Is video degrading new still camera models?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 4, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 4, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Seems like the emphasis on it is taking away from still functionality
    >and that is probably bad, though not for the target market of this
    >camera, I'd guess.
    >
    >http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgf2/



    In what way has the added video capability detracted from the GF2's
    still imaging ability?

    I think the video capability of the GH2 (no, that's not a typo) has
    considerably *enhanced* the still imaging ability of that camera. For
    a start, it has a newly developed (and highly rated) 16 MP sensor
    whereas the G2, GF2 and G10 all use an older 12 MP design.

    It also comes with a 14-140mm lens that was designed more with video
    in mind, but is an excellent optic for still imaging.

    So the answer to your question is a resounding NO!!
    Bruce, Nov 4, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Seems like the emphasis on it is taking away from still functionality
    > and that is probably bad, though not for the target market of this
    > camera, I'd guess.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgf2/



    For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than 10
    minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)
    Alex VI, Nov 4, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >Bruce <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>Seems like the emphasis on it is taking away from still functionality
    >>>and that is probably bad, though not for the target market of this
    >>>camera, I'd guess.
    >>>
    >>>http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgf2/

    >>
    >>
    >> In what way has the added video capability detracted from the GF2's
    >> still imaging ability?
    >>
    >> I think the video capability of the GH2 (no, that's not a typo) has
    >> considerably *enhanced* the still imaging ability of that camera. For
    >> a start, it has a newly developed (and highly rated) 16 MP sensor
    >> whereas the G2, GF2 and G10 all use an older 12 MP design.
    >>
    >> It also comes with a 14-140mm lens that was designed more with video
    >> in mind, but is an excellent optic for still imaging.
    >>
    >> So the answer to your question is a resounding NO!!
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I was thinking of the GF2 and the myriad of complaints about loss of
    >control buttons. Touch screens are cute, not much else.



    Losing control buttons has absolutely nothing to do with the added
    video capability. It was clearly a marketing-led decision with the
    sole aim of making the camera more attractive to compact P&S digicam
    users who are trading up. I expect it will be successful, but it does
    mean that the GF2 is very unattractive to enthusiast photographers.

    There are a lot of angry discussions about this on DPReview's Micro
    Four Thirds forum. But being angry is pointless, as Panasonic has
    made the changes with the clear objective of selling more GF2s than
    GF1s.

    There is no doubt that the changes broaden the appeal of Panasonic's
    Micro Four Thirds range to people trading up from P&S. Enthusiasts
    can complain all they like, but they are not a large enough market.
    Bruce, Nov 5, 2010
    #4
  5. In article <iav94f$8o4$>, Alex VI <>
    writes
    >
    >For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)


    Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    that have many longer than 1 minute.

    If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

    Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    the two acts? ;-)
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Nov 6, 2010
    #5
  6. On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    > In article <iav94f$8o4$>, Alex VI <>
    > writes
    >>
    >> For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >> than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >
    > Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    > than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    > that have many longer than 1 minute.


    Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
    efforts.

    > If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    > force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    > almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >
    > Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    > chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    > the two acts? ;-)


    Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
    scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 6, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    charles Guest

    On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:05:38 -0700, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >> In article <iav94f$8o4$>, Alex VI <>
    >> writes
    >>>
    >>> For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >>> than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >>
    >> Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    >> than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    >> that have many longer than 1 minute.

    >
    >Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
    >efforts.
    >
    >> If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    >> force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    >> almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >>
    >> Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    >> chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    >> the two acts? ;-)

    >
    >Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
    >scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.



    Or that any more than that would never be used.
    charles, Nov 6, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/5/2010 9:05 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >> In article <iav94f$8o4$>, Alex VI <>
    >> writes
    >>>
    >>> For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >>> than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >>
    >> Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    >> than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    >> that have many longer than 1 minute.

    >
    > Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
    > efforts.
    >
    >> If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    >> force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    >> almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >>
    >> Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    >> chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    >> the two acts? ;-)

    >
    > Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
    > scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.
    >


    I used to have a porno film maker as a client. Yup! There were no long
    cuts. (no pun intended.)
    They had some great visual effects using a water gun filled with
    glycerin. I leave the nature of the effects to your imagination.


    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 6, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    news:nW$...
    >>For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than
    >>10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >
    > Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    > than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    > that have many longer than 1 minute.
    >
    > If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    > force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    > almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >
    > Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    > chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    > the two acts? ;-)
    > --
    > Kennedy



    I'm not a Hollywood film producer, so I guess I wouldn't know.

    But I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
    if they had video.
    Alex VI, Nov 7, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "Alex VI" <> wrote in message
    news:ib6jin$gus$...
    > "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    > news:nW$...
    >>>For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than
    >>>10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >>
    >> Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    >> than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    >> that have many longer than 1 minute.
    >>
    >> If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    >> force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    >> almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >>
    >> Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    >> chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    >> the two acts? ;-)
    >> --
    >> Kennedy

    >
    >
    > I'm not a Hollywood film producer, so I guess I wouldn't know.
    >
    > But I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
    > if they had video.



    In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.
    Alex VI, Nov 7, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Wilba Guest

    Alex VI wrote:
    > Alex VI wrote:
    >>
    >> I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
    >> if they had video.

    >
    > In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.


    Wow, I won't even put the tip of my rocket blower inside my camera...
    Wilba, Nov 7, 2010
    #11
  12. On 11/7/10 PDT 12:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 10-11-07 11:45 , Alex VI wrote:
    >
    >> In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.

    >
    > Most people who talk about it are not only inept at it but have
    > inadequate anatomy complemented with very short endurance.


    I hope you're not speaking from personal experience!
    :)

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 8, 2010
    #12
  13. In article <ib6l5g$o3o$>, Alex VI <>
    writes
    >"Alex VI" <> wrote in message
    >news:ib6jin$gus$...
    >>>>For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >>>>than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >
    >In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.
    >

    So how, in your case, are you going to fill the remaining 9 minutes and
    58 seconds?
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Nov 8, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:4cd4b6e8$0$5541$-secrets.com...
    > On 11/5/2010 9:05 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >> On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >>> In article <iav94f$8o4$>, Alex VI <>
    >>> writes
    >>>>
    >>>> For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >>>> than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    >>> than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
    >>> that have many longer than 1 minute.

    >>
    >> Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
    >> efforts.
    >>
    >>> If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    >>> force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    >>> almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?
    >>>
    >>> Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
    >>> chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
    >>> the two acts? ;-)

    >>
    >> Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
    >> scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.
    >>

    >
    > I used to have a porno film maker as a client. Yup! There were no long
    > cuts. (no pun intended.)
    > They had some great visual effects using a water gun filled with glycerin.
    > I leave the nature of the effects to your imagination.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter




    I thought it was egg and corn flour?
    Alex VI, Nov 8, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>>For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    >>>>>than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

    >>
    >>In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.
    >>

    > So how, in your case, are you going to fill the remaining 9 minutes and 58
    > seconds?




    Getting the bra off, of course.

    On a more serious note, if you think about the amount of camera's lost or
    stolen, I wonder why there's no solution for encrypting your camera memory
    cards in camera?
    Alex VI, Nov 8, 2010
    #15
  16. On 11/7/10 PDT 8:23 PM, Alex VI wrote:

    >
    > On a more serious note, if you think about the amount of camera's lost
    > or stolen, I wonder why there's no solution for encrypting your camera
    > memory cards in camera?


    What on earth good would that do? You primarily want the camera back,
    and the card in the camera is tiny tots, or small potatoes if you prefer.


    And the plural of camera is "cameras".

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 8, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <ib8005$p8d$-september.org>,
    says...
    >
    > On 11/7/10 PDT 8:23 PM, Alex VI wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > On a more serious note, if you think about the amount of camera's lost
    > > or stolen, I wonder why there's no solution for encrypting your camera
    > > memory cards in camera?

    >
    > What on earth good would that do? You primarily want the camera back,
    > and the card in the camera is tiny tots, or small potatoes if you prefer.


    Really depends on what you do for a living. If you're a professional
    journalist the camera, no matter how expensive, is disposable, the shots
    in it however are your livelihood.

    > And the plural of camera is "cameras".
    J. Clarke, Nov 8, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 6, 12:49 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    > In article <iav94f$>, Alex VI <>
    > writes
    >
    >
    >
    > >For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    > >than 10 minutes.  If you know what I mean.  ;-)

    >
    > Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
    > than 10 minutes between cuts?  I suspect you will struggle to find many
    > that have many longer than 1 minute.


    But is that really relevant, I mean most Hollywood movies use more
    than one camera
    and more than one person unlike the home photographer that might have
    4 cameras but
    only one pair of hands.


    > If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
    > force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
    > almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?


    because it's not practical.
    Take two people talking, usual the camera focuses on the person
    talking and that requres at least two cameras.
    If you only have one camera you have to record both faces with it.
    With 2 you can halve the clip recorded by each camera.

    So a 10 mins chat scene needs 10 mins of film, if you have 10 camera a
    minute with each camera is used, but if you can only afford one camera
    you have to film a 10 minute scene for 10 minutes.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 8, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 8, 12:47 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    > In article <ib6l5g$>, Alex VI <>
    > writes>"Alex VI" <> wrote in message
    > >news:ib6jin$gus$...
    > >>>>For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
    > >>>>than 10 minutes.  If you know what I mean.  ;-)

    >
    > >In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about fucking.

    >
    > So how, in your case, are you going to fill the remaining 9 minutes and
    > 58 seconds?
    > --


    I've heard that natural yoghurt is used.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 8, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 8, 9:17 am, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > In article <ib8005$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 11/7/10   PDT 8:23 PM, Alex VI wrote:

    >
    > > > On a more serious note, if you think about the amount of camera's lost
    > > > or stolen, I wonder why there's no solution for encrypting your camera
    > > > memory cards in camera?

    >
    > > What on earth good would that do? You primarily want the camera back,
    > > and the card in the camera is tiny tots, or small potatoes if you prefer.

    >
    > Really depends on what you do for a living.  If you're a professional
    > journalist the camera, no matter how expensive, is disposable, the shots
    > in it however are your livelihood.
    >


    That makes sense, I wonder when we'll get cameras, car, computers,
    phones etc,
    that use some for of biometric sense to detect who is using them.
    I'd have thought sci-fi (star trek) would have that sorted for weapons
    at the very least.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    661
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    517
    What's in a Name?
    Sep 2, 2005
  3. Ray Normandeau

    NYC: Sony DSC-U30 camera and Actors or models

    Ray Normandeau, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    Ray Normandeau
    Nov 15, 2003
  4. JoeB

    Degrading digital images

    JoeB, Jun 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    481
    Alex Hunsley
    Jun 22, 2004
  5. Don Stauffer

    New camera models

    Don Stauffer, Oct 26, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    555
    ransley
    Nov 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page