OT: Video AND high-quality stills in one camera?

[BumbleBeeDave]

My boss wants to give our reporters cameras to shoot video for our newspaper web site. Obviously, that's not going to require high resolution video, nor are the production values going to be particularly high. It's done at many publications already, and it would greatly increase the number of eyes we have out there with cameras. That's a big problem for us. We cover a seven county area with three editions each day, and they now want to carry that zoning over to the web site.

Now here's the problem. He ALSO wants to get cameras from which we can look at the video AND pull out high-quality stills for use in the print edition . . . AND he wants to do it for a low cost.

I'll confess I'm not the biggest video expert in the world, but am I assuming correctly that "normal" digital video is at a much lower resolution than still photography? In other words, if I'm getting a fairly low-cost digital video camera that will also shoot high-quality stills, I can do one or the other but not both at once?

Since normal screen viewing resolution is 72 pixels per inch and we need at least double that--150ppi, preferably more--it would seem as if he's asking for something that's just not possible at this point in technology at low cost.

Is that right? would we have to buy high-cost, high-resolution HD equipment to be able to do that? Any input would be appreciated and would put me ahead of where I am now . . . Thanks!

BBD

[ada@prorider.or]

well the new HD video camera would solve this i guess
with 3 ccd chips

[Ti Designs]

Dave,

My Nikon camera also has video out. When shooting stills you pay attention to lots of things that you can't control with video, so I'll spend lots of time shooting one still image (I use mine for close up work) but the video output is a bonus that I'll use when I need it. At this point I'm using the video output to let riders see what they are doing from behind (mirros work great of the sides, but who has their own rear view mirror?) The combination of video output and a video capture card on a laptop should do the trick and save you lots of money.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Most of these cameras seem to have video out . . . you can shoot videos with many of the small compact still cameras. But the resolution is very low and it's suitable only for viewing on a computer screen. There's no way you could shoot a video, go through it, and pull out a single frame with anywhere near the resolution to use it in a print application. I'm trying to find out what the cheapest option is for being able to do that. Is there any way to do it with current cameras without spending several thousand on an HD video camera?

BBD

[ada@prorider.or]

well this 150 ppi
i have apple screen that has 120 ppi so

but why does he want so high ?

150 ppi on 30 inch screen that is 4500 pixel resolution full screen x the color depth thats even hard for broadcasting

if you take a dvd cheap sony camera you can do still and dvd and its already on dvd both i mean simple

if you want to look at the image i can sent you pic and video wich i made in usa then you could see or its enough
or good enough
:banana:

[Ti Designs]

Sorry Dave,

I thought you were trying to use the same camera for stills and lower res video. My Nikon spits out interlaced NTSC format video which by image quality is only slightly worse than one of those disposable cameras using 1600 film at night during an earthquake. If you're talking about full image off the CCD you're going to need more procesing power and a lot more memory. Oh yeh, the H in HD ain't all they would like you to think it is...

[BumbleBeeDave]

well this 150 ppi
i have apple screen that has 120 ppi so

but why does he want so high ?

:banana:

It's not what the boss wants, it's just what's necessary for making halftones for publication. Typical need for resolution is 2X the desired line screen in print. Most newspapers use 85-100 line screen, and therefore need digital files that are 150-200 ppi. But most typical standard video is much lower than that. We can make a screen grab off of video, but it's never very high quality because of this difference in resolution. When you occasionally see a photo in the paper that looks all pixelated and blocky, that's why. Someone has taken a photo of low resolution and blown it up for publication when the original file resolution would not support it.

To do what he wants to do, the camera would have to capture a huge file with every frame--say 6MB for each frame for however many frames per second the video is, AND store that amount of info to disk each second. That's a tall order.

The reason HD TV is high-def is because each frame has more resolution and therefore more data. I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

He wants to be able to buy cheap cameras and give them to reporters who would shoot video for the web site AND stills for the newsprint edition that are grabbed from the video. I know there's equipment out there that would do it--I'm just wondering what kind it is and how expensive it would be. I'm betting the per-camera expense is going to be large.

BBD

[KeithS]

In my business I have customers who want fast, easy and cheap. I recomend that they can pick any two. I think you can do it with the same device but not the same medium. I have a 3CCD video camera that takes great stills too, but I have not tried to harvest a still from video, probably need some pretty sophisticated software on the production side to do it. Since graphics is your business I would assume you already have that. Just because your boss wants it doesn't make it easier or even possible. As my mom always says, "people in hell want icewater".

[BumbleBeeDave]

In my business I have customers who want fast, easy and cheap. I recomend that they can pick any two. I think you can do it with the same device but not the same medium. I have a 3CCD video camera that takes great stills too, but I have not tried to harvest a still from video, probably need some pretty sophisticated software on the production side to do it. Since graphics is your business I would assume you already have that. Just because your boss wants it doesn't make it easier or even possible. As my mom always says, "people in hell want icewater".

. . . but definitely not graphics! Yes, we'd need the software--probably running on hardware we already have. I knew as soon as he asked me that we most likely can't do it for the cost he wants and that he's woefully ignorant of the true equipment, skills, and staff time necessary to do it right, but I can't tell him that without at least appearing to thoughtfully consider the matter and do some research! ;)

BBD

[rwl]

The Canon TX1 is a nice, small, HD-ish quality camera that shoots stills reasonably well. Sells for under $500. The ergonomics are just a bit awkward for a still camera. You can see it reviewed here (http://ww.dpreview.com).
Rick

[BumbleBeeDave]

The Canon TX1 is a nice, small, HD-ish quality camera that shoots stills reasonably well. Sells for under $500. The ergonomics are just a bit awkward for a still camera. You can see it reviewed here (http://ww.dpreview.com).
Rick

The link you posted didn't work, but I found a complete review of the cmera elsewhere, which also pointed me to several other company's models that do basically the same thing. The TX1 shoots 720p video, but apparently that's still not very high resolution as still images go. The research I've done so far today seems to indicate that even a 1080p HD video frame is only equal to about a 2 megapixel still photo. That's enough to get a decent publishable photo out of it for print publication, but only if you don't have to crop the frame at all. so we would have to buy HD video cameras and train people to use them. Kind of expensive . . .

BBD

[ada@prorider.or]

As my mom always says, "people in hell want icewater".

that a good one from your mother ,just down to earth women i guess