Michael, Chris - and others! On your what's new page, you talk about what you appear to consider the inevitable convergence of video and stills with regard to the Red Scarlet.

We all know that photojournalists are under increased pressure to shoot video for websites along side their stills. With some papers, there has even been a change in emphasis towards video from stills.

It is clear from the digicams released over the last few years, that the technology for capturing stills and moving images will eventually, at least for the consumer - and probably for certain professionals, be a single device - is this a good thing to aim for in both the fields of photography and videography?

My concern is that they are two similar and related disciplines - but they are different - and the position of the camera for the "best" still may well not be the best vantage point for the "best" film clip. Stories are told in different ways depending on the medium. Will the convergence of equipment lead to a convergence of styles? Will this be a good or bad thing for either art? Will a converged art emerge from this technology?

I don't know anyone who would describe me as conservative - and yet - on this issue, I have some very real concerns and I think I did like it better in the old days! I don't think that photographic standards have dropped in my life time but the standard of what is deemed to be publishable certainly has - and this is leading more and more of the truly talented photographers who love their art to explore other, possibly more elitest avenues in what they love.

This is a subject that I'm surprised has received so little play on this site.

Obviously it's of interest of Michael wouldn't address it, obviously it's of interest to my clients or they wouldn't accept it, in some cases request it.

Regardless, none of this means that the quality and artistic merit of any image should suffer because another medium is introduced to the production.

For most advertising, even editorial, the leap from digital stills to moving imagery is not that great.

Look at any lifestyle commercial. If you just freeze frame any of the sessions you see the same models, light, style and post effects that you see in print advertising.

In process and effect, the only real difference between the two mediums is one follows the subjects with a smother flow and a much wider canvas, but the remaining elements are pretty much the same.

I agree in journalism there has been a degrading of quality, especially newspapers, now that the standard device is a hdv cam rather than a still state of mind, though how you capture a news event in both styles with one person is right now beyond me.

But then again once journalism pretty much became either a run and click shot by the paparazzi, or overly retouched photos of movie stars, that medium became compromised in ways that have nothing to do with the camera or carrier.

Anyway, I'm not advocating cheaping down the process, of either moving or still imagery, in fact I think all of this will open new doors for everyone.


JR

I have a major article on the subject under development and will hold off my comments until it's published in a few weeks.

Michael

Since Michael is going to keep us in suspense, I'll post this wonderful video edited by Scott Hanson of N2o productions. (I had nothing to do with this).

http://ishotit.com/NFL%20Six%20Man-4.mov

To me, this shows the value of talent over pure technique and if you look I think you can see a lot of beautiful imagery whether it's still or moving.

Yes the complexities of telling a story like this take a lot more work and usually a lot more effort than a still shoot, especially on the documentary level, but the connnection is there.

At least to me.

JR

If you're old (maybe over 30?) it may be difficult or impossible for you to train yourself to feel completely comfortable switching immediately back and forth from still to video etc. Those who grow up with high quality digicams with HD video will feel little or no conflict doing both at the same time. And of course, with sufficiently advanced technology, everything will be video inherently, with high quality stills making up the video stream.

I think the idea of "convergence" is a bit of a misnomer. If what Michael means is the capability to record still and video in the same unit, we've had this kind of "convergence" for several years already. Indeed, you can already buy P&S cameras with video capability and digital video cameras with still capability have been around for years.

If what he means is that "single purpose" cameras for still and video will disappear and be replaced by units that are equally good at both jobs, I have my serious doubts- at least at the high end. It reminds me of those early inventors who wanted to have a car that could also sprout wings and fly. Dual-use devices are certainly going to increase in the marketplace, but the two mediums are different enough in approach and technique that a dual-use camera is unlikely, in my view, to replace the specialized single-purpose tools that most photographers will want to use.

If you are a serious or professional photographer specializing in the still medium, you are going to continue to want a high-end still camera with all the capabilities those devices have to meet your needs. Likewise if you are a videographer. But if you are, say a realtor or a web content provider, sure, you may well want one of these new dual-use cameras.

I think that rather than convergence, what we are seeing is a small but existing market niche starting to take off and become mainstream. And manufacturers like Red are taking the lead.

I would agree with the last two posts that still/video convergence has been here for some time and is already mainstream. The debate though is yet to take place in the photographic 'chattering classes' as to whether this is actually happening, whether it has any merit, whether it is good or bad, whether the equipment is any good and what it should mean for everyone else. Now that discussion on the analogue to digital transition, crop sensor Vs Full Frame, etc... have been exhausted it's about time we had a new topic to kick around

I don't think it's that hard to switch between video and stills as far as the thought process goes. The only problem I've had is that the still capability of my video gear is nowhere near the quality of my DSLR so I have to switch cameras if I want to shoot both. Often, there's simply not time for that.

I don't know about this one! I can see how both are related..

But, I dont see how a video camera capable of making good quality stills, is going to be of much use to me. I need that composition element, the moment, take it away..and its all over for me.

I like video dont get me wrong, but the two are seperate to me. I have no desires to merge them.

I think some are on a quest to make life so easy, that one day we wont even press the button, the CPU will work out the best shot, thanks..but no thanks.

I see nothing new about this "merge", 35mm film was develop for the movie industry and later adapted for "still photography", we are just going the same direction. (or opposite?), in the digital era , composition, lighting, etc, applies to movies, videos or still photography, is just natural, part of "image making/capturing", a single frame of a movie like; "Barry Lindon" will make a beautifully picture!
Welcome to the digital world! I find it fascinating.

I remember when the big audio dealers were moving away from the lowball purchases and toward "home theater". This convergence will eventually just move the large photo dealers further away from the single-item buyer, so look at the stereo shops as a sign of the future (this applies only to those who remember the old stereo shops).

Another aspect of convergence is the advent of the flat screen monitor. We are already seeing "moving photos" (some with sound) beginning to appear at galleries. At lease one booth at the NY AIPAD show featured this. No doubt there will be much more of this as time goes on.

The desire for motion even in still photos is somewhat demonstrated by the Ken Burns films ("The Civil War") in which his cameras move around still photographs, and give you a feel of motion, even though it's totally artificial.

If you think there is a sharp distinction between (good) film and art/still, get a movie you really like (Chinatown is a good one,) put it on an HD TV, then sit on your couch with a DSLR and take photos of it. You will astonish yourself with your new-found abilities.

I see many problems with the convergence, however. Many people don't want a picture to move -- they want to study it. Because of the way human vision works, it's surprisingly hard to study a moving picture, even with freeze-frame technology. In wildlife, for example, there is a distinct division between still artists and motion artists, although both kinds exist, because there's a distinct division between what is done with the art.

Also, as far as non-commercial photography goes, there's the problem of production costs, and I don't think that will change, except for jiggly, hand-held film shot by news people.

The biggest difference is that still is "a moment" and film is "a story" and what may be excellent in one medium is banal in another. This can be seen in television news, which has excellent film facility, as opposed to still photos. Often a still will be somewhat interesting, while the film turns out to be like one of those interminable C-Span shows of talking heads saying little; a film takes *time,* a still can be more of a "Blink" event, a gestalt thing, in which you soak up the essence in a second, then study for as long as you wish. Can't do that with film.

JC

I think the novelty of having a "moving photo" would wear off pretty quick if it were displayed in a normal setting for any period of time. Can you imagine having a number of those hanging on the walls of your house? It would be like living in the electronics department of Best Buy!

I think Michael is very right to be presenting this and I believe it will have a massive influence on photography, possible as much as the move from film to digital has.

Its not just how things are done, but how many people will expect to see things in the future, and where the "image" bar will get moved too.

Look at blogs, how adding images and video to them makes them more interesting to the viewer. Look at the LCD frames that you can buy. Mixing still and film are all ideas and concepts that younger generations have no trouble with.

Many still photographers will have pride in their ability to press the shutter at exactly the right moment. OK now a lot of people "machine gun" at high fps. Well, if you can film and then extract the exact frame, the ability for more people to achieve the magic moment occurs.

At the end of the day its a tool, one which presents a concept that has been around for a while, but in a package that although not cheap, is certainly affordable to many.

I look forward to reading the full article, and developments on the Red web site.


Steven

Just give me two shutter buttons on my camera - one for stills and one for video. That's the solution for everything. Eliminate the "mode" dial, but each button should recognize its own settings.