Who is Taking All This High-Quality Video?

<p>My oldest child turns 13 soon, my youngest 11, and I notice I don't use my Canon DV Tape video camera anymore. When the kids were younger, I just <em>had</em> to have the highest quality video I could afford of them taking a bath, first steps, catching a salamander, opening presents at birthday parties and during the holidays. You get the idea. But they're mostly little adults now, and adults, even little ones, rarely do anything all that fascinating. Sure, I still record the occasional Little League game or dance recital, on my compact point-and-shoot, not the devoted video camera, but the former all look the same and the latter, schools do the recording for you. So my video career is almost over. Perhaps I'm not typical, but I think I am.</p>

<p>So this leads to my bewilderment over the ever-increasing supply of expensive high-end equipment, bodies and lenses, seemingly aimed at consumers who will want to use their DSLRs (or other ILC) cameras for video. Who are these people? I get that event photographers often now need to take video along with stills, but these are professionals. And I get that filmmakers sometimes want the portability, and relative inexpense, of these cameras and lenses, but again these are pros, even if they are new to their business. Are there that many of these folks that every camera manufacturer can profit, or thinks it can profit, by catering to their video needs? Or are there that many parents even crazier than I was, who would spend thousands of dollars to get that salamander in its full HD glory? Or is there some other sort of videographer that I'm overlooking? That is, I know there are many, many of hobbyists shooting stills who want to improve their craft and are willing to spend a good deal of money on quality equipment, snapping away at wildlife, landscapes, portraits, and the miniature world. But I didn't realize that there were that many video hobbyists. Am I wrong? Must be.</p>

 

Amazingly, people sometimes do things differently than you do. I'm one of them. I do shoot a fair amount of video.

<p>Why do you say "amazingly"? I assumed that I was missing something, which is why I posted. I'm curious as to what. What are you shooting? Events? Just creating moving images that find you attractive, as opposed to still? Something else?</p>

<p><em>Why do you say "amazingly"? </em></p>

<p>Given the 'bewilderment' relating to people having uses different than yours, it should be amazing to discover that there, in fact, are. In my instance, I shoot events, scenic (time lapse and real time, personal/family and occasional legal/documentary. In the last category, it beats the grainy fuzzy presentation sometimes seen. That's anecdotal of course. I don't know about the stats of what other people do. </p>

 

<p>The inclusion of video in DSLRs allows consumers to experiment and learn at very little cost. Some owners will of course ignore the feature but others will take the opportunity to explore, learn, and get progressively better at it. </p>

<p>Many professionals in the still/video business are self-taught and the only way to learn is hands-on. The consequence of DSLR video might very well be a new crop of spectacular next-generation film makers. </p>

<p>I came across a young film maker who used a DSLR to create an award winning stop animation short. Worth a look if you have 5 minutes to spare:<br>

<a href="http://shortlistfilmfestival.com/films/maker">http://shortlistfilmfestival.com/films/maker</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Apologies to anyone I offended. The last line of my post says: "Am I wrong? I must be." Doesn't seem to me that this suggests I'd be surprised to learn that there are video uses out there with which I'm not familiar. I was "bewildered" because I don't know them, which is why I asked.</p>

<p> Anyway, the inclusion of a video feature in DSLRs does not surprise me. What does, or did, is the ever increasing quality and expense of that option: sensors honed for video, lenses twice the price they would be otherwise if they didn't have to focus continuously, etc.</p>

<p>Lovalobo, I look at it this way: Prices of cameras have been steadily dropping or feature enhanced compared to each prior generation, so consumers win in overall value. </p>

<p>To the manufacturer, the cost of video implementation is a negligible percentage of the overall camera cost but offers far greater perceived value to the consumer. Even if there was a resulting cost increase, it's akin to 6MP cameras when 3MP was the norm - the price soon dropped when all cameras became 6MP. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To the manufacturer, the cost of video implementation is a negligible percentage of the overall camera cost but offers far greater perceived value to the consumer.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This seems plausible in general, but not for the lenses. Take the Panasonic 14-140 zoom, still the best option for an all purpose, carry everywhere zoom on a Panasonic m4/3 camera. The big selling point on that lens is that it will focus silently and continuously; great for video, but essentially useless for stills (or at least for many stills). Yet my understanding is that this lens is significantly heavier and twice the price of what it would be if optimized for stills.</p>

<p>You are right. There are so many video hobbyists. At the beginning, I was video hobbyists. Later, I understood that I can do better as a video professional. Then I started a <a href="http://skmediagroup.com/">corporate video production</a> company and now I am running it successfully.</p>

<p>High Quality video is often considered to be 720p or 1080p. The number is the smalller of the two numbers that state the images size. ie 480p typically is 480x640 and VGA is not high definition.</p>

<p>My TV via an antenna picks up 480. 720 and 1080 broadcasts. Most HD here is 720. Only some is full 1080</p>

<p>Many people carry cellphones. 720p has been out in higher end cellphones now for 2 years. 1080p in cell phones is out too.</p>

<p>Lower cost 720 and 1080 devices have smaller sensors than broadcast TV cameras that cost 5 to 25 thousand. One sees more noise in low light with a cheaper device. One has less features. One has poorer control.<br /> BUT the bulk of HD quality videos shot are on lower cost devices. ie yoiutube is filled with HD shot with cellphones. shot with 300 buck camcorders. shot with still cameras with video features.</p>

<p>I think somehow you think that these videos are mostly shot with high end cameras . most is shot with devices in the 100 to 500 dollar range</p>

<p>The bulk of the high quality video today is shot by average folks with the camera they already have. ie cellphone ie 200 dollar digital still cameras with video features. VERY few folks have 1 to 5 thousand dollar video cameras </p>

<p>This topic makes me wonder about all the millions of wonderful 8mm and super 8mm movie cameras out there, never to be used again. More's the pity for those, some exquisitely designed cameras.</p>