Thread: 'Will the DSLR die? Will small cameras rule the world?' at The Visual Science Lab

Originally Posted by Djarum

Can't "editing" be said about any form of art? Yes, we only get to see the edited version of a film. But don't we get to see the best or chosen photographs from a photographer? Don't we see the post processed form from the photographer? Some of the best paintings had actually been paintings over previous paintings or the artist scrapped the painting and started over. In the sense of "editing", this is done just as much in video as it is photography.

I agree, and I wasn't aware that I said you couldn't edit photos. I certainly didn't mean to convey that idea. Sorry. You see the editors vision in both. I think they are different mediums. Video's vision unfolds over time. Photographs are frozen in time, and the viewer provides more interpretation (they have to, in the absence of the sense of movement driven by video movement, music, fades, etc.

Originally Posted by Djarum

The real question I think is if the end result is trying to grap a frame out of video, is it really video? What is the different between video and burst shooting? The only limiting factor is time exposure time. Scientists use high speed shooting(frames, video, whatever it is called) just to look at a few specific frames/shots. Is it video or photography?

For me, personally, I am not concerned what something is called -- whether it's called "video" or "photography." To me, it's just semantics. I'm more concerned with the viability of getting what you want. If you are trying to shoot video and stills simultaneously, you may be sacrificing something on one end or the other. I think they are currently different mediums. "The only limited factor is exposure time" -- that's a pretty large limiting (or gating) factor currently, IMO. Again, if you had that 8,000fps video that automagically combined shots into the shutter speed/exposure that you wanted, then we might be talking convergence, but that's hardly likely to happen anytime soon, and would create a LOT of review time to pull out the best stills.

Originally Posted by wt21

For me, personally, I am not concerned what something is called -- whether it's called "video" or "photography." To me, it's just semantics. I'm more concerned with the viability of getting what you want. If you are trying to shoot video and stills simultaneously, you may be sacrificing something on one end or the other. I think they are currently different mediums. "The only limited factor is exposure time" -- that's a pretty large limiting (or gating) factor currently, IMO. Again, if you had that 8,000fps video that automagically combined shots into the shutter speed/exposure that you wanted, then we might be talking convergence, but that's hardly likely to happen anytime soon, and would create a LOT of review time to pull out the best stills.

It is far more than just semantics, it is a whole other way of seeing, working and shooting.

The way it looks to me, the dSLR still, surprisingly, has some life. I base this on my own purchase of the K5. Not only that, the new K-30 seems to have breathed further life into the dSLR.

Right now, AF needs to be innovated (outside of Nikon and u4/3), so that's a missing piece. To me, if Pentax can figure out AF, possibly incorporating the hybrid system or other tech from Ricoh, we might have the perfect replacement for a dSLR. Design aside, naturally. EVF is another story.

Originally Posted by Luke

Someone should tell him that overly "clever" webpages are not so clever. It is a goofy user interface.

Its not his page, its Google's blogspot site. Drives many browsers nuts, needs tons of bandwidth, don't bother if you use an iOS device.

Originally Posted by EyeForget

Its not his page, its Google's blogspot site. Drives many browsers nuts, needs tons of bandwidth, don't bother if you use an iOS device.

Yeah, I don't like that new design. Silly indeed.