December 27th I was visiting LACMA when by chance I met a pair of interesting characters. I snapped a few shots using a "feature" approach (as in something that's of interest on its own merits rather than as a current event, as opposed to "news") and showed a few of those photographs in this post: Storyesque.
Now, I'm posting one more. Why? It looks very much like the earlier shots. Is it a more interesting photo? No.
It's a frame from a video clip. At the size used online, and under the shooting conditions present it is just about identical to the look of the still images I shot.
A few key points:
The original still photos are 4,300 pixels wide. So, if you wanted to make a print at 300 pixels per inch, you could make a 14.3 inch print (a little smaller if you've done any cropping).
The video capture is 1,920 pixels wide. So, to print at 300 pixels per inch would result in a 6.4 inch print. (Printing at 200 pixels per inch would create a 9.6 inch print.) So, just based on pixels you end up with a still that is quite usable online or for a newspaper page (often thought of as 150 pixels per inch -- meaning a 12.8 inch print should work) but maybe just enough for book pages and probably not enough to make a good exhibition print for a museum wall.
For video that looks good, you'll likely shoot at a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second (I'll address why another time) which means there's not a lot of possibility of freezing fast motion or keeping every frame sharp. If I had selected a few frames earlier or later the look would be a little softer.
No comments:
Post a Comment