[Ansteorra] Why aren't we doing this?

[Fields Family Farm]

I understand that professional photographers have exacting standards, but
what are these pictures for?

Are we making a coffee-table book of still-image art?  Are these going on
display in an art gallery?

Or are these going to be on someone's facebook page and used as their
computer background?

Does it really matter if the pictures have artifacts or aren't up to
professional quality?  Isn't the point of these pictures to refresh memory
or give a general impression of what happened?  Do they have to be perfectly
clear for that?  As long as people/surroundings are recognizable, isn't that
enough?  Do we really want to try to exactly recreate the visual experience
for those that weren't there?

I've taken night pictures before, with an amateur non-SLR camera and no
flash.  The people and surroundings were recognizable.  You could tell who
was there and what was happening.  That's what I wanted, and I got it.

If you MUST have a flash and a $5000 camera/lens, what are you aiming for?
And why?


Hrethric



On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, SoldierGrrrl <soldier.grrrl at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Unless video has changed a great deal, video cameras are not capable
> of producing decent still frames, especially at night, or in dimly lit
> areas.  You can get a digital camcorder that is capable of still
> images, but you're probably still not going to get anything from the
> motion filming resembling a picture good enough to enlarge.
>
>  This one,
> http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HDR-XR150-Definition-Handycam-Camcorder/dp/tech-data/B0031RGL2A/ref=de_a_smtd
> at almost $550, is capable of HD video and 3 mp still images.  Even
> with a 3 mp still capability, you're still going to run into blur,
> digital trash and other issues with low-light photography.
>
>  Video cameras, despite what you see on TV, just aren't capable of
> producing high-quality still images.  The information to enlarge a
> frame just isn't there.  Unlike actual film, where the information is
> preserved on the film and the camera isn't making it up as it goes
> along (pixel sampling, IIRC), digital cameras are limited with regards
> to the amount of information the image contains. That's why you can do
> amazing enlargements with 35mm film, while not so much with a camera
> with few megapixels.  The camera just can't gather enough information.
>  There is a whole science that goes into how digital cameras collect
> and sort the information gathered for a "picture," and I don't get it
> all, but it does provide the constraints photographers have to work
> around.
>
> This one:
> http://www.amazon.com/JVC-Everio-GZ-X900-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B001UHMTG0%3FSubscriptionId%3D19BAZMZQFZJ6G2QYGCG2%26tag%3Dsquidooa266594-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB001UHMTG0
> looks like it *might* be able to pull it off, providing you're
> shooting in good daylight, but I think it's still shooting in a FPS
> mode, rather than pulling a frame out of the "filming."
>
> I'll have to check and see what my broadcasters say about this, but
> I'm not confident that a consumer, with a consumer camera, is going to
> be able to pull usable stills from night filming.  I could, of course,
> be wrong.
>
> In service,
> Helene
>
> --
> "Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most
> Americans the war remains an abstraction – a distant and unpleasant
> series of news items that do not affect them personally."- Robert
> Gates, Secretary of Defense.
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>
>