fuzzynormal

Ha. You had to deal with teenagers. Fun, isn't it?

That's probably a better phrase than "pixel peeking" to be honest.

As I'm doing, get ready to invest in a lot of hard drive storage. If you want to archive all your raw footage for the "future" you'll need it. Of course, you could cut footage with an editor like Premiere or FCP and then just save the bits that make it into your edits. I'm not going to get into the hardships that are involved with re-encoding 4k footage for editing purposes. That's a whole enchilada unto itself. It'll be a bit complicated at first to discern the best workflow. Probably not extremely difficult either, but it'll require some jumping through of hoops. Not exactly the prevue of novices, but if you're willing to hop in, go for it! Personally, I'm foreseeing archiving my raw media under a very regimented and strict labeling system and then editing footage using low-res (1080p) proxy files. When the editing is done I'll rebuild/reconnect the footage at the the actual 4K resolution. Media management will be key. But I'm with you...still curious as to the most efficient way to edit 4K without buying too much hardware.

Exactly. It's not that the newer resolution technology is getting in the way of creating stills, the style between the disciplines is the bigger issue. Personally, I foresee "still-lifting" as a supplemental tool. Useful when appropriate. The way I shoot documentary montage sequences doesn't lend itself to great photos, but the way I film certainly works in the editing booth. I also agree that someone will create a hybrid style that does do both at the same time and will do it very well. It'll happen sooner rather than later.

I'll disagree with that. I shoot 60p/120ss a lot. Okay fine. But it's a home video. It's amateur, so what? If a dad has the ability to shoot simultaneous video and still of his girl's game, I don't think having a cinematic motion blur aesthetic is high on his list of priorities; which is what I'm on about. What person wouldn't want to shoot both things simultaneously? Maybe an enthusiast concerned with getting an idealized photograph, but most others will utilize the high-resolution to their advantage and get stills they otherwise would not have captured. I'm still surprised over the dismissive reaction that this capability offers consumers. It's a cool new tool that offers interesting abilities. Yes, even for "pros."

Good deal. I'll hold off purchasing a few of these 'til my big doc project 3rdQ this year. Should be readily available at that late date, perhaps even some other players in the 4K market by then? Man, if Olympus had 4K and that 5-axis? (no chance, but I can wish)

This is indeed good advice, but I do think an old cheap 24mm prime on a m43 camera would also be a decent lens to train one's skill. I'm partial to that "standard" 50mm focal length. Versatile. I have a nice collection of m43 primes, but find that I go back to my Nikkor 24mm most often. Again, personal preference.

Sure did.

That is exactly correct from my experience.

I'll be the pedantic one and say that film is well beyond 4k, but I get your meaning.

Use the GH3's built in EVF. Learn how to utilize the camera's "punch in" to assist focus. Also, range-hunt for focusing. As mentioned, once you develop the skill, you'll be fine. I don't think you don't need the extra gak unless you're in a (semi)pro environment and focus is mission critical to every shot. If you're one of those types of guys that wants to have all the extra stuff loaded into your kit, rails, matte box, shoulder rig, follow focus, etc, well, go for it...although it begs the question why anyone doing all that would want a GM1... Anyway, on the GM1 Lumix, I've set up the camera to auto-punch-in every time I manually adjust focus. (when using m43 lenses) Nice little assist function allows for great initial focusing. I've been shooting doc footage with it for a few months now and haven't missed focus yet; with m43 or manual Nikon lenses.

That never really looks good though, does it?

You're right. 25fps and a 50ss is ideal motion picture settings, in my opinion, for weddings. (and 25/25 can look nice too) However... I could see shooting 60fps/120ss and then conforming the footage to slow-mo. Slow-mo tends to be kinda romantic, right? At 120ss, you'd be able to hunt and find a lot of nice stills. Let's not forget, a photography rule of thumb to avoid motion blur induced by hand held shake is that you x2 the shutter speed based on the focal length. Obviously, that's a bit unwieldy for motion picture shooting. Still, I think you'd be able to find nice stills from 24/48 as well --to be honest. Lots of posing, stationary standing, and such in weddings I believe. I am a bit surprised that people are implying 4K frame grabs somehow won't be a pragmatic tool. Granted, it's not going to usurp one discipline over the other (motion vs. stills imaging) but I'll be damned if it's not viable for supplementing it.

A lot of home movies are of kids doing sports. At least in my reality. Are average people doing home movies really discriminating about their shutter speed!? If you tell a consumer they can shoot their son's football match as video and then grab stills from it as they wish, I doubt high the shutter speeds that effectively allows for that sort of thing is going to discourage them. They're most likely not going to care about the high shutter aesthetic. But aside from all that, if you're trying to find a middle ground, you can shoot a 120ss/60fps and have it look fine for motion pictures and allow for better frame grabs. It really depends on what you're attempting to do. Ultimately, the issue brought up was "stills can't be pulled from video in a worthwhile way." I just disagree with that assertion. And uber-ultimately, the OP thread is about Canon camera development...back on point, I don't think we're going to see Canon doing 4K video on their mid-market DSLR line this year.

I would depending on the job. Some clients actually ask for it. Heck I did a thing last week where a client wanted to save money and time; didn't hire a photographer, and decided to pull stills for their small training pamphlet based on the lame video we shot for them. Kinda silly, but oh well. That's the corporate environment. Offering flexibility to those clients and making them happy pays the bills. The needs of the real world demand compromises. At least in the circles in which I run. If you're blessed to be above all that, good for you. Kinda wish I was.

Sports. 240ss@120fps. It looks fine and even better when slow-mo. Are sports niche? More common: 120ss@60fps. That'll look perfectly acceptable on motion playback and give you plenty of stills to pull. I'll have to check my sense of taste. Hold on, mmmmm, umami? If your crystal ball regarding the expanding capabilities of still cams says the market is not there, so be it. I oracle otherwise. As a guy that makes a modest living doing this stuff, I'm looking forward to the more versatile gear and will be buying it for practical reasons that add to the creativity of projects. Let's not ignore the fact that increased video capabilities will translate well to photo. RAW bursts that last a few minutes @4K perhaps? Can't say that would be a bad thing. Suggesting that some stills shooters are content with the way things are and the gear they have may be anecdotally true among the crowd you know, but I assure you the market ultimately demands innovation.

So you increase the shutter speed. I do this on my Canon, Sony, and Lumix cameras by rotating a dedicated knob put there for exactly such purposes. It's possible and common. I think you might be misunderstanding exposure concepts?

The 180 degree shutter/frame rate thing is a rule of thumb, not a requirement. You can shoot a high speed shutter on motion picture footage and remove motion blur. I seem to recall a little film that E.T. director guy made about the Normandy Invasion... kinda popular, used high speed shutter.

"We need to respond to calls for DSLR video quality increase" To be pedantic, nowhere in that statement do I hear an affirmation that they WILL increase IQ.

I'm serious about this. In addition, I'd pay my way.

Blah. Dubstep. Listening past that nonsense: Decent stuff, would have liked to see some slow-mo and some sort of narrative rather than just an image montage. I don't feel like it has any rewarding cohesion...but then that's partly my critique of the soundtrack as well. Technically accomplished visuals.

Shooting 24-60 frames of 4-6K raw a second would be ideal for sports shooters as well as wildlife photographers. And, yes, utilizing that capability as a hybrid film making tool would be a nice bonus, regardless of data storage issues. Development is going to go there for a good reason. And soon. It's a useful tool.

You guys so crazay.

Fair enough. I'm mostly a old prime guy. If the newer lenses help out and it's something you find worthwhile, exploit it.

I just did a shoot today with a Nikon 24mm f2.8. No extra stuff, just went and got the shots. Grabbing focus isn't hard once you're used to doing it. Do it awhile and you'll be better and faster than any sensor algorithm. Not to mention: When you're manual focusing, you can do stuff creatively that a computer would never do. Don't be fearful, just do it. You HAVE to get good at it to be a successful motion picture shooter, so might as well start ASAP. Good luck!