If one wants a best quality photo of a scene: is it better to take a photo or does one get the same result if one extracts the image out of the 4K video? It's after all the same camera optics and sensor? In either case I'd do some post processing in a professional software.
P3P: video image extraction or still photo - what is better?
- Thread starter Grimbart55
- Start date
Video still is better. I never take pictures, not even with a real camera as long as I can take videos.
Why don't you try it out? Lift the drone to 150 ft, take a few stills and shoot video of the same place in 4K or ( I prefer) 1080P/60. Play video to the same image, take a freeze frame and compare the still photo to the freeze frame.
Why don't you try it out? Lift the drone to 150 ft, take a few stills and shoot video of the same place in 4K or ( I prefer) 1080P/60. Play video to the same image, take a freeze frame and compare the still photo to the freeze frame.
Sorry, but pictures are ALWAYS better, I'm a professional photographer and I would never consider a screen grab from a video even close to the quality I can pull out of a picture. Without even going into any major detail just one reason pictures are better is because if you are shooting video properly then your shutter speed should be double your frame rate so if you are shooting at 30FPS your shutter speed should be at 1/60. At 1/60 on a platform like the P3, the picture will not be tack sharp because of vibration. In a video it does not need to be tack sharp because the scene is rapidly changing and no one expects video to be tack sharp.
When I am taking pictures with the P3 I keep my shutter speed somewhere over 1/250 to get it tack sharp. At that speed it should be able to overcome the vibration. Also, and here is the other main reason pictures will ALWAYS be better than video grabs; I always shoot RAW. RAW is the uncompressed image saved straight to disk. With RAW in a program like Lightroom you have the full source image data to work with; not just what the JPG algorithm deemed fit to save.
I always ONLY shoot 1080P/60 @ 120-240.
Film myth of "best look at 24fps" is just BS propagated by Hollywood in the old days, decision made by the bean counters.
Here is an example of frame freeze of video.
Film myth of "best look at 24fps" is just BS propagated by Hollywood in the old days, decision made by the bean counters.
Here is an example of frame freeze of video.
I'm not here to argue, everyone is entitled to their opinion. The reality is, if you took the same image, saved it in RAW format, and post processed it in Lightroom the quality improvement would be drastic. If a screen grab is good enough for you then so be it; it's probably good enough for most people, but it won't change the fact that with all other things being equal, a picture will always be better than a screen grab. The OP asked how to get the best photo quality out of a scene. If the OP truly wants the best then they will not use screen grabs.
And for video I never shoot over 1080P@30FPS unless I need slow motion effects in post processing. Anything over 30FPS is a waste of disk space because at 18FPS motion becomes fluid to the human eye and at 30FPS motion looks the most natural to how humans perceive it in the real world. Anything over 30FPS and motion starts looking unnatural. Honestly, you are just giving bad advice all around.
And for video I never shoot over 1080P@30FPS unless I need slow motion effects in post processing. Anything over 30FPS is a waste of disk space because at 18FPS motion becomes fluid to the human eye and at 30FPS motion looks the most natural to how humans perceive it in the real world. Anything over 30FPS and motion starts looking unnatural. Honestly, you are just giving bad advice all around.
Last edited:
Thanks! That's what I wanted to know. I must say, that even good 4K screen-grabs subsequently post processed worked out pretty well, but your point about raw processing combined with short shutter speed is well taken.
Another thing I didn't mention is that in HDR scenarios you can also take brackets which will increase your dynamic range if the HDR look is your thing. You can only properly do this with RAW images that have been bracketed. I'm not a fan of HDR but when done properly it can be useful.
I belive that still images will be more superior than still grab from video, in meanings of details.
Video would be:
UHD: 4096px x 2160px or 3840px x 2160px
FHD: 1920px x 1080px
HD: 1280px x 720px
and size of still photography is 4000x3000 px
Video would be:
UHD: 4096px x 2160px or 3840px x 2160px
FHD: 1920px x 1080px
HD: 1280px x 720px
and size of still photography is 4000x3000 px
