Re: Print a Photo from Video (4k 60)?

[SRV1981]

Is it possible to shoot action sports in 4k60p and grab frames to print that have good quality?  What is the max size you'd feel comfortable doing?  Was curious because the fx30 may be a good video camera and if action frames could be grabbed, edited, printed it may forego the need to do individual photography for personal use.  Although I do know the a7c2 and a6700 are coming out and may be better solutions but still curious.

[markr041]

38 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Is it possible to shoot action sports in 4k60p and grab frames to print that have good quality?  What is the max size you'd feel comfortable doing?  Was curious because the fx30 may be a good video camera and if action frames could be grabbed, edited, printed it may forego the need to do individual photography for personal use.  Although I do know the a7c2 and a6700 are coming out and may be better solutions but still curious.

The fx30 is a good video camera. And 60 fps enables high shutter speeds for both good motion in video and stop-action for stills.

But it would seem the ideal cameras for taking stills from video frames and shooting videos are the Nikon Z8 and Z9, which can shoot 8K RAW 60p.

[SRV1981]

2 hours ago, markr041 said:

The fx30 is a good video camera. And 60 fps enables high shutter speeds for both good motion in video and stop-action for stills.

But it would seem the ideal cameras for taking stills from video frames and shooting videos are the Nikon Z8 and Z9, which can shoot 8K RAW 60p.

Makes sense! Curious about smaller form factors - Nikons are too big for travel for most i'd think.  fx30 body is a great size.

[gt3rs]

Search my posts in the forum, I take a lot of pictures out of videos mostly out of 8k RAW and sometimes out of 4k 120fps….

Depending on the priority I set the shutter speed accordingly. video first then is 180 rule or up to 1/500, photo first I even set it to 1/3000… It depends a lot on the sports and if you are panning/following or fix position. Fix position 180 rule almost never work not even at 120fp 1/250, panning works in many more situation also as low as 1/50.

Sports people are so used to gopro videos and co that they mostly don’t notice if you shoot a video at 1/500….

[newfoundmass]

You can get decent stills from 4K video, it's just not a reliable way to do so, especially for action sports. Even with the best auto focus it'll be hard to get frames without some motion blur.

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

Search my posts in the forum, I take a lot of pictures out of videos mostly out of 8k RAW and sometimes out of 4k 120fps….

Depending on the priority I set the shutter speed accordingly. video first then is 180 rule or up to 1/500, photo first I even set it to 1/3000… It depends a lot on the sports and if you are panning/following or fix position. Fix position 180 rule almost never work not even at 120fp 1/250, panning works in many more situation also as low as 1/50.

Sports people are so used to gopro videos and co that they mostly don’t notice if you shoot a video at 1/500….

Will do! But don’t think there’s a small portable 8k sensor out there?

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

You can get decent stills from 4K video, it's just not a reliable way to do so, especially for action sports. Even with the best auto focus it'll be hard to get frames without some motion blur.

Could you shoot 4k60p in high frame rate for action sports?

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Could you shoot 4k60p in high frame rate for action sports?

It's not so much the frame rate that is the issue, it's the shutter speed. If you don't mind video that has motion that is a little off you can shoot at a higher shutter speed and get better results. But if you're trying to stick to the 180 degree shutter rule for video you're going to get motion blur during action shots. There's not a ton you can do to get around that. 

[SRV1981]

3 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

It's not so much the frame rate that is the issue, it's the shutter speed. If you don't mind video that has motion that is a little off you can shoot at a higher shutter speed and get better results. But if you're trying to stick to the 180 degree shutter rule for video you're going to get motion blur during action shots. There's not a ton you can do to get around that. 

Is there a downside bumping the shutter speed up? 

[gt3rs]

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Is there a downside bumping the shutter speed up?

It would help knowing what type of action/sports you plan to shoot and the type of shoot eg tripod, gimbal, mounted camera, fix camera, etc.

 

[SRV1981]

12 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

It would help knowing what type of action/sports you plan to shoot and the type of shoot eg tripod, gimbal, mounted camera, fix camera, etc.

 

Say track and field - handheld (with IBIS?) 

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Is there a downside bumping the shutter speed up? 

It can cause unnatural looking motion to your video. 

[SRV1981]

19 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

It can cause unnatural looking motion to your video. 

Are you familiar if any videos showing comparisons between shutter speeds for video above the 180 rule?

[newfoundmass]

18 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Are you familiar if any videos showing comparisons between shutter speeds for video above the 180 rule?

 

[SRV1981]

7 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

 

Seems like breaking 180 rule may help to grab photos from action on video?

[newfoundmass]

It should be noted that shutter speed and shutter angle are different. A higher shutter angle would increase blur. A higher shutter speed would decrease blur. If you're filming on a Sony you'll want to focus on shutter degree since it doesn't have shutter angle.

[newfoundmass]

Just now, SRV1981 said:

Seems like breaking 180 rule may help to grab photos from action on video?

Yes, at the expense of possibly making your video look weird. If you don't mind your video having a Saving Private Right effect then go for it!

[kye]

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos.

Let's review two examples.

The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive:

It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt.  But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit?  The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup.  In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any.

Contrast that feeling to this image:

There is no denying this.  Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort.

Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now?

I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less.

To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports.

Some more examples of varying amounts of blur..

This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry.  If not, then maybe not..

Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp..  images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling.  Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects):

Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat.

and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless...

Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

[kye]

In terms of assessing the maximum size for printing, that's another whole debate, but a way to test it is to pull the image up on a 4K display, and then zoom in to the image until you start seeing the video compression artefacts, then reduce the size down a bit, and then measure how large the image would be if you printed it that large.

Remember also that the larger you print an image the further back you will tend to view it from.

A friend of mine won a certificate and got one of those canvas prints about 2' x 2' across.  She sent in an early iPhone photo that was a close-up of one of her kids faces (it was a lovely photo) and the printing place said it wasn't "high enough quality" (read: not enough megapixels) and she had to insist they print it.  She hung it high up on their photo wall and due to how the furniture was arranged you could see it throughout their open-plan living/dining/kitchen area, but you wouldn't have looked at it from closer than about 5' away, and even then you'd be looking up at it significantly.

It looked great.  

Had it been taken with a high megapixel camera would it have been sharper? Sure.  Would she have ever been able to afford a high megapixel camera?  No.  Would you ever take that kind of photo with a "real" camera?  Unlikely.

[SRV1981]

2 hours ago, kye said:

In terms of assessing the maximum size for printing, that's another whole debate, but a way to test it is to pull the image up on a 4K display, and then zoom in to the image until you start seeing the video compression artefacts, then reduce the size down a bit, and then measure how large the image would be if you printed it that large.

Remember also that the larger you print an image the further back you will tend to view it from.

A friend of mine won a certificate and got one of those canvas prints about 2' x 2' across.  She sent in an early iPhone photo that was a close-up of one of her kids faces (it was a lovely photo) and the printing place said it wasn't "high enough quality" (read: not enough megapixels) and she had to insist they print it.  She hung it high up on their photo wall and due to how the furniture was arranged you could see it throughout their open-plan living/dining/kitchen area, but you wouldn't have looked at it from closer than about 5' away, and even then you'd be looking up at it significantly.

It looked great.  

Had it been taken with a high megapixel camera would it have been sharper? Sure.  Would she have ever been able to afford a high megapixel camera?  No.  Would you ever take that kind of photo with a "real" camera?  Unlikely.

This is kinda my question ! 
 

for your personal life - do you need high MP cameras if you’re not heavily grading or cropping?  
 

if you take video at 4k60p with shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 sure the video may not look “cinematic” but if it’s purely for action and you’re using it to grab stills from and make 2x3’ prints for your wall or a photo album/book for coffee table and social media, does it matter? 
 

if we’re at a point where I can invest in a great video centric camera and grab still frames for my photos that would be the ultimate workflow. 

[SRV1981]

 

4k = 8.2 mp. Seems you can print a decent size for personal use!?