The future of sports photography

Borderfox

Just watching the rugby on tv at the moment and just putting a question out,

with the increasing quality of broadcast quality tv cameras (including HD) where does the future of sports photography lie where captures can be taken from the hd broadcast. Is there still a place for the photographer? or will they become extinct?

Thecageyone

tv cameras don't tend to get right in on the action like photos from tele-zoom lenses do. Also, photographers catch a lot of off the ball stuff you wouldn't see otherwise.

Can't see the newspapers going to the likes of RTE for stills either.

Ricky91t

Surely this could be said for everything?

HD cameras could be used in the wedding industry, fashion and certainly press!

I still think people who rather pay for the actual 10mp + image than an upscaled 1920x1080 hd video screen capture..

Borderfox

I would have thought that it would be pushed more towards newspapers/web as the quality needed wouldnt be as high as say a magazine

Morrisseeee

Thought the same thing a few years ago, and I guess in a recession if its cheaper the press would go that way, but I'd imagine you still can't beat the quality of the 12MP or 24MP full frame cameras.

Ciaran500

Ricky91t wrote: »

Surely this could be said for everything?

HD cameras could be used in the wedding industry, fashion and certainly press!

I still think people who rather pay for the actual 10mp + image than an upscaled 1920x1080 hd video screen capture..

What about when you we start to move past 1080p. 4k is already being used in films and will probably become a standard. Thats 4096×3072, more than enough to get a decent image from.

kjt

Ricky91t wrote: »

HD cameras could be used in the wedding industry, fashion and certainly press!

Some of the biggest names in the wedding industry have been using them for over a year now.

Thecageyone

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What about when you we start to move past 1080p. 4k is already being used in films and will probably become a standard. Thats 4096×3072, more than enough to get a decent image from.

The quality might well be out there, but doesn't mean the national stations are using it. It would cost them a fortune to replace all their current cameras. Long way off worrying about that happening yet me thinks.

nilhg

Thecageyone wrote: »

The quality might well be out there, but doesn't mean the national stations are using it. It would cost them a fortune to replace all their current cameras. Long way off worrying about that happening yet me thinks.

Aye, and of course not all events are of interest to them or Sky, I can't see the local papers depending on them soon.

bertie4evr

That's what these are for.

Thecageyone

I doubt RTE have any of those

Ciaran500

Thecageyone wrote: »

The quality might well be out there, but doesn't mean the national stations are using it. It would cost them a fortune to replace all their current cameras. Long way off worrying about that happening yet me thinks.

This is about the future after all, certainly not going to be appearing soon but they're only going to get cheaper and more available.

Thecageyone

Sports photographers will just have to up their game when the time comes and offer better again quality than those cams can offer.


OT: Nice sig :cool: [PJ fan here too]

kensutz

bertie4evr wrote: »

That's what these are for.

Thecageyone wrote: »

I doubt RTE have any of those

The Red cameras were being used today

Ricky91t

Red one quaility is amazing!

alexlyons

Ricky91t wrote: »

HD cameras could be used in the wedding industry, fashion and certainly press!

I shot my cousins wedding last summer, his father asked me to do it as they chose to get a guy to video it in HD and take stills from it. I'm not an amazing photographer but the difference was unreal. He came up to me when I gave them to him and said he should have got me to do it in the first place! He stopped friends getting their weddings videoed on foot of this! I got a few of them as well

Still photography is here to stay, there is no comparison. Video just cant freeze the action.

charybdis

alexlyons wrote: »

Video just cant freeze the action.

You are mistaken.

I suspect the "problem" with the plan was the equipment and technique used by the guy shooting video was not intended for use as stills. It's fairly absurd for your friend to have discouraged others from having their weddings recorded on the basis that the video was not useful for extracting stills; it's a bit like discouraging others from buying a horse on the basis that you didn't have much luck making a sandwich from one.

As regards the question at hand: I don't see the distinction between stills and video for the purposes of producing still images if you're using continuous shooting mode and capturing several frames every time you hit the shutter release (which I assume is done by all sports photographers). Doing so is functionally identical to shooting video.

And, for the record, a Red is far cheaper than most broadcast-quality cameras used for sports coverage but it's not designed for live television.

alexlyons

charybdis wrote: »

You are mistaken.

I suspect the "problem" with the plan was the equipment and technique used by the guy shooting video was not intended for use as stills. It's fairly absurd for your friend to have discouraged others from having their weddings recorded on the basis that the video was not useful for extracting stills; it's a bit like discouraging others from buying a horse on the basis that you didn't have much luck making a sandwich from one.

As regards the question at hand: I don't see the distinction between stills and video for the purposes of producing still images if you're using continuous shooting mode and capturing several frames every time you hit the shutter release (which I assume is done by all sports photographers). Doing so is functionally identical to shooting video.

And, for the record, a Red is far cheaper than most broadcast-quality cameras used for sports coverage but it's not designed for live television.

maybe my statement there was a bit specific, however, the gear the guy was using was spot on, and I've seen numerous other events that stills have been lifted from video and I stand by what I said and that is that there is no comparison. The example you used is based on the fact of wrong equipment, which I have now clarified it wasn't. The main reasons why he said to people not to video is that stills look much more natural when the actions are meant to be for stills, not moving video. Yes, you can stand in a pose and hold the video camera steady, but people start getting uncomfortable etc. Also, not many people sit down and watch a video of their wedding day, hence the reason for pulling stills, so why would you bother recording it in the first place when you can just get a professional to take stills that will most likely turn out better.

One of his friends that I shot also had it recorded, I was only there for the same reason as my cousin, except my cousin sent me this time, not the father of the groom, so the groom didn't actually know of the differences between the video and the stills, however he was equally amazed that the video didn't look anything near as good, even compared to snaps taken by the relatives. It was a different video guy this time so it's not the actual equipment being bad or the guy not understanding etc.

charybdis

alexlyons wrote: »

the gear the guy was using was spot on

What was he using? Do you know anything about it other than it was "spot on"?

alexlyons wrote: »

I've seen numerous other events that stills have been lifted from video and I stand by what I said and that is that there is no comparison

So you don't think there are stills from motion pictures that are merit worthy as photographs?

alexlyons wrote: »

The example you used is based on the fact of wrong equipment, which I have now clarified it wasn't.

You really haven't.

alexlyons wrote: »

The main reasons why he said to people not to video is that stills look much more natural when the actions are meant to be for stills, not moving video.

So what would distinguish a still photography from a frame extracted from a video of the same scene?

alexlyons wrote: »

Yes, you can stand in a pose and hold the video camera steady, but people start getting uncomfortable etc.

But you only need one frame, how do you make the distinction between people's poses becoming uncomfortable as a video is captured as compared to people's poses becoming uncomfortable as a series of photographs are taken?

alexlyons wrote: »

Also, not many people sit down and watch a video of their wedding day, hence the reason for pulling stills, so why would you bother recording it in the first place when you can just get a professional to take stills that will most likely turn out better.

Maybe some people don't need a video of their wedding, much in the same way some people don't need photographs of their wedding. I'm sure there are very many wedding photographs that people don't regularly look at.

alexlyons wrote: »

One of his friends that I shot also had it recorded, I was only there for the same reason as my cousin, except my cousin sent me this time, not the father of the groom, so the groom didn't actually know of the differences between the video and the stills, however he was equally amazed that the video didn't look anything near as good, even compared to snaps taken by the relatives. It was a different video guy this time so it's not the actual equipment being bad or the guy not understanding etc.

I wasn't saying the equipment was "bad" or that the guy didn't understand what he was doing, what I said was:

charybdis wrote: »

the equipment and technique used by the guy shooting video was not intended for use as stills

I strongly suspect, in both cases, that the equipment and methods used by both video guys wasn't intended to produce extracted stills.

I think the anecdata you've provided here isn't really enough to make declarations about the inadequacies of video.

alexlyons

Your suspicions are incorrect, I've already said that. I'm not going to go dig out exactly what gear he was using, it was a while ago and I can't remember, but yes, I do no more than it was spot on. You may think I'm only saying that as I haven't a clue, fine, not really to pushed about justifying myself

On a side note:
Video was never designed to take over from still photography. Whatever about sports photography, where the camera can capture all the action and not miss anything due to buffer limit etc, I firmly believe, and many others with me, that it will not take over from wedding photographers.

BTW, if you really want to get into an "I said, he said" debate, I never said you said the equipment was bad or anything, I was merely pointing out the fact that it was more than one person, so it wasn't a one off case from any of the above factors.

I'm going to gracefully back out of this, as you are creating problems and errors in my posts that aren't actually there & that I really couldn't be bothered to to respond to because of that.

charybdis

alexlyons wrote: »

Your suspicions are incorrect, I've already said that. I'm not going to go dig out exactly what gear he was using, it was a while ago and I can't remember, but yes, I do no more than it was spot on. You may think I'm only saying that as I haven't a clue, fine, not really to pushed about justifying myself

I do, and clearly.

alexlyons wrote: »

Video was never designed to take over from still photography.

35mm film was never designed for still photography, and in point of fact, some of the first 35mm stills cameras were hybrid motion/stills cameras.

alexlyons wrote: »

Whatever about sports photography, where the camera can capture all the action and not miss anything due to buffer limit etc, I firmly believe, and many others with me, that it will not take over from wedding photographers.

You still haven't said why.

alexlyons wrote: »

BTW, if you really want to get into an "I said, he said" debate, I never said you said the equipment was bad or anything, I was merely pointing out the fact that it was more than one person, so it wasn't a one off case from any of the above factors.

Again, your anecdata isn't exactly compelling; particularly given how vague it is and the bold conclusions you seem to draw from it.

alexlyons wrote: »

I'm going to gracefully back out of this, as you are creating problems and errors in my posts that aren't actually there & that I really couldn't be bothered to to respond to because of that.

Well that's a routing if I ever saw one.

Doesn't Greg Williams use the Red One for exactly this?

The megan fox and agent provacteur videos testify to the technology.

alexlyons

Sorry, having read that I can't just ignore it.

Why do you continue to make assumptions that have absolutely no basis whatsoever? It is not a routing, and you assuming that I don't know anything about this topic only reinforces the point that all you do is make baseless accusations. And before you say it, everything I have said has had at least some fact behind it.

charybdis wrote:

Again, your anecdata isn't exactly compelling; particularly given how vague it is and the bold conclusions you seem to draw from it.

Sorry, what? all I did was clarify something that you misunderstood, and you're telling me that I'm drawing conclusions and my data isn't correct? I reckon I know what I said a bit better than you. All that post does is prove that you a) don't read my posts right, and b) don't understand what I say, no matter how simple I make it

If you read my post I did say why video wouldn't completely take over, but we've already clarified that you don't read them properly. It's not necessarily the fact that the cameras won't work in terms of lifting stills (I still believe still cameras are better, especially based on what I've seen) but the fact that the market won't demand video for everything and lifting stills when required. People still want to to take photographs, people still like being photographed, and those who have learnt still photography won't want to go and re-learn about composition etc as it is completely different for video so you can portray motion etc. Also, still photographs are much easier to post process, requiring less computer power, less time and you can easily fix blemishes, where as fixing the above in video is more complex and often not as easy or as good an end product. Many people don't mind the odd photograph that you can touch up, but don't like video due to motion, how their body sits etc. Also, it has been proven that many people don't like the sound of their own voices, which can pop up in video without you realising, but is never present in still photography.

Is that justified enough? And maybe go back and actually read my posts properly next time before accusing me of something, that will probably be baseless anyway.

charybdis

alexlyons wrote: »

Sorry, having read that I can't just ignore it.

Why do you continue to make assumptions that have absolutely no basis whatsoever? It is not a routing, and you assuming that I don't know anything about this topic only reinforces the point that all you do is make baseless accusations. And before you say it, everything I have said has had at least some fact behind it.

I am basing my assumption that you are not well versed in the technicalities of shooting video based on a number of things:

• "Video just cant freeze the action." (sic)
• Your inability to describe the materials and methods used as proof of the inadequacy of video for stills extraction other than that the gear used was "spot on".
• Your unwillingness to distinguish between a still image from a burst of photographs and a still image from a frame of video.

I'm not doubting that the information you've hinted at is non-factual or made up, but I think you're drawing unreasoned conclusions from it.

alexlyons wrote: »

Sorry, what? all I did was clarify something that you misunderstood, and you're telling me that I'm drawing conclusions and my data isn't correct? I reckon I know what I said a bit better than you. All that post does is prove that you a) don't read my posts right, and b) don't understand what I say, no matter how simple I make it

I'm saying you've purported to have had very limited experience with stills extraction from video, namely a couple of anecdotal incidents that you had no control over and have limited insight into the technical specifics of, and you're using these as the basis for an argument against stills extraction from video. It also appears that you are unfamiliar with the technical and historical aspects of still & motion photography.

If I really don't understand your posts, I strongly suspect it's because you're making them too simple. Please complicate them to the point that they communicate your ideas effectively.

alexlyons wrote: »

If you read my post I did say why video wouldn't completely take over, but we've already clarified that you don't read them properly. It's not necessarily the fact that the cameras won't work in terms of lifting stills (I still believe still cameras are better, especially based on what I've seen) but the fact that the market won't demand video for everything and lifting stills when required. People still want to to take photographs, people still like being photographed, and those who have learnt still photography won't want to go and re-learn about composition etc as it is completely different for video so you can portray motion etc. Also, still photographs are much easier to post process, requiring less computer power, less time and you can easily fix blemishes, where as fixing the above in video is more complex and often not as easy or as good an end product. Many people don't mind the odd photograph that you can touch up, but don't like video due to motion, how their body sits etc. Also, it has been proven that many people don't like the sound of their own voices, which can pop up in video without you realising, but is never present in still photography.

Ah, but the discussion wasn't about shooting video, it was about shooting video for the purposes of extracting stills, which is not subject to the concerns you have levelled against video here.

Also, you're again making bold and unsubstantiated claims about what "people" would be willing to learn or do.

Borderfox

I'm sorry I asked the question now

Calina

Borderfox wrote: »

Just watching the rugby on tv at the moment and just putting a question out,

with the increasing quality of broadcast quality tv cameras (including HD) where does the future of sports photography lie where captures can be taken from the hd broadcast. Is there still a place for the photographer? or will they become extinct?

I guess a lot will depend on how rights are sliced up in one respect; and not necessarily immediately the technical side of things. Although I haven't been looking at it in any great detail one of the things that occurred to me was how video production was going to change in the future given the blurring of the line between moving and still cams.

Outside the sports arena, for example, I know that quite a lot of Wonders of the Solar System was shot with a Canon 5D Mk II, some time lapses, the odd still and some video (the eclipse in episode 1 is an example I think).

Currently sports organisations probably split their access rights between television (usually an monopoly) and a bunch of still photographers. If they are all also able to shoot video which the 7D can - by way of an example, that will blur the lines on the business front also.

Calina

Also - mod note - cool it a little and knock off the personal bickering. I'll see if stuff here can be split out separately but it won't be done right now.

charybdis

Forgive me if this isn't the correct channel for questioning someone wearing their mod hat, but I really don't think the activity in this thread requires rattling of the sabre. The discussion has been on-topic, polite - if not particularly cordial - and without ad hominem attacks. It's a little patronising for someone in an official capacity to describe this kind of discussion as "bickering".

Borderfox

Borderfox wrote: »

I'm sorry I asked the question now

Console yourself with studying the Greg Williams Red1 shooting of Megan Fox and Agent Provocateur films / stills.

charybdis

Deleted User wrote: »

Console yourself with studying the Greg Williams Red1 shooting of Megan Fox and Agent Provocateur films / stills.

Probably NSFW.