D3s Quality of Saved Frames of Video vs Quality of Stills

Non an expert...You can print larger from stills if I'm not mistaking. Also, does D3S have AF in Vmode yet? Last time I heard, nikon video suck butt compare to Canon and Sony. These two are big hurdles...

Leslie is not totally correct I'm afraid. Setting the Canon vs Nikon debate aside (which Leslie was wrong to initiate here), capturing frames from a video vs capturing a still has ONLY to do with resolution. Even the highest resolution video captured from a DSLR these days is of a significantly lower size than the equivalent still captured by the same camera. Therefore, a still will ALWAYS have more data, higher resolution, more depth, density, etc, etc. Furthermore, the still will be uncompressed (assuming you shoot RAW or TIFF) data compared to the movie frame which will be processed and compressed information (thereby of an even lower overall quality).

As for autofocus, NO DSLR has continuous AF in video mode. You have to constantly manually adjust your focus (if your subject is moving in such a way as to require focus adjustment - i.e. not parallel to the movie plane). Still, this has NOTHING to do with picture quality.

Therefore, if you're looking to produce high quality images, stick with stills. If you want to shoot video, go ahead. You can maybe expect some average quality frames to come out of it, but nothing remotely resembling a proper still.

capturing frames from a video vs capturing a still has ONLY to do with resolution

It's not only that (or continuous AF) I'm afraid. It's also about speeds, exposure time and frame speed. A frame from a video can not be captured with long exposure time like 10 seconds for example (or even 1/15 sec). Marios didn't mention any "pro" (only "con") about video frames. NO DSLR can shoot 24 fps unless it's video

Leslie, the user's manual says that AF is possible in the tripod mode but not in the handheld mode after recording starts.
Marios, I guess with your explanation, I will stick to using this for just stills since thats what its best at ...and use an additional video camera for the videos.
Thanks

John, that's a good point about 24fps capability.
Am also wondering if saving frames from videos taken with regular camcorders is equally easy...

capturing frames from a video vs capturing a still has ONLY to do with resolution. Even the highest resolution video captured from a DSLR these days is of a significantly lower size than the equivalent still captured by the same camera. Therefore, a still will ALWAYS have more data, higher resolution, more depth, density, etc, etc. Furthermore, the still will be uncompressed (assuming you shoot RAW or TIFF) data compared to the movie frame which will be processed and compressed information (thereby of an even lower overall quality).

Doesn't all that just means, in four words, one can print larger (which I stated), Marios? Are you a nikon fanboy? Or just incredibly dense?

You have to constantly manually adjust your focus (if your subject is moving in such a way as to require focus adjustment - i.e. not parallel to the movie plane). Still, this has NOTHING to do with picture quality

I don't know about you but nothing in focus and everythings in constant blur degrades the picture quality a whole lot for most everybody. Even if, say, you have 50MP of "depth", "density" of "uncompress" data, right? How about watching your favorite film/video out of focus, Marios?

Leslie is not totally correct I'm afraid. Setting the Canon vs Nikon debate aside (which Leslie was wrong to initiate here)

Why am I wrong to initiate Canon vs. Nikon debate here? What if the OP has $20,000 in the bank and he/she want to switch brand just because of videos? Better yet, the OP maybe able to afford both brands? Doesn't she/he has a right to know what brand does what better? What has better videos? a $2500 D700, a $5000 D3 or say a $800 Canon T2i? Nikon is working hard on their video capability (with D3100) but Canon still has the edge...just like Nikon is leading in the high ISO low noise front.

As for autofocus, NO DSLR has continuous AF in video mode.

You must have missed the recent Sony cams. AF in video modes, 10 FPS etc...

1080 video will give you an image approximately 1920×1080 pixels in size.

720 video will give you an image approximately 1280 × 720 pixels in size.




Obviously neither has a high pixel count. Both will give you a somewhat reasonable 4" x 6" print (better than nothing). Smaller is better when in comes to printing video frames.

"compromises"??? If you need a high quality still, don't shoot it with video or with a video camera.

Leslie, the user's manual says that AF is possible in the tripod mode but not in the handheld mode after recording starts.

Probably due to it's phase based AF mechanism. The mirror needs to drop for it to AF. With Liveview/video mode, AF is disallowed. To be honest, the techinicals are beyond me, Jaina. Video on some compacts are better/easier than DSLRs...

Hi Leslie,
Not only are technicals beyond me, manipulating all the various parameters for each new situation is also something I am struggling with! So all of you here are certainly way more knowledgeable than I am!

Elliot,
"compromises"??? If you need a high quality still, don't shoot it with video or with a video camera.

you may not need to compromise, but me at 5'2" I get very burdened with the stuff I have to carry around. I love taking stills, but sometimes - like in Lion Dance performances on the street, I'd also like a video capture and it would be nice if I didn't have to lug along a video recorder AND a still camera IF it were possible.....therefore I asked this before I go out and experience the results for myself....
Elliot, Leslie, Marios, thanks for all the info - I have only Nikons, but its always good to know about the rest.
Thanks again.
jaina