I started these thoughts in the thread on the Panasonic 3D1, but I think it is of general interest, given many cameras have the capability to take stills and videos or it is easy to take two cameras. Most people seem to be taking 3D videos, but often it is not clear why. But when to take stills and when to take videos?
Stills advantages, when the subjects are also still:
1. Higher resolution. You can shoot in much higher resolution, even >4k. The 3D1, for example, shoots 3D 16:9 stills at 3264x1840 per eye. This is close to the digital cinema 4K standard of 3996x2160, and significantly better than HD video, at 1920x1080. So when people are admiring the great resolution of videos taken of static subjects (for example, gardens), you can do better just using high megapixel still cameras, which will look better even downrezzed.
2. Better 3D. You can use cha-cha, and thus effectively vary the ia appropriately, getting better 3D and higher resolution. This solves the problem of having to buy expensive and cumbersome add-ons for video cameras, when the subject (e.g., a garden or parked cars) are static.
3. Better low-light performance. For stills, and again static subjects, you can use shutter speeds that are very low. For example, handheld you can shoot at 1/8th of a second and get sharp pictures at relatively low iso's. For video, you need a minimum shutter speed of 1/48th of a second - that is, 8X more light is used for the stills; the video must instead push up the gain, with consequent noise and NR blurring.
4. Sharing is at least as good. You can make a 3D video slide show with your stills. If the subjects are static (e.g. gardens), nothing is lost. You can even add a soundtrack and order the pictures to tell a story.
Video advantages, when there is action.
1. You can convey motion. Of course, if the subjects are static (e.g. a garden), then what is the point? But if there is movement - sports, playing, dance, any
movement or activity - then stills basically just freeze action, unannaturally. Now, sometimes videos of static subjects (e.g. garden, parked cars) try to introduce motion by moving the camera. This is often done for no good purpose, and in 3D, camera motion is particularly bad. Repetive sliding or panning or zooming is especially annoying. You do not need such movement if there is actually something going on, except perhaps to track better a moving subject (not a flower or a rock formation).
2. There is sound. Video cameras also capture the sound of the environment being shot. The sound and video much better captures the sense(s) of the place than static still shots without sound. 3D combined with surround sound puts you at the place much better than frozen stills. However, many people's videos throw out the in-place audio track and replace the actual sound with music, thereby losing a large component of experience. Music can enhance a video, but not if all ambient sound is lost. There is nothing more boring than a video with static subject after static subject accompanied only by music. Except in special cases, we have talkies now.
Enough theory. How about a real comparison?
Here are a 3D video and a 3D slide show from 3D stills of a China shopping mall, inside and out. This is a subject that is not inherently interesting, so a challenge.
There are people moving about, of course, and in the video camera tricks are also used to add motion - some gentle panning to follow a moving subject - and use of an escalator to get smooth action. The video also records the sound of the mall. The slide show has no sound.
Which is more interesting?
The video:
The video slide show:
You can see just from the frame grabs above, which has the higher resolution, even in Youtube.
Stills advantages, when the subjects are also still:
1. Higher resolution. You can shoot in much higher resolution, even >4k. The 3D1, for example, shoots 3D 16:9 stills at 3264x1840 per eye. This is close to the digital cinema 4K standard of 3996x2160, and significantly better than HD video, at 1920x1080. So when people are admiring the great resolution of videos taken of static subjects (for example, gardens), you can do better just using high megapixel still cameras, which will look better even downrezzed.
2. Better 3D. You can use cha-cha, and thus effectively vary the ia appropriately, getting better 3D and higher resolution. This solves the problem of having to buy expensive and cumbersome add-ons for video cameras, when the subject (e.g., a garden or parked cars) are static.
3. Better low-light performance. For stills, and again static subjects, you can use shutter speeds that are very low. For example, handheld you can shoot at 1/8th of a second and get sharp pictures at relatively low iso's. For video, you need a minimum shutter speed of 1/48th of a second - that is, 8X more light is used for the stills; the video must instead push up the gain, with consequent noise and NR blurring.
4. Sharing is at least as good. You can make a 3D video slide show with your stills. If the subjects are static (e.g. gardens), nothing is lost. You can even add a soundtrack and order the pictures to tell a story.
Video advantages, when there is action.
1. You can convey motion. Of course, if the subjects are static (e.g. a garden), then what is the point? But if there is movement - sports, playing, dance, any
movement or activity - then stills basically just freeze action, unannaturally. Now, sometimes videos of static subjects (e.g. garden, parked cars) try to introduce motion by moving the camera. This is often done for no good purpose, and in 3D, camera motion is particularly bad. Repetive sliding or panning or zooming is especially annoying. You do not need such movement if there is actually something going on, except perhaps to track better a moving subject (not a flower or a rock formation).
2. There is sound. Video cameras also capture the sound of the environment being shot. The sound and video much better captures the sense(s) of the place than static still shots without sound. 3D combined with surround sound puts you at the place much better than frozen stills. However, many people's videos throw out the in-place audio track and replace the actual sound with music, thereby losing a large component of experience. Music can enhance a video, but not if all ambient sound is lost. There is nothing more boring than a video with static subject after static subject accompanied only by music. Except in special cases, we have talkies now.
Enough theory. How about a real comparison?
Here are a 3D video and a 3D slide show from 3D stills of a China shopping mall, inside and out. This is a subject that is not inherently interesting, so a challenge.
There are people moving about, of course, and in the video camera tricks are also used to add motion - some gentle panning to follow a moving subject - and use of an escalator to get smooth action. The video also records the sound of the mall. The slide show has no sound.
Which is more interesting?
The video:
The video slide show:
You can see just from the frame grabs above, which has the higher resolution, even in Youtube.
