Future photo/video tech for shooting the kids
Discussion
Not my clearest thread title but there we are :]
When I was growing up there were no digital cameras so the only evidence of me as a kid are a fairly small number of grainy partly in focus photos. We have some reel video somewhere in the loft.
Fast forward to today and the wife and I both have newish iPhones so we take lots of photos of our baby and lots of 4K video. Over the next years we will take thousands of photos and hundreds of videos of the little one and given today’s tech they will all be clear and high quality to today’s eyes.
Here’s the question - just as the grainy photos of me look low res and outdated, probably 4K video and smartphone photos will look dated in 20 years time, so, is there any cutting edge tech that I should maybe play around with to take photos/vids that will look just as great in the futures as 4K vid appears to us today? Maybe I should get a DSLR? Maybe there is some VR or 3D photo/vid tech that will become commonplace over the next 10 years?
When I was growing up there were no digital cameras so the only evidence of me as a kid are a fairly small number of grainy partly in focus photos. We have some reel video somewhere in the loft.
Fast forward to today and the wife and I both have newish iPhones so we take lots of photos of our baby and lots of 4K video. Over the next years we will take thousands of photos and hundreds of videos of the little one and given today’s tech they will all be clear and high quality to today’s eyes.
Here’s the question - just as the grainy photos of me look low res and outdated, probably 4K video and smartphone photos will look dated in 20 years time, so, is there any cutting edge tech that I should maybe play around with to take photos/vids that will look just as great in the futures as 4K vid appears to us today? Maybe I should get a DSLR? Maybe there is some VR or 3D photo/vid tech that will become commonplace over the next 10 years?
To some degree you'd need a crystal ball, to work out what people will be using in 20 years!
But here's my take. Any new tech coming in, in terms of mobile cameras / video, usually aim to make them look a little more like cinema / film - as we view those as the golden standard in terms of what looks great. We've got mobiles that take quite bright, high resolution and colourful images, even in low light now. But here's where i see tech going
- Stabilisation. I think a lot of what will date home videos now, will be wobbly and shaky video. As stabilisation tech on the sensor, and in the software, gets better and better, future videos i think will seem far less wobbly. So to get that now, there are some great, small handheld gimbals deigned for mobiles and small cameras, that use motors to stabilise the camera take out camera shake. DJI Osmo, for example.
- Dynamic range. In films, the lighting is controlled, the film is graded, and the dynamic range of cinema cameras is immense (the range of brightness it can capture.) In mobiles and cheaper cameras, this is limited - meaning blown out highlights in the sky. As the tech gets better, so to will the dynamic range of mobile cameras, so future video won't have such harsh blown out highlights, over oversaturated skies that look unnatural.
The way around that now, is use a better camera. Something like a Sony RX100 iv, for example, is capable of filming in a high dynamic range mode called slog2. But this needs to graded to look correct on a standard TV, as the range of brightness the camera can capture, goes beyond what the TV can actually display.
- Portrait video. A lot of people are still shooting video in portrait orientation, and i think that will date video very quickly!
For me, if I had kids, and wanted very good home videos that won't date too badly, id use an advanced pocket camera like a Sony RX100 iv / v, and Id use it a lot in a handheld gimbal. It would be quick to setup, get stunning 4k images, and would give smooth, stable footage.
But here's my take. Any new tech coming in, in terms of mobile cameras / video, usually aim to make them look a little more like cinema / film - as we view those as the golden standard in terms of what looks great. We've got mobiles that take quite bright, high resolution and colourful images, even in low light now. But here's where i see tech going
- Stabilisation. I think a lot of what will date home videos now, will be wobbly and shaky video. As stabilisation tech on the sensor, and in the software, gets better and better, future videos i think will seem far less wobbly. So to get that now, there are some great, small handheld gimbals deigned for mobiles and small cameras, that use motors to stabilise the camera take out camera shake. DJI Osmo, for example.
- Dynamic range. In films, the lighting is controlled, the film is graded, and the dynamic range of cinema cameras is immense (the range of brightness it can capture.) In mobiles and cheaper cameras, this is limited - meaning blown out highlights in the sky. As the tech gets better, so to will the dynamic range of mobile cameras, so future video won't have such harsh blown out highlights, over oversaturated skies that look unnatural.
The way around that now, is use a better camera. Something like a Sony RX100 iv, for example, is capable of filming in a high dynamic range mode called slog2. But this needs to graded to look correct on a standard TV, as the range of brightness the camera can capture, goes beyond what the TV can actually display.
- Portrait video. A lot of people are still shooting video in portrait orientation, and i think that will date video very quickly!
For me, if I had kids, and wanted very good home videos that won't date too badly, id use an advanced pocket camera like a Sony RX100 iv / v, and Id use it a lot in a handheld gimbal. It would be quick to setup, get stunning 4k images, and would give smooth, stable footage.
20 years time? Hologram (or similar) I would have thought. Certainly 3D.
Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 9th August 13:17
Fordo said:
- Portrait video. A lot of people are still shooting video in portrait orientation, and i think that will date video very quickly!
Unless phones change how they are held, then I very much doubt this. Portrait video is getting more and more common, if your target audience is going to be watching the video on their mobile, then portrait video works best.Phunk said:
Fordo said:
- Portrait video. A lot of people are still shooting video in portrait orientation, and i think that will date video very quickly!
Unless phones change how they are held, then I very much doubt this. Portrait video is getting more and more common, if your target audience is going to be watching the video on their mobile, then portrait video works best.I emailed Apple many years ago and asked them why a default landscape or portrait mode couldn't be set when recording videos to ensure that landscape mode was used even when the phone was held vertically, never heard anything back!
The major issue for most users will probably be how to ensure that their prized photos and videos can still be viewed in twenty or more years time if they are stored on old HDD or SD cards, I have little faith in cloud servers especially if the hosting company goes bust or changes direction at some point in the future.
Fordo said:
- Stabilisation. I think a lot of what will date home videos now, will be wobbly and shaky video. As stabilization tech on the sensor, and in the software, gets better and better, future videos I think will seem far less wobbly. So to get that now, there are some great, small handheld gimbals deigned for mobiles and small cameras, that use motors to stabilize the camera take out camera shake. DJI Osmo, for example.
This 100%, I normally take A LOT of gear with me on holiday, but the thing that gets used the most is my phone and a DJI Gimbel.For home movies, you can't really go wrong.
GetCarter said:
20 years time? Hologram (or similar) I would have thought. Certainly 3D.
Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Doubt 3D will feature. I spent 11 years in broadcast sales and system integration and in my last years, we were told that Sky weren't investing any more money in 3D. Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 9th August 13:17
People only demand 4k now, so they heard about in PC World or similar. They are probably perfectly happy with dare I say it, lowly HD quality. Worth noting that the BBC were making HD in 1995!
I expect 8k will appear in the coming years and people will convince them selves that they need 8k TVs, phones etc etc.
Anyways, with these thousands of video and 4k videos I would make sure that they are stored in a place where you can get to them easily and they are organised in a way that you can understand. I know people who have thousands of pics in the iphoto library and its an absolute mess and they can never find anything. I believe Google Photos is slightly better.
I may have rambled a buit, but my point being your grandchildren will not look at your photos and videos and say, my god these are terrible, because they aren't 12k resolution! They will just be happy to see them!
I have been using digital since mid late 90s and have amassed 200Gb of photos and that isn't actually that much, but its backed up on a local PC and in two drives on a WD Cloud Device (Excellent bit of kit). Its all at folder level and well organised. I also try and delete the rubbish. There are life events that I wish I had more photos of....but thats another discussion.
bakerstreet said:
GetCarter said:
20 years time? Hologram (or similar) I would have thought. Certainly 3D.
Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Doubt 3D will feature. I spent 11 years in broadcast sales and system integration and in my last years, we were told that Sky weren't investing any more money in 3D. Camera with 2 (or more) satellite bits to create 3D image.
As for today, take photos in as high a res as possible, as we have no idea what we will be able to do with them in the future. One thing for certain. Higher the res, the better the chance. I'm currently using 42MP full frame
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 9th August 13:17
People only demand 4k now, so they heard about in PC World or similar. They are probably perfectly happy with dare I say it, lowly HD quality. Worth noting that the BBC were making HD in 1995!
I expect 8k will appear in the coming years and people will convince them selves that they need 8k TVs, phones etc etc.
Anyways, with these thousands of video and 4k videos I would make sure that they are stored in a place where you can get to them easily and they are organised in a way that you can understand. I know people who have thousands of pics in the iphoto library and its an absolute mess and they can never find anything. I believe Google Photos is slightly better.
I may have rambled a buit, but my point being your grandchildren will not look at your photos and videos and say, my god these are terrible, because they aren't 12k resolution! They will just be happy to see them!
I have been using digital since mid late 90s and have amassed 200Gb of photos and that isn't actually that much, but its backed up on a local PC and in two drives on a WD Cloud Device (Excellent bit of kit). Its all at folder level and well organised. I also try and delete the rubbish. There are life events that I wish I had more photos of....but thats another discussion.
As for 200 GB of photos. I generally do that per year. Just backed up 4TB of tifs. It can be a PITA!
GetCarter said:
I wasn't referring to broadcast. As you say, 3D is dead in the water. Watch out for 3D photos coming in the next decade.
As for 200 GB of photos. I generally do that per year. Just backed up 4TB of tifs. It can be a PITA!
I still shoot in JPEG not raw so the file sizes are quite reasonable (6Mb ish), but I can see how people who shoot with more modern DSLRs and than mine (Nikon D3100 - 14.5Mp) and in RAW can rack up several Gbs per shoot. I currently average about 4Gb a weekend. As for 200 GB of photos. I generally do that per year. Just backed up 4TB of tifs. It can be a PITA!
Still learning photography, but success rate is approximately 5-10%
At the high end I don't think quality has moved on that much in the time scale you're describing.
Medium format or 35mm film photos taken with decent glass taken 30 years ago look just as good as anything taken today. Likewise in film, Bladerunner doesn't look s
t even though it's coming up to 40 years old.
If you spend money on decent gear you'll get results that stand the test of time. If there is some paradigm shift in the medium you can't plan for that. But sticking a picture on the wall is the same today as it was when you were a kid.
Medium format or 35mm film photos taken with decent glass taken 30 years ago look just as good as anything taken today. Likewise in film, Bladerunner doesn't look s
t even though it's coming up to 40 years old.If you spend money on decent gear you'll get results that stand the test of time. If there is some paradigm shift in the medium you can't plan for that. But sticking a picture on the wall is the same today as it was when you were a kid.
_dobbo_ said:
But sticking a picture on the wall is the same today as it was when you were a kid.
Yea, but that girl on the tennis court wouldn't work so well with the Mrs. 
ETA for those too young to remember:
http://www.sommervillecarr.com/blog/wp-content/upl...
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 15th August 14:59
There'll be so many photos, that the relative value of any one will be negligable. Even the middle aged blokes who typically delve into family archives will struggle to go through them all weeding out the significant ones.
That is assuming the storage media is stable long term, and doesn't get thrown away/accounts deleted by uncaring descendants. Hopefully no solar/earth EM events that wipe all bits either.
That is assuming the storage media is stable long term, and doesn't get thrown away/accounts deleted by uncaring descendants. Hopefully no solar/earth EM events that wipe all bits either.
Catatafish said:
There'll be so many photos, that the relative value of any one will be negligable. Even the middle aged blokes who typically delve into family archives will struggle to go through them all weeding out the significant ones.
That is assuming the storage media is stable long term, and doesn't get thrown away/accounts deleted by uncaring descendants. Hopefully no solar/earth EM events that wipe all bits either.
You make a good point - who here actually bothers to delete the 10 shots with eyes closed and only keep the one that was any good? So you end up with an unmanageable mess of photos in which only a small number would ever have made it into a traditional photo album.That is assuming the storage media is stable long term, and doesn't get thrown away/accounts deleted by uncaring descendants. Hopefully no solar/earth EM events that wipe all bits either.
_dobbo_ said:
You make a good point - who here actually bothers to delete the 10 shots with eyes closed and only keep the one that was any good? So you end up with an unmanageable mess of photos in which only a small number would ever have made it into a traditional photo album.
I save the one 'keeper' as an uncompressed tiff, and backup on one external drive, and the rest to another external drive.Works for me.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff