Could video kill photography?

Take a video capture of something, then take a still image. The two modes work in totally different ways. With still photography you have the shutter which essentially freezes the light, and shadows at one point in time, therefore allowing more detail if shot properly. Now go through your video caps frame by frame, and try to find one with as much detail. Since the camera is not using the shutter to freeze the scene, but is just open, and recording it constantly. Video will not come even close to killing the dedicated still camera, or its function in the cameras. The only reason a video looks good and sharp while it is moving, is because our eyes, and brain make it appear so while processing the movement. Stop the motion, and that scene does not look so good.

I am sure this is the same conversation that photographers had in the 80's. Video is important and will grow as digital media becomes easier to work with (storage and bandwidth). I am sure that 3D will come into the mix soon!

I do not think it will kill it however the dynamic may change.

Joves wrote: Take a video capture of something, then take a still image. The two modes work in totally different ways. With still photography you have the shutter which essentially freezes the light, and shadows at one point in time, therefore allowing more detail if shot properly. Now go through your video caps frame by frame, and try to find one with as much detail. Since the camera is not using the shutter to freeze the scene, but is just open, and recording it constantly. Video will not come even close to killing the dedicated still camera, or its function in the cameras. The only reason a video looks good and sharp while it is moving, is because our eyes, and brain make it appear so while processing the movement. Stop the motion, and that scene does not look so good.

Close... but not quite.

Video uses shutter and (progressive shot video) can have as sharp a still frame as photo.  Film cameras (I'm talking movie cameras here) actually shoot a series of photos on a constant role of film.  The rate those frame flow through the camera is called "framerate" and with film is usually 23.976 frames per second (rounded up to 24p for most cameras), for video in PAL countries it's 25fps and in NTSC countries it's 30fps.  25fps and 30fps has to do with electricity frequencies and is to stop that shimmery effect under electric lights.  The amount of light that goes into each frame is also controlled by SHUTTER SPEED (just like with cameras).  This is measured in degrees with film cameras, or on more modern cameras a 1/100 DSLR style number (I get confused with the degrees, so I usually choose the DSLR option).

The problems you're describing is deliberate motion blur that is often deliberately done to give (as you said it) an illusion of smooth motion.  

As a general rule it is good double your framerate on the shutter. For example, here in Hong Kong we shoot in PAL (25 fps) so I shoot with a 1/50 shutter.   I then can adjust aperture to suit the light (not a good idea if you want creative control) or ISO to match the light (not great if you don't want grain) or more to the point, match the LIGHT to the camera settings (this is why films spend a lot of time messing about with lights).  

Alternatively, you can get the saving private ryan look by using a 45 degree shutter (1/192 shutter speed) on 24fps shoot.  This will almost eliminate all motion blur and if you freeze a frame, you'll get much more of a "frozen in time" shot like you would with a DSLR.

So sure, you won't usually be able to grab a still from an action scene if creative motion blur is used (which is pretty normal).  But a video is shot in a very similar way to a photo.  The main issue is RESOLUTION.  

Here's the kicker though. 4K is 8MP.

So properly shot, there's no reason you couldn't shoot a video in 4K.  Take a still from it and print it at least 24x36 inches without too much of an issue.

Now, would I do this myself?  No, not unless requested, because even if I were shooting 4K on a really good camera, it's not the same as shooting a RAW image.  There's ya deal breaker, RAW.  

So yeah, until 4k RAW video is more common I don't see video taking over photography completely.

Also it's much easier to shoot above 8MP if you shoot with a dedicated stills camera.

Lastly, I don't see video as a threat.  Why not embrace it rather than be scared of it?  My photography friend (ex-photography partner, he moved to the USA recently) is getting into video more and more, he's a complete noob, but he can see that diversity is the key.  If you don't like video, just don't use it.  

Could video kill photography eventually? Yes, in theory, but most people aren't going to shoot 4k Raw video just so they can extract some stills from it.

Nice Post Stealthy Ninja