Why don’t photographers just record instead of taking still photos, and then pick out single frames? Then you can’t miss a shot...

[Ambietlight0]

For example, you want to record a plane. Why take photos if you could just record the plane and pick out still photos? However goes with anything. 
 

this way you will never miss a shot and you can get the perfect frame,

[Radium_Angel]

Because a still image is still superiour to pulling a frame from a video feed.

And some of us professional photographers don't work with video.

[da na]

Um... There are lots of reasons, actually.

An image you extract from a video will never have as high a resolution, since video frames are compressed to save space.

Color depth probably wouldn't be excellent as well.

So for short, if you're just doing something with your friends that makes sense, but it's not realistic for professionals.

[LaFemmeEnVert]

10 minutes ago, Ambietlight0 said:

For example, you want to record a plane. Why take photos if you could just record the plane and pick out still photos? However goes with anything. 
 

this way you will never miss a shot and you can get the perfect frame,

I will use canon 5d mk iv camera as example which has a 30megapixel sensor

1 still image from that camera has more resolution than 1 frame from 4K video taken with the camera
1 still frame can be shoot as raw image
even if the camera can film video at 120fps if the object is moving very fast 1/240 shuttter speed from 1 frame of video will still have motion blur while 1 photo can be taken with up to 1/8000 shutter speed

if the plane is a properller plane and the camera has rolling shutter there may be strange look of how propellers spin in the video so 0 frame from the video may be perfect

[pythonmegapixel]

Also, don't forget not every photograph is time-sensitive! If you take a picture of an static object in fairly stable lighting conditions, for example, then whether you "miss a shot" or not simply isn't an issue.

[porina]

Roughly speaking a 24MP camera is close enough to an 8k video. Not many decent and affordable 8k video cameras out there yet. If you're ok with 6MP images, then 4k video might suffice.

 

Regular video encoding does not encode every single frame fully. It uses tricks to make it look good in motion. If you pause to look at a single frame, it is often are degraded due to low data rate. RAW video might get around that, but the storage requirements will be crazy high.

 

Shutter time is limited by the frame rate your video is at. If you don't have controls, it is typically fixed at half the frame rate e.g. at 60fps, shutter time is 1/120s. This is to give natural looking video without looking too smooth or jumpy. It relies on a degree of motion blur. Not always a good look for stills.

 

There are more details that could be gone into, but that's just some major ones to consider.

[trag1c]

Not a photographer but a lot of camera's also support burst shooting modes so you could like 10 or 15 or more max quality stills with one press or hold of your capture button essentially performing what you described without the issues of pulling video frames. 

[Kilrah]

With 8 and 12K cameras that can shoot low compression RAW video that has similar editing possibilities to RAW stills we might slowly get to the point where that's possible. 

Storage requirements will be pretty painful though, as well as the "sorting" procedure. Also rolling shutter may be an issue with video cameras.

[dogwitch]

35 minutes ago, porina said:

Roughly speaking a 24MP camera is close enough to an 8k video. Not many decent and affordable 8k video cameras out there yet. If you're ok with 6MP images, then 4k video might suffice.

 

Regular video encoding does not encode every single frame fully. It uses tricks to make it look good in motion. If you pause to look at a single frame, it is often are degraded due to low data rate. RAW video might get around that, but the storage requirements will be crazy high.

 

Shutter time is limited by the frame rate your video is at. If you don't have controls, it is typically fixed at half the frame rate e.g. at 60fps, shutter time is 1/120s. This is to give natural looking video without looking too smooth or jumpy. It relies on a degree of motion blur. Not always a good look for stills.

 

There are more details that could be gone into, but that's just some major ones to consider.

storage req... oh yeah  i built pc some what in mind with that. both fast ssd,cache drives, etc.

[VFXGuy]

54 minutes ago, Ambietlight0 said:

For example, you want to record a plane. Why take photos if you could just record the plane and pick out still photos? However goes with anything. 
 

this way you will never miss a shot and you can get the perfect frame,

For a few reasons. There would be so many frame to go through to find good frame, eg without motion blur etc.. Some colour detail and etc. is lost. It is also then less accurate to watch back. Also shooting video in RAW is much more expensive because of the camera and storage whereas cheap DSLRs can shoot decent RAW photos which aren't too space consuming.

[kasugatei]

As it was written before, not all frames are fully encoded. You have I frames which are actually full picture, P frames which use information from the I frame and it holds only changes made from the I frame. There are also B frames which contain only changes from the previous I frame and the current frame. So you can see how much information gets lost when using encoded video. Not to mention the mess if you record in interlaced. If you record in fully uncompressed raw (not to be confused with RAW file type) where you record frames with their full information you have the following bitrates

HD 30fps - 1.5Gbps

HD 60fps - 3Gbps

4k 30fps - 6Gbps

4k 60fps - 12Gbps

8k 60fps - 48Gbps

 

So you can see that storage quickly becomes an issue both in speed and quantity. Also uncompressed raw 8K recorder (without camera) which I am currently using costs 200000 USD so the price is the issue as well.

[LaFemmeEnVert]

22 hours ago, Niksa said:

Also uncompressed raw 8K recorder (without camera) which I am currently using costs 200000 USD so the price is the issue as well

Astrodesign recorder?  Hr7512 or hr7520

[kasugatei]

3 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

hr7520

That one

 

For 8K their stuff is always top notch. Crossconverters, U-SDI converters, 120fps 8K displays, you name it and they deliver. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

24 minutes ago, Niksa said:

That one

 

For 8K their stuff is always top notch. Crossconverters, U-SDI converters, 120fps 8K displays, you name it and they deliver. 

nice, I don’t remember if we yet used any of there products because most of them are purposed to be used in a broadcast studio or ob truck and our studio use blackmagic, aja, sonifex and other brands and we don’t have a ob truck and our broadcast setup is for internet live streaming

amd it’s very rare we do productions higher then 4-6K 

how do you use it?

[kasugatei]

1 hour ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

how do you use it?

We use it for product development. I can’t go into more details I’m afraid. I can just say that Astro recorder can record and replay 8k SDI signal as is which is extremely convenient when debugging the issues. Also, Astro recorders in my experience are mostly used for R&D and testing purposes. Broadcasters use decks with compressed materials for broadcast. On the other hand I saw racks full of Astro converters being used in production. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

2 hours ago, Niksa said:

We use it for product development. I can’t go into more details I’m afraid. I can just say that Astro recorder can record and replay 8k SDI signal as is which is extremely convenient when debugging the issues. Also, Astro recorders in my experience are mostly used for R&D and testing purposes. Broadcasters use decks with compressed materials for broadcast. On the other hand I saw racks full of Astro converters being used in production. 

Cool.  I thought maybe you use them to record major sport events like World Cup or Super Bowl  or shows like eurovision in 8K 

when you say replay 8K signal as is, you mean playback in real time ?

the ob truck crew we rent when we need to work with broadcasters we compress the signal but we record in a format less compressed than the signal that goes on air 

I hate to think the cost of storage for using the recorder to record 2 hours of 8k 60 uncompressed raw 

 

Im so happy the 3 week hybrid event we are producing is only in 1080p and the client doesn’t expect us to record all the events in uncompressed raw.  Each day there are parallel events happening in different rooms and at least 3-4 hours of recording and streaming in each of then primary rooms

currently we expect when the event ends next week friday we will have a bit under 80 terebytes of recorded files

[kasugatei]

38 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

when you say replay 8K signal as is, you mean playback in real time ?

What I mean by that is that what you record, you get exactly on the output, bit by bit. SDI information is 100% persevered. Long story short we were hunting for some weird behavior and when we finally used Astro we were able to reproduce and fix the issue. 
 

42 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

 

I hate to think the cost of storage for using the recorder to record 2 hours of 8k 60 uncompressed raw

Also that Astro is capable of recording 8K at 120 fps when U-SDI interface is used, so imagine that cost headache. 

[Zodiark1593]

There are several technical obstacles here. 
 

Dedicated cinema cameras can record to RAW, though the larger sensor varieties tend to be extremely expensive compared to large sensor stills cameras. 
 

Sensor readout on large sensors tend to be rather slow, contributing to temporal artifacts from rolling shutter, which is why mechanical shutters are still a thing. Some cameras make use of stacked sensors to address this, though again, these are very expensive. Additionally, typically in stills cameras, video isn’t recorded in a way to retain as much information as possible. The A7III for example, can record stills in 14-bit uncompressed raw (~40 MB just for a single image), but when shooting video, only records 8-bit in comparatively highly compressed form (each frame averaging a mere 500 KB, if you run the numbers for 100 mbps, 24P). Raw shooting would require a lot of both storage, and RAM for the intermediary.
 

 

Power consumption, especially with large sensor cameras would be disgustingly high, and they’re not built to eject heat very fast. For lengthy shoots, like say a wedding, they won’t last long if the sensor was running full readout for extended periods of time. 

That said, some cameras have burst rates fast enough that it’s essentially video. Olympus makes Micro Four Thirds cameras that have a 60 shot per second burst rate. What you want, for all intents and purposes already exist. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

19 hours ago, Niksa said:

Also that Astro is capable of recording 8K at 120 fps when U-SDI interface is used, so imagine that cost headache. 

if a day we film this we will rent a data center from amazon or microsoft