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

[MrSMW]

It’s something I have played with before using 4k 50p and have had mixed results and as above, it’s been the shutter speeds that have been the biggest variable, especially if using the 180 degree rule.

The other thing that I found was that 4k was borderline OK and of course 6k or 8k would be better (stills resolution/detail/ability to crop etc).

One of my next projects (when I have some time) is to shoot some typical scenarios at 4k 60p and 6k 30p (my two current settings) and pull some stills.

The 6k is going to be the trickier one with a shutter speed of only 1/50th (shooting NTSC in a PAL region) but I will try some 1/100, 1/200, 1/400, 1/800 etc to see just how much the video blur is compromised.

I used to shoot 4k 50p with VND and just crank the shutter into the thousands  and thought the result was fine, but then all my productions shot that way were at 50% slo mo.

Ultimately, my personal interest as a hybrid wedding shooter is could I go to just shooting video and pulling stills for the entire event?

With 4k no. Well I could, but would not as the stills would be too compromised.

With 8k I think yes and that was my interest in the Z9.

However, I think with Lumix, they may just go 6k 100/120p full frame zero crop with the next gen S1 and that for me could be a sweet spot.

Internal ND would then be the icing on the cake 🎂 

[kye]

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

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. 

For our personal lives, we really only need food, clothing and shelter.  We got by just fine even before we had language, so I'm pretty sure that there is no minimum number of megapixels in that equation...

But, assuming that you're asking if you can print things and enjoy them, then I'd say there's no lower limit except what limits you would have to your own enjoyment.  After all, mosaics have been a form of art for thousands of years and no-one has started complaining that they don't look photorealistic, and people aren't complaining about paintings not being photorealistic either.

It's controversial, within online photography communities anyway, but here is Ken Rockwells thoughts on the matter:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

A few highlights include the idea that the larger you print something, the further you tend to stand from it:

Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.

and also practical experience:

Even when megapixels mattered, there was little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18" (30x50cm)! I know because I've done this. Have you? NY Times tech writer David Pogue did this hereand here and saw the same thing — nothing! 

Joe Holmes' limited-edition 13 x 19" prints of his American Museum of Natural History series sell at Manhattan's Jen Bekman Gallery for $650 each. They're made on a 6MP D70.

I would argue that what is visible will depend on the printing technology you use.  A canvas print will hide any blurriness or detail that is in the image, but a metal print will accentuate it.  I have visited a house with a couple of large metal prints (maybe 3' x 5') of very high resolution shots of a rainforest with deep DoF and dappled light filtering down to the ferns and rocks by a stream.  The resolution was palpable, so much so that both myself and the other non-photography people were all impressed by the print.  The discussion included 'oohs and aahs' around how much it cost, how difficult it was to hang, how they had to get little custom lights to shine on it like in an art gallery, how impressive it was, etc.  What was missing, however, was any discussion or appreciation of the image.  All discussion was of the technology.  The sharpness was distracting.

[gt3rs]

10 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Say track and field - handheld (with IBIS?) 

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed.

24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally  you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures.

Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. 

So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both.

Some examples of my video grabs:

Slow shutter 180 rule

The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out

 

 

High shutter speed 1/500 and above

For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

That's my opinion also though my experience with this so far is waaaaay less extensive than yours. Some really great stuff I wouldn't know were frame grabs!

I can't really see a future when I WILL be doing this all the time.

I was going to flip to the Z9 (and a Z8) and do this partially, but have held off, sticking with L Mount, but definitely waiting on that next gen 6k...and I really hope they go for a highly developed 6 and not a limited 8k approach.

The photographer in me would be kind of sad to go this route, but at the same time, from a workflow and a whole load of other logistical and creative perspectives, it makes utter sense.

[MrSMW]

I meant I CAN see a future when I will be doing this all the time. Doh! 🤪

[SRV1981]

6 hours ago, gt3rs said:

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed.

24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally  you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures.

Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. 

So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both.

Some examples of my video grabs:

Slow shutter 180 rule

The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out

 

 

High shutter speed 1/500 and above

For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

Some amazing images!  What camera(s) were used for this?  

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That's my opinion also though my experience with this so far is waaaaay less extensive than yours. Some really great stuff I wouldn't know were frame grabs!

I can't really see a future when I WILL be doing this all the time.

I was going to flip to the Z9 (and a Z8) and do this partially, but have held off, sticking with L Mount, but definitely waiting on that next gen 6k...and I really hope they go for a highly developed 6 and not a limited 8k approach.

The photographer in me would be kind of sad to go this route, but at the same time, from a workflow and a whole load of other logistical and creative perspectives, it makes utter sense.

Agree about eventually getting to a point where workflow is just using video for photos for a lot of use!  Are there are any small body cameras that can shoot 6k+?  I'm going to wait for the A7CII and A6700 to see what they can offer.  A small body that can take excellent video internally with little to no grading SOOC is my goal. I tried the XT5 but the AF was too erratic.

[John Matthews]

Olympus specifically made a feature for 20MP raw stills at 60fps with Pro Capture. Just press the shutter when you think you saw something and you'll get a bunch of RAW stills going back in time. This was available going back to the E-M1 ii (2016). However, it doesn't offer continuous AF.

[gt3rs]

30 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Some amazing images!  What camera(s) were used for this?  

 

Mostly R5 and R5c. 

This one is from 2 days ago: R5c 4k 120fps 1/2000 F2.8 and the AF can keep up. AF tracking is quite good in video even for sport, challenging is the initial acquisition but for track and field it should not be a big issue

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

Mostly R5 and R5c. 

This one is from 2 days ago: R5c 4k 120fps 1/2000 F2.8 and the AF can keep up. AF tracking is quite good in video even for sport, challenging is the initial acquisition but for track and field it should not be a big issue

This is it! Unfortunately the price of those systems is a little high for me but more so the size of the bodies/system isn’t compact enough for my needs.  
 

the image looks stellar though!

[gt3rs]

42 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

This is it! Unfortunately the price of those systems is a little high for me but more so the size of the bodies/system isn’t compact enough for my needs.  
 

the image looks stellar though!

The above I posted especially as is a 4k one, so a R8 at 4k 60fps + a used ef 70-200 2.8 you would get a close enough photo out of the video as mine.

Unfortunately sports = large lenses… 

[SRV1981]

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

The above I posted especially as is a 4k one, so a R8 at 4k 60fps + a used ef 70-200 2.8 you would get a close enough photo out of the video as mine.

Unfortunately sports = large lenses… 

Yea I was considering the R7 and fx30. As long as you can print 8x10 that’s more than enough for personal use. 
 

may wait for a7c2 and a6700. The canon color SOOC is currently better than Sony 

[kye]

8 hours ago, gt3rs said:

The above I posted especially as is a 4k one, so a R8 at 4k 60fps + a used ef 70-200 2.8 you would get a close enough photo out of the video as mine.

Unfortunately sports = large lenses… 

Or smaller sensors, deeper DoF capabilities, and worse low-light performance, but greatly reduced size and weight.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Or smaller sensors, deeper DoF capabilities, and worse low-light performance, but greatly reduced size and weight.

A 6k 50/60 m4/3 set up could be quite interesting for this kind of thing…

[gt3rs]

11 hours ago, MrSMW said:

A 6k 50/60 m4/3 set up could be quite interesting for this kind of thing…

 

14 hours ago, kye said:

Or smaller sensors, deeper DoF capabilities, and worse low-light performance, but greatly reduced size and weight.

Exactly the opposite you want for sport.... shallow DoF is key as most of the background is quite distracting.... you would probably not see any pro sport shooter with m4/3...

A couple of examples from today, 8k RAW 60fps 300 2.8 1/2000, imagine these at 150 5.6 they would not pop..... 







At the end if you want large DoF and portable why not use a phone? But if you want photo and video that pop a R8 or similar + EF adapte + used EF 70-200 2.8

Btw the new helmet AF of the new R5c firmware is really good, not perfect but really good.

 

[SRV1981]

49 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

 

Exactly the opposite you want for sport.... shallow DoF is key as most of the background is quite distracting.... you would probably not see any pro sport shooter with m4/3...

A couple of examples from today, 8k RAW 60fps 300 2.8 1/2000, imagine these at 150 5.6 they would not pop..... 







At the end if you want large DoF and portable why not use a phone? But if you want photo and video that pop a R8 or similar + EF adapte + used EF 70-200 2.8

Btw the new helmet AF of the new R5c firmware is really good, not perfect but really good.

 

How about R7?

[PannySVHS]

I won´t feed the spec hungry beast, that this thread is. But one thing I wanna say: For fine art stuff in my home it would be perfectly fine for me to do a large print from good 2K or HD source. 4K Alexa 35, yes please! Actually I got some cool old footage from my G6 I have always been wanting to do some stills from. I guess I´ll just do that. Not joking.

Cheapest cam to fullfill video for photo wants would be a used S1 with its opengate FF goodness. 24 Mpix, 30p, 10bit 420, just like big juicy HQ 10bit Jpegs. So, gotta get outta here, freaking specs race is exhausting.:)

[gt3rs]

6 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

How about R7?

I like FF look shallow dof so personally I would take R8 instead of an R7 also R8 4k 60 is supersampled definitely better quality…. a few here seems to prefer the R7.

I’m not a Sony shooter but they have really good camera too with great AF, so does Nikon (in case of Nikon for the moment only the expensive ones have good video for sports). 

Ideally you want a 4k or up, 60 fps not pixel binned with really good video AF

But the first question should be: do you own already any lenses?

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

I won´t feed the spec hungry beast, that this thread is. But one thing I wanna say: For fine art stuff in my home it would be perfectly fine for me to do a large print from good 2K or HD source. 4K Alexa 35, yes please! Actually I got some cool old footage from my G6 I have always been wanting to do some stills from. I guess I´ll just do that. Not joking.

Cheapest cam to fullfill video for photo wants would be a used S1 with its opengate FF goodness. 24 Mpix, 30p, 10bit 420, just like big juicy HQ 10bit Jpegs. So, gotta get outta here, freaking specs race is exhausting.:)

Yeah right S1 video AF for sports…. maybe instead of complaining about the thread you could post some of yours sports frame grabs 😉 

[kye]

9 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Exactly the opposite you want for sport.... shallow DoF is key as most of the background is quite distracting.... you would probably not see any pro sport shooter with m4/3...

A couple of examples from today, 8k RAW 60fps 300 2.8 1/2000, imagine these at 150 5.6 they would not pop..... 

You're right about you needing the 300/2.8 to get some background defocus for those shots, but it really depends on the subject distances involved.

Your shots are of a sports ground that is absolutely enormous when compared with a lot of other very common sports grounds, like basketball, various forms of football, lacrosse, etc.  My sports photography was on Australian Football fields, which seem to be significantly larger than almost any other sports field, so I struggled with lens reach and had issues manually focusing etc.  This isn't always the case - if you're shooting a basketball game then it's a whole other ballgame....(sorry - couldn't resist!)

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Yeah right S1 video AF for sports…. maybe instead of complaining about the thread you could post some of yours sports frame grabs 😉 

I film professional wrestling using two (now three) S5 bodies. The AF is more than adequate. The biggest obstacle to getting good stills from the footage isn't the AF but the shutter speed. I film using a 180 degree shutter angle, but I'm sure I could get good results by adjusting it if I didn't care about the impact it'd have on the footage. 

When there isn't a ton of movement I'll take a still to use for social media, but the motion blur during heavy action just isn't flattering. Here are some ones I've taken for social media/YouTube thumbnails. These are downloaded from Facebook since I'm on my phone but it gives you a general idea. I can post higher resolution versions tomorrow if anyone wants them.