Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

Ben Miller wrote:

Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...


1920 x 1080 is 6 inches wide at 300dpi... sounds pretty useable.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

Paul Furman wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:

Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...


1920 x 1080 is 6 inches wide at 300dpi... sounds pretty useable.

Unless you also crank up the frame rate or at least the shutter speed,
this method isn't much good for scenes with even moderate action or
movement (unless you like motion blur).

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

On Jun 21, 9:32 am, Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:

Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...

1920 x 1080 is 6 inches wide at 300dpi... sounds pretty useable.

Unless you also crank up the frame rate or at least the shutter speed,
this method isn't much good for scenes with even moderate action or
movement (unless you like motion blur).-

If there is enough light the shutter speed is far faster then what the
frame
rate would dictate.

Scott

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

On Jun 21, 7:32 am, Ben Miller wrote:
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...
I don't think it is going to be the death of 35mm stills in the
newsroom, but it might have a
large impact down the road some.

But it seems to me that it would be somewhat limited, it might be fine
for small photos in a newspaper but for full page photos in a magazine
I doubt that is has the needed resolution.

Scott

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

Scott W wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:32 am, Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?
It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774
I don't buy this hyperbole:
"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."
But I think it is certainly worth discussion...
1920 x 1080 is 6 inches wide at 300dpi... sounds pretty useable.
Unless you also crank up the frame rate or at least the shutter speed,
this method isn't much good for scenes with even moderate action or
movement (unless you like motion blur).-

If there is enough light the shutter speed is far faster then what the
frame rate would dictate.

High shutter speeds on low-framerate video create a 'stuttering' effect,
though. Not a look that journalistic video really goes for, especially
not sports video.

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

On Jun 21, 10:51 am, Matt Ion wrote:
Scott W wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:32 am, Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?
It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774
I don't buy this hyperbole:
"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."
But I think it is certainly worth discussion...
1920 x 1080 is 6 inches wide at 300dpi... sounds pretty useable.
Unless you also crank up the frame rate or at least the shutter speed,
this method isn't much good for scenes with even moderate action or
movement (unless you like motion blur).-

If there is enough light the shutter speed is far faster then what the
frame rate would dictate.

High shutter speeds on low-framerate video create a 'stuttering' effect,
though. Not a look that journalistic video really goes for, especially
not sports video.

If you knew you were going to mainly be going after frame grabs then
it would make sense.
And if you really wanted the motion blur it could probably be added to
the video after the capture with digital processing.

Scott

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

In article .com,
Ben Miller wrote:
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It depends on the quality (and I'm not referring to the technical quality
of the images) you want.

Still picture photography is very different from movies. What makes sense
in one world doesn't work in the other and vice versa.

So essentially the photographer will have work twice as hard: one time
for the stills, and once more for the movies.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

? "Ben Miller" ?????? ??? ??????
oups.com...
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...

The photos are undoubtely excellent, very nice texture and colours, but why
use 35 mm anyway when there are so nice digital still cameras?Both my
camcorder (Sony DCR HC-32 E sd mini dv) and still camera are so small that I
can take both;-)While it's impossible to *use* both at the same time, using
them separately makes sense.I'm of course far off being a reporter,I'm
mainly a snapshot photographer, but anyway.....




--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

Photojournalists: HDV frame grabs
 

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
? "Ben Miller" ?????? ??? ??????
oups.com...
Looking for opinions on HDV frame grabs in photojournalism. Is this
the death of 35mm stills in the "newsroom"?

It is per this article by David Leeson, Dallas Morning News Executive
Producer - Video and New Media (consider the source, I know, I know):

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1774

I don't buy this hyperbole:

"This is our chance to rise up and lead the world."

But I think it is certainly worth discussion...

The photos are undoubtely excellent, very nice texture and colours, but why
use 35 mm anyway when there are so nice digital still cameras?Both my
camcorder (Sony DCR HC-32 E sd mini dv) and still camera are so small that I
can take both;-)While it's impossible to *use* both at the same time, using
them separately makes sense.I'm of course far off being a reporter,I'm
mainly a snapshot photographer, but anyway.....


I suspect where this'll be used is in some large news orgs. that have
both print and/or web plus broadcast operations. One interviewer, one
camera man. With an HD recorder, they can grab decent head shots or
scene setters off the live or recorded feed, and save the cost of a
second photog.

There are many times when this wouldn't work.

--
john mcwilliams