# RAW 4K Capture Feature Coming for Frame Grabs? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2016)

```
We’ve been told about a new feature that Canon may be working on for silent shooting mode. It’s explained below.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">… a new canon design that can do very short bursts of raw 4k video, at less than regular video frame rate, to enable high quality frame grabs in silent shooting mode…</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">Doing frame grabs from video for stills is something a few people have been playing with since the introduction of the EOS-1D C, and Canon has even <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/abraham_joffe_on_the_eos-1d_c.do" target="_blank">put some marketing muscle</a> behind the technique. It’s likely an area that will see some advancement going forward. This is from an unknown source, so treat it accordingly.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## JoeDavid (Jan 12, 2016)

Compared to the amount of data they are moving in the 5Ds for 5FPS RAW shooting it shouldn't be a problem should it?


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

Nope. It's just that IF Canon were to do this, they wouldn't not want to make it 24FPS for example to protect the higher end cinema line. That said, having 18-20 FPS in 4k for an 8.8MB RAW capture could do WONDERS for the sports and journalists folks I'd imagine. Having that flexibility to nail a fast action shot just got even easier. And when they need to get shots loaded to news sites within seconds to minutes, they don't need ultimate resolution. 8.8MB is probably more than adequate



JoeDavid said:


> Compared to the amount of data they are moving in the 5Ds for 5FPS RAW shooting it shouldn't be a problem should it?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Nope. It's just that IF Canon were to do this, they wouldn't not want to make it 24FPS for example to protect the higher end cinema line. That said, having 18-20 FPS in 4k for an 8.8MB RAW capture could do WONDERS for the sports and journalists folks I'd imagine. Having that flexibility to nail a fast action shot just got even easier. And when they need to get shots loaded to news sites within seconds to minutes, they don't need ultimate resolution. 8.8MB is probably more than adequate



Photojournalists getting the perfect still from an interview? Absolutely.

But for sports folks, I thought those folks were heavily reliant on strong tracking AF performance -- wouldn't switching to video to nab stills force them into a manual focusing world? (Forgive me, I never shoot video, so please set me straight if I'm misunderstanding something.)

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But for sports folks, I thought those folks were heavily reliant on strong tracking AF performance -- wouldn't switching to video to nab stills force them into a manual focusing world? (Forgive me, I never shoot video, so please set me straight if I'm misunderstanding something.)
> 
> - A



Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.


----------



## gunship01 (Jan 12, 2016)

I hope this camera takes good pictures. At this point, it is my number one desire in specification for this model. 8)


----------



## jkkk (Jan 12, 2016)

_disclaimer: i registered pretty much just to complain. read at your own risk._

In other words, doing what RED shooters have been doing for years. I can't believe how far behind canon is in tech innovation/implementation. Magic Lantern has allowed for raw video for how long now? 

Many video shooters are completely proficient at pulling focus for live events...a whole generation of wedding DSLR filmmakers have been trained to shoot this way. It's not going to replace AF burst mode (not yet, anyway), but in the right hands...man, it can come close. Find a way to sync a flash burst with it and I think you've taken a BIG step towards merging photography and video on a meaningful level....if that hasn't happened already. It's not hard to see that push: Canon did it with their 1DC "micro expression" promo video (even though motion jpeg has very clear shortcomings) and RED essentially started it by calling their systems "digital stills and motion cameras" or DSMC. 

If canon doesn't start implementing this, hopefully people at ML can tinker around and do it. honestly, I think the 1DC is probably already capable of it.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

I think Canon will have that covered



gunship01 said:


> I hope this camera takes good pictures. At this point, it is my number one desire in specification for this model. 8)


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.



As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
The major reason is shutter speed.
Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
Also, prefer higher resolution. Since i crop most of my images.
(My work can be found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).


----------



## gsealy (Jan 12, 2016)

I would say that this rumor is very possibly true. This video/stills "blended" feature would really help in some situations.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 12, 2016)

Ultimately, the overwhelming number of stills will be taken this way, with quality superior to anything we currently have.

Only reactionary holdouts, the same types who cling to film, will keep trying to capture the perfect moment one shot at a time.

Cheers!


----------



## Besisika (Jan 12, 2016)

Now you get me curious.
I said that nothing would push me to upgrade my current 1DX but this kinda wakes me up.
Bring it on! 
I wouldn't say "no" for sport until I play with it. I see the potential for sport like goalball. Then, how about panning at night or dark places?
Since it is not for pure video purposes, I guess you would adapt your parameters accordingly. 4K is not that small for web, it still gives you room for cropping.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.
> ...



Thanks for the comment and the link - very impressive work for sure!

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Ultimately, the overwhelming number of stills will be taken this way, with quality superior to anything we currently have.
> 
> Only reactionary holdouts, the same types who cling to film, will keep trying to capture the perfect moment one shot at a time.



I appreciate the value of this kind of shooting, and I concede many still-only shooters will _eventually_ use video (or super high speed shooting on/around the shutter depression) at some point, but this is still in its infancy. 

Consider: as much as 8 MP is more than many folks need to share on instagram or FB, how many of us are currently taking stills with 8 MP sensors? (I mean on our dedicated rigs, not on cell phones.) So as much as I concede this will be a part of my future, I'll happily keep snapping stills for now.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.
> ...



The solution would be something like the HDRx mode in the Red cameras, who mix together two frames with two different shutter speeds. To be able to do photos and videos at the same time, every first frame could simply have the shutter speed and ISO that is best for video (like 1/50th), and each second frame is the one for photo (with for example 1/800 and automatic higher ISO). Of course this would require to have at least 48-50 frames a second, so that the video at least gets 24/25fps dedicated frames.

As annonying as the Nikon DSLRs can be regarding video, at least it's sometimes helpful to have two seperate modes for video and photo, which include different settings you can access with a switch. Shooting photo and stills of the same scene can be done with suitable settings pretty quickly, while the switch is not something you want to do 500x a day.


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 12, 2016)

This would be a welcome feature. The future will not be photo or video anyway, it will only be photo - and if you do 1, 5, 14, 24 or 60 frames a second, or 1, 3, 24 or 1000 photos in a row to receive 1 still, a timelapse or a minute-long video out of your settings depends on the camera user.

Already 20 years ago it was clear that at some point you can stand at the loneliest place of the planet with one device, and still have access to any imaginable content ever produced. The question is always how long it will take until technology is able to deliver limitless results. Photo and video is not quite there yet, but the end can only be having raw 8k-16k pictures with 200-500fps and lowlight capabilities of an A7S2. My 2011 Red Epic MX was able to deliver 5k raw frames with 96fps, so I don't see why in the next dedace that shouldn't be possible.

Canon probably already could build such a machine or build it in the coming 2 years, but they will think that too much innovation too soon might kill their business in the longterm.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 12, 2016)

gunship01 said:


> I hope this camera takes good pictures. At this point, it is my number one desire in specification for this model. 8)



Fairly certain that Canon already makes a camera or two that takes good pictures.

"Wow, your camera takes great pictures!" :


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 12, 2016)

When the 1Dx and 1DC were released Canon also released stories and press releases on doing Frame Grabs.
This isn't new and I would expect you will see it. 
I think Canon sees this as the way of the future, but the quality of the frame grabs from video is not high enough yet to make it appealing to the masses.


----------



## kozakm00 (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
> The major reason is shutter speed.
> Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
> White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
> ...



It depends whether you shoot for video and later you decide to take grabs or you shoot video in order to take grabs. In the second case you can set short exposure time.

(My work can be found here: http://www.artofsport)


----------



## preppyak (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
> White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.


 It doesnt require it, though certainly most videographers shoot shutter speeds that are lower than that. 



> Also, prefer higher resolution. Since i crop most of my images.


But I do think this is the reason the feature may be self-defeating. If the 1DXII already shoots 14fps or something similar, does getting 18fps or 20fps instead of 14mp make transitioning from 22MP to 8MP worth it. I think the answer for most, if not all users would be no.

I guess they could put a 24fps 4k Raw option that only records for 5s...but that probably causes more issues than its worth


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
> The major reason is shutter speed.
> Normally i use a shutter speed that is 1/800 or faster.
> White filming requires shutter speeds that are a whole lot longer.
> ...



There's nothing stopping you from using 1/4000th per second in video mode if you want. I think you're confusing shutter speeds needed for smooth motion (1/50th for 24fps video, 1/60th for 30fps, etc...) vs any speed you want for stills. There's no limitation. You can manually set shutter speed for video capture now with current DSLRs. It's just that, were you to playback 1/800th or 1/8000th second shutter speeds in motion at 24fps, the MOTION would look VERY choppy, but each frame would be a perfect 8.8MP RAW still (in the case of this rumor). So yes, it could absolutely work.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

preppyak said:


> But I do think this is the reason the feature may be self-defeating. If the 1DXII already shoots 14fps or something similar, does getting 18fps or 20fps instead of 14mp make transitioning from 22MP to 8MP worth it. I think the answer for most, if not all users would be no.
> I guess they could put a 24fps 4k Raw option that only records for 5s...but that probably causes more issues than its worth



And that's why it's a CR1 

This doesn't however preclude this from being a very useful feature for some applications. One that would certainly set this STILLS camera apart from any competition. It's academic right now, and just for fun.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 12, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> The solution would be something like the HDRx mode in the Red cameras, who mix together two frames with two different shutter speeds. To be able to do photos and videos at the same time, every first frame could simply have the shutter speed and ISO that is best for video (like 1/50th), and each second frame is the one for photo (with for example 1/800 and automatic higher ISO). Of course this would require to have at least 48-50 frames a second, so that the video at least gets 24/25fps dedicated frames.
> ...



Except the shutter speed issue. 
There are some other issues to think about.
For now DPAF is far away from fast enough. 
Especially if you shoot with something like a 400/2,8 wide open.
Also, what you suggest would produce extreme amounts of data to be handled.
It would end up with hundreds of GB:s for a single game. 
For me, it would be totally impossible to work fast enough with that kind of video files.
Then you would get problems with battery time.
Also, i need to be able to transmit Jpeg:s straight from the camera during the game.
And then i write captions and edit selected images. 
When that is done, i transmit the edited files to the agency i work for.
This is done during the pauses between the periods.
To be able to to that. I write protect images during the game. 
So that i can find it fast enough.
Another issue. Most games I'm not allowed filming the game. 
That's due to TV-rights.
I could write more about why i don´t see this happen any time soon.
I guess that not needed.

With that said.
I do belive that the 1Dx MKII will be a great camera.
(Just as the 1Dx are).
And I'm looking forward to try it in the future.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 12, 2016)

kozakm00 said:


> It depends whether you shoot for video and later you decide to take grabs or you shoot video in order to take grabs. In the second case you can set short exposure time.
> 
> (My work can be found here: http://www.artofsport)



True. but there are some other issues.
Se my previous post.
Also, your website doesn't work.


----------



## kozakm00 (Jan 12, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> True. but there are some other issues.
> Se my previous post.
> Also, your website doesn't work.



My bad  Now it works.
http://www.artofsport.cz)


----------



## brianftpc (Jan 12, 2016)

you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.


----------



## jkkk (Jan 12, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.



It does work, and people do it all the time. You can set your shutter to whatever you want when you're shooting video. Your video may or may not look great, but if your primary purpose is to pull stills, there's no problem. And most high frame rate video is necessarily shot with a fast shutter anyway.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> you are going to have motion blur out of those stills. I get motion blur from basketball shooting 1/400. Arent the stills from that video going to be at 1/30. That absolutely isnt going to work. I guess its a convenience if you are a 1 man crew with 1 camera but dont expect anything printable or sellable. It gives you a better than nothing situation.



See my previous post, a few posts ago down this chain... No, you can shoot video at whatever shutter speed you desire.


----------



## faca (Jan 12, 2016)

Hasn't Panasonic been doing this for over a couple of years now? I hope that there will be an improvement over their system, other than the ones related to frame size...


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

faca said:


> Hasn't Panasonic been doing this for over a couple of years now? I hope that there will be an improvement over their system, other than the ones related to frame size...



You can frame grab from any consumer/prosumer video camera far as I know, but not in 14bit RAW mode. Huge difference.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 12, 2016)

Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!


----------



## Policar (Jan 12, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
> Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!



And drive up the price of the camera (and the R&D per unit) because there would be fewer cameras sold. I'm sure someone has done the math.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 12, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
> Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!



It's nothing to add nowadays. Obviously the cost of adding the firmware in to do it is less than the returns they expect to get. So, you do it.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 12, 2016)

This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


> This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.



I see a hybrid version of this happening before before folks go to full video. The now cellphone-ubiquitous burst mode (where a ton of shots in very quick succession both before and after the shutter press) would seem to be a logical in-between step before fully moving over to video recording _everything_ and mining stills out of it.

It would be a mirror-lock up 4K dump of a discrete # of frames while allowing the mirror to drop for recomposition / focusing / etc. before starting the burst again. Something like that could work.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jan 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.
> ...



Yes, absolutely. The burst mode is great for, e.g. portraits to avoid blinking but without asking people to pose several times. But sorting through dozens or hundreds of very similar shots would be daunting... it's bad enough with current technology!


----------



## Etienne (Jan 13, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not with a strong DPAF tracking system and quality EOS glass. Look at what the 7D2 can pull off. And with still capture, the USM system would be fine because the audio pickup would be moot. STM has brought quieter focusing lenses, but for this application, you wouldn't need them. I don't do much video myself, I'm merely making a logical guess here.
> ...



You don't have to use long shutter speeds, it is selectable. And if you are shooting for the photo, you could set shutter speed as high as you need to.


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 13, 2016)

There are plugins who can add motion blur to videos with short shutter speeds, many tv setup's standard settings do have motion blur settings that hide it, and there are also scene situations where you don't see short shutter speeds anyway. Just staying at 1/50 is more or less filmmaker tradition, but isn't always necessary. If 4k60fps, or as rumored even 120fps are coming, technically by rule the shutter speed for video even would have to be 1/120 or 1/240. Depending on the object, that's already enough for many photo situations.

Something that would be much welcome on the other end would be new possible video frame rates like 1, 5, 10 or 15 that allow LONGER shutter speeds and would be nice for timelapse and lowlight scenes with little movement - and then parallel photos who do require such longer shutter speeds. That should be very easy to implement Canon!


----------



## sanj (Jan 13, 2016)

Etienne said:


> sportskjutaren said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Simple! I wonder why everyone can't see this. Just set the shutter for what is important - the video or the still. Great potential feature..!!


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 13, 2016)

At first I thought this video screen grab feature would be extremely useful... then I remembered this thing is supposed to shoot 14fps, which would serve the exact same function. Am I missing something here? The article said this video burst is shot at less the usual video frame rate, so I'm guessing 15 or 12 (30p / 24p), which would be basically the same as a still burst.


----------



## sanj (Jan 13, 2016)

dash2k8 said:


> At first I thought this video screen grab feature would be extremely useful... then I remembered this thing is supposed to shoot 14fps, which would serve the exact same function. Am I missing something here?



Yes. 10 frames.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 13, 2016)

sanj said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > At first I thought this video screen grab feature would be extremely useful... then I remembered this thing is supposed to shoot 14fps, which would serve the exact same function. Am I missing something here?
> ...



Sorry, can you elaborate? You're saying this video burst is 24fps?


----------



## Tugela (Jan 13, 2016)

My NX1 can do 15 fps shooting in jpeg for a surprising length of time when using a 1000X UHS-II card, apparently it lasts even longer with 2000x cards.

That is more data than a 4K raw frame, so it should be possible to shoot short movies at 15 fps using something like that.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> sportskjutaren said:
> 
> 
> > As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
> ...



Only if there is significant motion. If motion is moderate or low then the shutter speed is irrelevant.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> There are plugins who can add motion blur to videos with short shutter speeds, many tv setup's standard settings do have motion blur settings that hide it, and there are also scene situations where you don't see short shutter speeds anyway. Just staying at 1/50 is more or less filmmaker tradition, but isn't always necessary. If 4k60fps, or as rumored even 120fps are coming, technically by rule the shutter speed for video even would have to be 1/120 or 1/240. Depending on the object, that's already enough for many photo situations.
> 
> Something that would be much welcome on the other end would be new possible video frame rates like 1, 5, 10 or 15 that allow LONGER shutter speeds and would be nice for timelapse and lowlight scenes with little movement - and then parallel photos who do require such longer shutter speeds. That should be very easy to implement Canon!



Motion blur will cease to be an issue at high frame rates, so the "rule" regarding shutter speed will disappear. It is only necessary to use that rule at low frame rates or when shooting subjects that have extreme relative motion.

Sensors can already do 240 fps. The sensor used in the NX1 for example is designed for full sensor reads at 240 fps (and that is a 28 MP sensor), but the problem is that no commercial processor available can handle that sort of data flow. In order to be able to deal with what the sensors can deliver we will need next generation processors that are much faster. The NX1 would require a processor about 5-6X faster than what it currently has to handle what it's sensor is capable of. So it might be quite a few years before 120 or 240 fps at 4K is feasible in most cameras. 60 fps might not be all that far off though. make it feasible.


----------



## arcer (Jan 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, the overwhelming number of stills will be taken this way, with quality superior to anything we currently have.
> ...



I'm still using my 350D from 10 years ago for some shooting in the summer daylight or in controlled lighting, it was my first Canon and it has sentimental value, so I didn't throw it away. It's also fun to use ancient but capable camera for fun shooting occasionally.
Even though its resolution is quite small compared to the big MP cameras nowadays, it still deliver good images for web use.
Nevertheless, RAW video for still grabs is quite a development for Canon and hopefully, 4K RAW video is not that far off for the consumers.
http://canonrumors.com/forum/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif
Well, Sony is going to get ahead of Canon in this aspect with the Sony fans jerking themselves off before finding that the Sonys were not what they expected.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 13, 2016)

If they put fast Dual Pixel AF on the 1Dx2 and let people snap 4K images at 20FPS, they'd better put the same thing in the High End EOS-M.

And if we do see something of this sort transitioning over to EOS-M that puts Canon in an interesting position.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 13, 2016)

I think Canon would need to explain exactly how this works for us to discuss it properly.

I know from personal experience that shooting video on the 1D X eats through the battery quickly, whereas with stills I can shoot well over a thousand stills at an all day event and may not even need to reach for my second battery.

There's also the issue of the media contract signed with different events/venues etc. Most do not allow for any moving images to be taken (if you are just an accredited photographer and not the official broadcaster etc.).

Plus there are a load of other issues, but until we know more I would prefer the stills and video sides of my business to remain separate. And for both to be the best possible quality they can be in the 1D X package.


----------



## sanj (Jan 13, 2016)

dash2k8 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > dash2k8 said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 13, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> Can't they just delete the video function altogether?
> Much simpler and it would save a bunch on R&D!



Video is an increasingly important market for camera makers, I would say more important than stills.

Maybe you've heard of this thing called Youtube, a large market offset for Canon are Youtube videographers.



Being able to take 8mp stills from a 30fps 4k video feed, is nothing short of amazing. It is the same as an 8mp camera with an unlimited buffer.

When I shoot on 4k on my panasonic, and am getting 8mp at 30fps out of them, the 10fps on my DSLR looks increasingly weak.

You don't really realize the power of 4k video for stills until you try it, grabbing 8mp stills from 4k, is brilliant.



There will always be a place for just taking stills. You don't need to take video if you just want to shoot architecture, or landscapes, or are documenting something. 

But for action...once you start grabbing frames from 4k video, it's really hard to go back to shooting in small bursts.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated



It's much easier for me to pick a frame from a 4k video, than wade through thousands of pictures.

It's easier to recollect what was happening on video and what frame you want, than just wading through tons and tons of individual pictures.

4k video has made fps and buffer size on a camera irrelevant to me.


----------



## Neutral (Jan 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> sportskjutaren said:
> 
> 
> > As a professional sports photographer i would not use that.
> ...


Exactly.
I see some confusion for some people around understanding concept and difference of shutter speed and frame rate in video mode
For cinema look video shutter speed needs to be twice of frame rate , just to simulate old film camera with rotating shutter disk. This is why people shooting movies usually use set of ND filters to keep shutter speed low for smooth/fluid cinema look videos and professional video cameras use internal switchable ND filters. Each frame itself is blurry in cinema mode.

If person wants to shoot video just to grab frames later from videostream then shutter speed could be set manually to what is required to get sharp non blurry image.
So it could be set up to the max shutter speed if required - up to 1/8000 on most of the cameras.
So one can set frame rate to what is required ,e.g. 25 fps, or less or more and set sutter speed for 1/2000 to freeze motion.
Ability to have RAW video captures ( as rumored fo 1DX II) could allow much more flexibility in post-processing and make it close to stills burst mode.
Each selected frame then could be processed as normal RAW still image.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 13, 2016)

sanj said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


----------



## Nininini (Jan 13, 2016)

you don't have to use the 180 degree shutter angle rule

you can shoot 30fps video at like 1/320

if you shoot 30fps action video at 1/50, and try to pull frames from the video, it's going to look blurry as hell of course

some hollywood movies are shot at 1/50, some are shot at 1/200 or higher, depending on the movie and how action oriented it is


4k video is nothing more than an 8 megapixel camera doing 30/60 fps burst mode with an unlimited buffer, it's interesting to say the least

in fact, the MP4 and H.264 algorithms, have some shared similarities to JPEG compression, you can actually think of them as JPEG burst mode

once you wrap your head around that, it's easy to see why this is interesting for a stills photographer not interested in video too

it is only with 4k that pulling stills became interesting, 1080p stills are only 2 megapixel, but 4k stills are suddenly 8 megapixel...that's suddenly not too shabby anymore, 8mp is good enough for many scenarios


I shoot at a 90 degree shutter angle, twice as fast as traditional film, so I shoot 4k 30fps at a 1/120 shutter speed, which is good enough to freeze light motion for pulling a still, while still retaining a pleasing video


----------



## Neutral (Jan 13, 2016)

Nininini said:


> you don't have to use the 180 rule
> 
> you can shoot 30fps video at like 1/320
> 
> ...


Well said.
For some people this concept is new so it might be difficult to grasp it easily for them.
As I mentioned above some people do not undestand well that frame rate and shutter speed are completely different things.
I would like to see newer H.265 format support in addition to old H.264 in 1DX II.
H.265 is is twice better than H.264 regarding video compression and surpasses H.264 in final video quality.
This is what Canon should have in expensive flagship camera so that it could be called up-to-date to the latest standards. 1DX II is for next 4-5 years and they need to look ahead a bit and implement new technologies and not aging ones.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 13, 2016)

Etienne said:


> You don't have to use long shutter speeds, it is selectable. And if you are shooting for the photo, you could set shutter speed as high as you need to.



That's just what i do it already 
Just that it works better with still images for several reasons.
And so it will continue to be for several reasons.
(Se my previews posts in this thread).


----------



## gsealy (Jan 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.



If these are video files being created such as .MOVs, then it is easy to import the video into a video editor. Each frame in a video editor can be saved as a .JPG. So, if I want to use a given frame capture for some purpose, then I simply watch the video or jump to the place I have in mind (after all I did shoot it, so I know where to go). I have used many such frame capture JPGs for all kinds of things. For example, after I save a frame as a .JPG I can use a paint program to create a poster using the JPG as a starting point.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 13, 2016)

I pull stills from my 4k video all the time. I use Corel VideoStudio (yes, I don't have a $1000000 software, this is good enough for me)


pause video and pull frame

(it gets automatically moved to a folder and saved as a JPEG, you can save as uncompressed bitmap too, I personally don't care, I use JPEG)







8 megapixel JPEG image:












I have also tested if the quality is the same as taking a picture.

If I take a still in JPEG and change it to 8 megapixel, is it the same quality as pulling a frame from my cameras 4k video.

It is, there is no loss of quality. I don't pixel peep my pictures, but I don't notice any difference in quality.

Of course, you are limited to 8mp, but in turn you get..video, it's like shooting 8mp pictures at 30fps with an unlimited buffer.


----------



## DigiAngel (Jan 13, 2016)

Cant be that hard or expensive to put enough memory in there to hold a few dozen 4k frames....


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2016)

Nininini said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated
> ...



Well I guess we differ then! I've tried it, and I much prefer 'wading through' stills. Partly it's software - Lightroom is geared towards stills, and only has the bare minimum ability to process video. As for recollection - our memories must work differently too


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2016)

gsealy said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > This has its place. It's not going to replace high fps sports/wildlife shooting at the top end for a while yet. There are issues - like wading through the vast amounts of data that could be generated (hopefully software could be developed to help). But still, it has potential, and should be cautiously welcomed I reckon.
> ...



As I said earlier, I welcome this and think it has potential. But I have also taken videos for extracting frames, and my experience is it's far less good (for the subjects I was shooting). I can only offer my experience and opinion - like everyone else.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2016)

Nininini said:


> I pull stills from my 4k video all the time. I use Corel VideoStudio (yes, I don't have a $1000000 software, this is good enough for me)
> 
> 
> pause video and pull frame
> ...



Thanks for sharing - it's good to have different perspectives on a subject. *But* I must say, a video frame will not have the same quality as a full raw still processed to taste. Until/unless raw video is enabled, even at the same dimensions, a video frame will have more compression, for instance. Depends entirely on what you want the shot for - a lower quality shot of the key moment in a sporting event for a website or newspaper is a far cry from a high end wildlife shot. Some users will find this less exciting than others, but it'll be good to have the option.


----------

