thank you..


WOW! NICE BODY!!!!!!!

she's hot.

bella!
Click to expand...
the video has been viewed over 8,000 times, and the stills have also received many great comments

now since you say that "If I need both stills and video, I just book the model for long enough so that I have enough time to get my material; usually I book models for 2 or 3 days in a row with 8 shooting hours per day that consist of separate still and video shoots. The only thing I do to save time is to use same make-up, set and outfit for photo and video." let's see some of you stills/video and the feedback!

i will put my work up against yours, and i bet that i win.

so are you up for this?

see, you are basing your entire judgment on the device based on an undeited video under three minutes long. i have dozens of hours of video footage. and you are saying "there is too much motion!" well, have you noticed that my video contains LESS camera shake than videos on leading fashion sites? When you talk about a "POV shaky cam mess," is this the video you are talking about? http://showstudio.com/blog/47233 how's that shake'n'bake 4 ya? So how can you argue that my unedited sample video moves "too much?" It moves far less than the camera above, and far less than the camera in the film The Bourne Identity. So who are you to say "too much?" again let's see your videos on leading fashion sites or major motion pictures!

So your opinion is biased.

But the challenge remains--I'll go head-to-head with you or anyone on stills and video.

And one more thing I'd like to add--art is a subjective experience and beauty is in the beholder's eye.

I checked out your video on youtube and I find it useless. Too much movement, you can see the flashing from the still camera, exposure is set horribly, the model isn't posing for video but for stills, etc etc.
well, sounds like a behind the scenes shoot! have you ever seen one of those? in them, "you can see the flashing from the still camera, the model isn't posing for video but for stills, etc etc. " the exposure is off because she is a bright object in a dark cave, so the camera has to choose whether to darken the shadows and render her or lighten the shadows and wash her out--so it has nothing to do with exposure and everything to do with the very limited dynamic range of a video camera.

and like i said, i generally shoot from one or two other angles simultaneously from stationary cameras. so the camera mounted on the video camera adds another useful angle.

and finally, where do you live that you book models three days in a row for 3 eight hour days (24 hours to successfully capture a model!?!?!)? how much do you pay them? sounds like you have enough money to hire steven spielberg to direct your videos too! :) so please do share some top stills and video from your 24+ hour shoots! thanks! :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
roxyphotography said:
"but the cameras have different fields of view!" yes--both of which are freely adjsutable
Click to expand...
the "technical" field of view i.e. focal length yes, but i don't think i've ever changed focal length without feeling that i had to move the camera too. that crop of yours is shot from the correct angle for a wide, it works less well for the medium. and had you repositioned to get a better medium it's very likely the wide would have suffered.
 
Roxy, I am not going into a debate with you, because I don't have time and energy for childish flaming. I made my point, and wished you good luck. Still a short reply:

roxyphotography said:
the exposure is off because she is a bright object in a dark cave, so the camera has to choose whether to darken the shadows and render her or lighten the shadows and wash her out--so it has nothing to do with exposure and everything to do with the very limited dynamic range of a video camera.
Click to expand...

This is crap. If you do a video shoot outdoors you make sure you control the light, by either using reflectors or electric lights fed by car batteries and 12/220V convertors. What you do now is showing a crappy video and then when you get criticized, come with excuses for why the video is so crappy. If I were you I would tone down a little and look at your video again and read my comments again and think of a way to improve your work. Put your energy in getting better at what you do, instead of putting your energy in getting your right in silly online forum discussions. There is so much to be learned out there, and most information can be found for free on the web, or in very affordable books @ amazon.com . Check for books about glamour and video lighting for example.

roxyphotography said:
and finally, where do you live that you book models three days in a row for 3 eight hour days (24 hours to successfully capture a model!?!?!)? how much do you pay them? sounds like you have enough money to hire steven spielberg to direct your videos too! :) so please do share some top stills and video from your 24+ hour shoots! thanks
Click to expand...

Among other things I shoot fetish content for adult sites and am doing quite allright with that. That gives enough budget for hiring models, buy proper equipment, not having to attach camera's to each other (lol!) etc. I will not give you any links because I don't have to proof anything to you. You don't have to believe me, if you think you're better than me I can very well live with that. There's a saying "don't feed the trolls", and I am not going to feed you.

Again, good luck with it. Next time you ask people for an opinion, add to that that you want praising replies only. I was just being honest to you and I'm sorry that you can't appreciate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top