PDA

View Full Version : Are video cameras redundant?



Rhys
11-24-2004, 10:48 AM
I was looking at the latest video I shot with my S1 (50mb video (http://www.sageworld.co.uk/MVI_0670.AVI)) and wondering whether video cameras are ready to go the way of the Dodo. It seems to me that video clips of more than 8 minutes are a little pointless because nobody really makes videos that long without major editing. For myself, I make short videos which seem generally to be about a minute in length or less. As for viewing videos, I usually view DVD videos on my PC so the slight difference in format doesn't really make much difference to me.

I can imagine a parent making a long video of a child's school play but whether anybody would ever want to watch a video of the play, I doubt.

Billiam
11-24-2004, 05:57 PM
I wonder why anyone would ever want to sit down and watch someone else's home movies, but...

If you want video any kind of lengthy event (wedding reception, HS football game, fireworks display, track meet, air show, whatever), you still need to do it to tape (or direct to mini-dvd). It will be quite a while before camcorders and digicams merge completely. "Major editing" is a part of the game for videographers as much as Photoshop is for still photographers. Apple pushes ease of video editing as a major reason to own a Mac, so they must believe that there's a market.

ReF
11-26-2004, 06:15 PM
I was looking at the latest video I shot with my S1 (50mb video (http://www.sageworld.co.uk/MVI_0670.AVI)) and wondering whether video cameras are ready to go the way of the Dodo. It seems to me that video clips of more than 8 minutes are a little pointless because nobody really makes videos that long without major editing. For myself, I make short videos which seem generally to be about a minute in length or less. As for viewing videos, I usually view DVD videos on my PC so the slight difference in format doesn't really make much difference to me.

I can imagine a parent making a long video of a child's school play but whether anybody would ever want to watch a video of the play, I doubt.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but you are saying that you don't see much in videos longer than a couple of minutes right? Therefore you don't really see the value of a camcorder, right? Well, my personal opinion is that the camcorder will still be around for quite a while. I know we here are photographers and aren't too interested in videos, but think about the wanna-be directors of the future, or those who love filming themselves. I'm personally not a big fan of videos either, but one time a saw a dvd on landscape scenery, of clouds rolling through desert plateaus, and I thought to myself "wow, now that is some thing that just cannot be captured the same way on a still," though I'm pretty sure that scene was done on something much higher end than just an everyday camcorder. Consider these video scenes: a storm ripping through an island, salmon jumping up a waterfall, martial arts scenes; still pictures in those situations just won't cut it. I know that the video capabilities of the S1 IS are more than enough for most of us photographers, but there are just some times when you need to shoot the best quality videos at extended lengths and a camcorder is the only way to go. Plus a $6-8 dv tape is way cheaper than a 1gb high speed memory card, not to mention the huge difference in capacity. I will say that I do agree with you, that the S1 IS would be more than adequate for those "junky" videos that most people shoot, and by "junky", i mean those videos that only you or your close ones would ever want to watch.

Remus
12-03-2004, 04:31 PM
As digital cameras take better and better videos, and as camcorders take better and better pictures, it does seem like they're converging. (Samsung even has one that has two lenses, one for video and one for photos, so it really is two in one, but pretty much two separate devices stuck together). And it's true, many digicams today take videos that are good enough for just capturing memories for you and your family.

But they haven't converged quite yet. Besides, even the regular camcorder DOES allow the amateur videographer to do more than the video-capable digicam. It will usually zoom a lot more, have better image stabilization, work better in imperfect lighting, take longer videos onto cheaper media as has been pointed out... And Billiam is right, there is great joy in hooking up a DV camera with a firewire cable into a Mac with iMovie. In general I'm not a huge fan of Macs, but editing movies on them is SO easy. Sure, you could also import movies from a digicam, but there is loss of quality, and it takes forever...

I don't own a camcorder, and I do use my digicam to capture videos at most events I take it to, but when I want to capture NICE video, and a lot of it (which is during airshows, actually - I'm surprised Billiam mentioned them because not that many people are as into them as I am), I'll borrow a camcorder.

Remus
http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com