Video vs. Photo

[yowch]

Enough of Nikon vs Canon, let's hit the video vs photos. (Confining discussion to digital age with digital workflow).

PRODUCT:

Photos:
1. static
2. image only
3. no story before and after (left to imagination of viewer)
4. no sound

Videos:
1. live
2. moving image and sound
3. continuous story

CAPTURE:

Photos:
1. photographer need not capture continuously
2. only worry about lighting
3. generally shoot to minimise prost processing
4. can shoot a burst of 8 frames-per-second and hope for one good shot

Videos:
1. capturing continuously (working non-stop)
2. lighting and sound (including background noise)
3. shoot with post-processing (editing) in mind
4. unless making a movie with re-takes, everything is a one-off event

WORK:

Photos:
1. colour balancing
2. noise reduction
3. print size
4. storyline editing (but more of graphic art and layout)

Videos:
1. colour and sound balancing
2. noise reduction (video and audio)
3. presentation format and size
4. storyline editing part-and-parcel of video production

Please feel free to add to discussion. There are quite some people in Clubsnap who is of the opinion that photo is superior to video for whatever reason. Hopefully this discussion as contributed by both video guys and photos guys (or those in both worlds) to reach a better understanding.

My opinion: Video is very much superior and technically more challenging to photos. Just the cost of equipment will tell you that. And preserving memories? Surely video is superior. To me, it is like comparing radio with TV, or news in newspaper vs. live footage on TV.

But please... keep the discussion civil and clean, no name call, flaming or personal attacks.

[JaPhotos]

erm.. .what do you mean by superior??

[lypklypk]

I feel that they are relatively different in the way they portray emotions.. a single photo captured can evoke an emotion at that point of time, which alot of us would have overlooked when we watch a video. When watching videos, most of the time, we won't bother to think into the deeper meaning behind a scene, but instead, more towards the overall feel of the video. However, photos lets us concentrate more on a specific point of time, of a subject, something more in-depth.

And of course, you can't get fanciful with things like long-shutter speed, long exposures.. etc with video. As an art form, I would say that photography has more meaning compared to videos. You won't see (or very hardly) museums displaying videos right?

Think of it this way. Silent films vs modern films. Which one do you think evokes more thought and meaning?

[BBTM]

I own a video cam for 5 yrs + but I hardly use it. But when I use it, I mostly use it on kids as their expression are priceless. Like one of my niece, I manage to get a shot of her when I lift up the cover of the palm. (For baby to sit in, dun know how to spell) It was her rolling her eyes, stick her tougue out. In such situation, I bet a camera can't do it as it was unexpected situation.

For camera, it is more for ppl who mostly post for it or still live. For taking a toddler photo, you have to wait for the right moment n the right moment hardly repeat itself.

Best is to have both when u go for a outing or tour. Different situation require different kind of recording device. But I still prefer video camera as pure expression n sound is more fun than a still photo also a photo tell a thousand words

[sundazz]

both photo and video tells a story but in diff way.

videos makes up of multible still images (25frame for PAL) and thus we see motions (video). and video have an extra element which is audio..
someone ever say pictures tells a thousand words.. and therefore video tells a million words.

photos need to capture the right moment, video need storyline.

find both are equally challenging.

but video will diffinately have more work to do.. from scripting to storybording to productions to post to effect to audio... etc.

Quote: As an art form, I would say that photography has more meaning compared to videos. You won't see (or very hardly) museums displaying videos right?

agree in certain extand.. but don forget many awards winning film are produced in very artistic way interms of camerawork, lighting, flow, storyline, etc. and believe some docu film is under archive of NHB if i am not wrong

well, I feel tat photos and videos cant compare side by side.. is apple to orange comparison.. need different set of skills (tho some similar knowledge are required)

jus my opinion

[lypklypk]

I think that in the end, there's no point comparing the two of them.. what matters most is that you enjoy what you're doing.

Period.

[JRC]

I think photography is more popular because the outcome can be artistic.
A normal above average hobbyist's can turn out very artistic and nice photos.

But for video, it is much more difficult to turn out artistic and beautiful moving images.
A normal above average hobbyist's usually cannot turn out cinematographycally artistic videos. (u know like those seen in the movies). You need elaborate lighting, and take care of sound. Also, the raw video taken usually needs editing before it can be considered watchable. Very time consuming.

[devilboy]

Originally Posted by yowch Enough of Nikon vs Canon, let's hit the video vs photos. (Confining discussion to digital age with digital workflow). PRODUCT: Photos: 1. static 2. image only 3. no story before and after (left to imagination of viewer) 4. no sound Videos: 1. live 2. moving image and sound 3. continuous story CAPTURE: Photos: 1. photographer need not capture continuously 2. only worry about lighting 3. generally shoot to minimise prost processing 4. can shoot a burst of 8 frames-per-second and hope for one good shot Videos: 1. capturing continuously (working non-stop) 2. lighting and sound (including background noise) 3. shoot with post-processing (editing) in mind 4. unless making a movie with re-takes, everything is a one-off event WORK: Photos: 1. colour balancing 2. noise reduction 3. print size 4. storyline editing (but more of graphic art and layout) Videos: 1. colour and sound balancing 2. noise reduction (video and audio) 3. presentation format and size 4. storyline editing part-and-parcel of video production Please feel free to add to discussion. There are quite some people in Clubsnap who is of the opinion that photo is superior to video for whatever reason. Hopefully this discussion as contributed by both video guys and photos guys (or those in both worlds) to reach a better understanding. My opinion: Video is very much superior and technically more challenging to photos. Just the cost of equipment will tell you that. And preserving memories? Surely video is superior. To me, it is like comparing radio with TV, or news in newspaper vs. live footage on TV. But please... keep the discussion civil and clean, no name call, flaming or personal attacks.

Not to offend anyone, I think comparing this 2 is really a joke. Photographs has its value just as much as video has it. Its' like comparing 2 entirely different entity...

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. While in Singapore, Photography in wedding is much more popular, in China, they prefer having videographer and in Europe, both are treated importantly for the event.

I do not speak for videos nor photos, I think its just 2 different form of work but under a same objective to capture and relive the moment, but as for which is better it really depends on the end user.

[yowch]

Originally Posted by devilboy Not to offend anyone, I think comparing this 2 is really a joke. Photographs has its value just as much as video has it. Its' like comparing 2 entirely different entity... Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. While in Singapore, Photography in wedding is much more popular, in China, they prefer having videographer and in Europe, both are treated importantly for the event. I do not speak for videos nor photos, I think its just 2 different form of work but under a same objective to capture and relive the moment, but as for which is better it really depends on the end user.

The problem I face is how many photographers who comes out and say that the photography art is much more challenging and is 'superior' to videography. Arguing that it is two differnt media doesn't satisfy them. Saying that video captures more puts them on the defensive, saying that photographs evokes emotions. So Alfred Hitchcock's videography doesn't evoke emotions?

Personally, I feel that much more goes on in video from shooting to presentation, than photography. I suppose most people are just movie-goers who doesn't think much about the production work. Most photographers are familiar only with crappy home-video productions.

Actually, the 'joke' goes further, to photographers who insists that black-and-white is better than colour, but that is another matter.

[yowch]

Originally Posted by lypklypk I feel that they are relatively different in the way they portray emotions.. a single photo captured can evoke an emotion at that point of time, which alot of us would have overlooked when we watch a video. When watching videos, most of the time, we won't bother to think into the deeper meaning behind a scene, but instead, more towards the overall feel of the video. However, photos lets us concentrate more on a specific point of time, of a subject, something more in-depth. And of course, you can't get fanciful with things like long-shutter speed, long exposures.. etc with video. As an art form, I would say that photography has more meaning compared to videos. You won't see (or very hardly) museums displaying videos right? Think of it this way. Silent films vs modern films. Which one do you think evokes more thought and meaning?

I beg to differ, there are those who really study the meaning behind movies, maybe you don't. Emotions can be protrayed not only in one static frame, but with moving frames, changes in focus or DoF, and certainly by sound.

Museums display plenty of oil paintings, too, we should all go to oil painting? How about caligraphy vs. modern graphic text design?

Silent film vs modern films? Certainly modern films gives more opportunity for the director/story writer to express and impress the audience. Imagine watching "Saving Private Ryan" (first 15 minutes landing on Normandy) without sound.

The thing here could be inertia, the resistance to adopt newer things. Video is certainly a progression from photo, maybe 3D capture comes one day in the near future. Remember the film vs. digital arguments.

Yes, video is different from photo, but to say that photos are 'better' or 'superior' to video as a medium is really ridiculous to me.

[yowch]

Originally Posted by lypklypk I think that in the end, there's no point comparing the two of them.. what matters most is that you enjoy what you're doing. Period.

I am quite sure I know what you mean here, but if I enjoy torturing cats...

[tommon]

Personally, I won't even go onto this cat of talk. You just can't compare a banana with an apple. They are quite different in all its functions and purpose. One is motion pictures while the other is stills, not to mention that video or motion pictures includes sound + music, presentation, etc. In a full blown produsction settings, one uses lightings differently from the other, not to forget the sound engineers to record the sound. Then there's post production, includes editors, animators, etc. While in commercial photography the people involved are totally differentmwitha a different set of discipline.

So why talk about versus when we have not base for it to compete.

[shojibake]

Museums do have video installation/ video art. It's just that in singapore, it's not often that you will get to see them. As a medium, it is less widespread.

[danel]

i dun think its very different... both seeks to do the same thing though using different means... like spoken, one uses visual appeal while the other uses both visual (motion) and audio appeal... so of course in terms of work, concept philosophy video will stand out in the sense that it does alot more work, play abit more senses and more factors to consider... (aiyah if really wanna compare just get someone to do a side by side analysis of shooting the same subject, eg a cat...what are the stuff which phtographer consider and a videographer consider?)

these... i am referring to those who treat videography and photography seriously... not machiam take out camera and whack... the kind do things for the sake of doing things or earning money one, of course you won't find such considerations in their work...can tell one...

[shinken]

I just watched Love Actually again. There was this scene where the best friend of the groom showed the highlights of the wedding he shot for his best friend and the woman (Kiera Knightly) he's in love with. The very shot clip was highly emotionally charged and was really powerful. The pacing was perfect, and in such amazing synchrony with the highly inspired soundtrack. We're not just talking about the angles and lighting, but the selection of frames, the emotions, the feel. In a shot span of minutes, the audience immediately connected with Kiera Knightly and in fact even feel sorry for the friend who's secretly in love with her.

I believe videographers have a medium of producing highly emotionally charged works of art, just as much as photographers do. The mediums are different, so the basis for fair comparison will never be there. Both has it's potential for the learners to exploit. Have fun filming you guys.

[lypklypk]

Originally Posted by yowch I beg to differ, there are those who really study the meaning behind movies, maybe you don't. Emotions can be protrayed not only in one static frame, but with moving frames, changes in focus or DoF, and certainly by sound. Museums display plenty of oil paintings, too, we should all go to oil painting? How about caligraphy vs. modern graphic text design? Silent film vs modern films? Certainly modern films gives more opportunity for the director/story writer to express and impress the audience. Imagine watching "Saving Private Ryan" (first 15 minutes landing on Normandy) without sound. The thing here could be inertia, the resistance to adopt newer things. Video is certainly a progression from photo, maybe 3D capture comes one day in the near future. Remember the film vs. digital arguments. Yes, video is different from photo, but to say that photos are 'better' or 'superior' to video as a medium is really ridiculous to me.

I did study on film making before, with all the concept planning, story-boarding, scriptwriting, directing.. etc. Not much, but I do know the kind of impact that films can give, and what roughly goes in there.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to say wasn't about which medium is better. Everyone has their own say on it. It's the same as acrylic painters, oil painters, watercolour painters, Wacom Tablet (digital painters), fine artists, modern artists.. etc.. which is better? There isn't an answer.

And to redeem myself, the reason why I put emphasis on photography in my post was because the threadstarter placed emphasis on videography.

For info, there is such a thing as capturing 3D, called motion capturing, but that requires 3D knowledge.

[alvinsclee]

Photography captures the moment of intensity, videography threads through the flow of emotional connectivity. Both are vehicles for expression on the timeline, be it an instant or an interval period.

Hmmm, perhaps one of my old poems can help to weave the two seemingly dichotomous artforms together... or as quantum physicists might say: "It's all relative"...

TIME, A MOMENT IN INFINITY
======================
Time
A moment in Infinity
Whatever comes
Whatever goes
Time
Witness in Continuity

Time
A moment in Infinity
However experienced
Whoever loved
Time
Bearer of Totality

Time
A moment in Infinity
Whichever way
No matter when
Time
Flows eternity

- created 03/04/05 (c) Alvin Lee

[westwest1]

I cannot believe this thread is still going on...

[sgvideoman]

Although wikipedia is not recognized by the academia, anyhow, here goes:

"Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images which represent scenes in motion."

More info..

[synapseman]

Good gravy. Wasn't this topic beaten to death someplace in CS already? This is really arguing just for the sake of it. Come on lah, what do you hope to achieve out of this?

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=225092
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=225488