DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Submitting an Image from a Video file
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/19/2015 02:48:22 PM · #1
Knowing that it's possible to grab a single frame of video in Photoshop I was wondering about the legality of submitting it as a challenge image, particularly with regard to validation? Would you need to submit the entire video file for validation? If so, would I need to provide the precise frame number or is a general time within the file OK (all of that detail is available in Ps)? What EXIF data would need to be present on the video file?

Rules state that the image must be taken by a digital camera that records EXIF data, but not that it needs to be a still photo. More curiosity than intention at the moment, but who knows.
08/19/2015 02:53:15 PM · #2
I think the issue you have will be getting valid exif from a video file.
08/19/2015 02:57:01 PM · #3
As far as I know video doesn't HAVE any EXIF data...
08/19/2015 03:03:06 PM · #4
exiftool reads video containers and their metadata. That said, I'd be surprised if a single image from a video would be accepted either morally or legally. Just grabbing a frame from a video doesn't bring useable EXIF data I'm sure.
08/19/2015 03:19:19 PM · #5
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

exiftool reads video containers and their metadata. That said, I'd be surprised if a single image from a video would be accepted either morally or legally. Just grabbing a frame from a video doesn't bring useable EXIF data I'm sure.


i dont see how morals come into play, its basically a 24fps burst mode.
08/19/2015 03:25:19 PM · #6
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

exiftool reads video containers and their metadata. That said, I'd be surprised if a single image from a video would be accepted either morally or legally. Just grabbing a frame from a video doesn't bring useable EXIF data I'm sure.


i dont see how morals come into play, its basically a 24fps burst mode.


Yeah, but for how long? 2-3 hours whilst your at home in the warm? It might be different (and allowed I believe) to set yp your camera (even on 24fps burst mode) and have your camera triggered remotely by (say) an animal. Filming all night is really a different type of photography? But hey, you'd argue black was white Mike.

Jake, just go ahead and do it, this current challenge might be a good time as we are up against you in the unofficial DPL 3rd place playoff.
08/19/2015 03:36:42 PM · #7
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

exiftool reads video containers and their metadata. That said, I'd be surprised if a single image from a video would be accepted either morally or legally. Just grabbing a frame from a video doesn't bring useable EXIF data I'm sure.


i dont see how morals come into play, its basically a 24fps burst mode.


Yeah, but for how long? 2-3 hours whilst your at home in the warm?


most still image cameras can only record video for 30mins.
08/19/2015 03:43:29 PM · #8
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

exiftool reads video containers and their metadata. That said, I'd be surprised if a single image from a video would be accepted either morally or legally. Just grabbing a frame from a video doesn't bring useable EXIF data I'm sure.


i dont see how morals come into play, its basically a 24fps burst mode.


Yeah, but for how long? 2-3 hours whilst your at home in the warm?


most still image cameras can only record video for 30mins.


Most maybe but not all surely? I've never tried videoing with any of my cameras but would have thought they were limited only by power and recording space not by duration? Don't suppose there are any/many still image cameras that can shoot 24fps for 30 straight minutes?
08/19/2015 04:37:37 PM · #9
I believe the limitation is based on both file size (4GB max) and an attempt to keep the sensor from overheating.

I'm really not sure what "morality" has to do with it. As said, it's a 20+ fps (depending on mode) limited size burst mode. Were validation not required I suspect that at the size of image submitted here most folks couldn't tell if it was a video extraction or a still shot in many cases.

I suppose the issue would be that the JPEG produced for upload has no EXIF data as it would be produced by copying a frame from a video file into a blank layer on a new object and then working on it as normal. I'm certain not every image uploaded here comes with complete EXIF data, it's more a matter that the original image with EXIF needs to be provided on a validation request and I suspect there is the equivalent of Create Date/Time on a video file, so that would allow for validation of capture time. That's my reason for asking - would the SC accept a video file with detailed information allowing you to find the precise frame within the file from which the submitted image was created?

I'm going to do a little more digging to see what sort of EXIF data is available on the file SOOC.

08/19/2015 04:47:04 PM · #10
I'm finding that Canon embeds EXIF data on some DSLR video files. Can't seem to find anything on Nikon. This is what I see under Raw Data when I open the MOV file in Photoshop and go to File Info...



xmlns:xmp="//ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
xmlns:dc="//purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:photoshop="//ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
Adobe Photoshop CC 2022 (Macintosh)
2013-09-15T07:27:54-04:00
2013-09-15T07:27:54-04:00
2013-09-15T07:27:54-04:00
application/vnd.adobe.photoshop
3
sRGB IEC61966-2.1



08/19/2015 05:13:36 PM · #11
In some way video and photos are exactly the same thing. Yesterday I was taking a look at some frame grabs of an A7RII in 4K mode and they really were photos (something like 12mpx images). Moreover some video cameras can take (my FS700 Sony can) RAW footage exporting RAWs for each frame. In that case we would have thousand of RAW images with valid EXIF data. Said that, taking a single frame extracted with a video editing software goes beyond the rules limits, but of course it could be not that far from what I mentioned before.
08/19/2015 05:22:58 PM · #12
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

I'm finding that Canon embeds EXIF data on some DSLR video files. Can't seem to find anything on Nikon. This is what I see under Raw Data when I open the MOV file in Photoshop and go to File Info...

Why hypothesize? Take a short video, extract a frame, and send it in with a ticket explaining what you've done, and we can check an see if it qualifies as a DPC-valid original.

However my guess is that if it references "Photoshop CC" as the "creator" it will not be valid.
08/19/2015 05:25:55 PM · #13
If rules allow for the cropping of an image I could argue that a frame from a video is simply a crop as well. If the extraction occurs in-camera, as it does with your Sony, this eliminates the workaround I have outlined, but otherwise there is little difference. DSLR's are neither still nor video cameras but multifunctional, and Unless we're talking about the "spirit" of these challenges, which is the taking of still photos, I'm not seeing a reason outside of validation parameters that would prohibit this.
08/19/2015 05:30:27 PM · #14
I heard the 30 min limitation is so that it still qualifies as a camera and not a video camera for some reason involving international taxes. Not sure how true that is.
08/19/2015 05:36:11 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

I'm finding that Canon embeds EXIF data on some DSLR video files. Can't seem to find anything on Nikon. This is what I see under Raw Data when I open the MOV file in Photoshop and go to File Info...

Why hypothesize? Take a short video, extract a frame, and send it in with a ticket explaining what you've done, and we can check an see if it qualifies as a DPC-valid original.

However my guess is that if it references "Photoshop CC" as the "creator" it will not be valid.


The still image will certainly show this, as it might for many jpegs submitted here. None of these could ever be used as a "DPC-valid original". My question is if a MOV file would be acceptable as a valid original for a still image or not provided that it has the information required for validation? If the answer is no then I have my answer. If the answer is, "That depends", then I need to know what the required information would be.

I'm hunting down specifics for Nikon and Sony but have sites that show that some Canons have EXIF data embedded in the video file. I'm assuming you need to know at least the camera type and a create date, correct?
08/19/2015 05:36:51 PM · #16
Originally posted by Mike:

I heard the 30 min limitation is so that it still qualifies as a camera and not a video camera for some reason involving international taxes. Not sure how true that is.


Now that you bring this up I remember hearing this as well.
08/19/2015 05:56:43 PM · #17
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

My question is if a MOV file would be acceptable as a valid original for a still image or not provided that it has the information required for validation?

The answer is that right now there's no answer. If you want us to discuss it it would probably be helpful for you to provide samples for us to analyze. Take a short video, extract a frame, edit it like you would for an entry, and submit everything as if for validation. For now, I would suggest you assume that the still frame uploaded as an original must itself contain valid EXIF data.

There are both practical and "philosophical" questions to be resolved; while it *might* be reasonable to validate a 15-second clip, I don't think we want to deal with any 15-minute video uploads ...
08/19/2015 06:07:43 PM · #18
Forgetting about the rules for a moment, why would you want to take a video and then extract a single frame? Simply to have more images to 'choose' from or some other reason?
08/19/2015 06:18:54 PM · #19
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:

Forgetting about the rules for a moment, why would you want to take a video and then extract a single frame? Simply to have more images to 'choose' from or some other reason?

I can easily see someone shooting a video for some other purpose, and then realizing that a frame from it would make a good Free Study (or other) entry -- the video may not be shot with intent to shoot for a challenge.

OTOH my camera (for example) can take video with the push of a single button, but is a pain to set up to shoot in burst mode, and takes nothing like 24fps anyway. It might make some shots (think drop/splash) more practical ...
08/19/2015 06:33:16 PM · #20
Originally posted by Mike:

I heard the 30 min limitation is so that it still qualifies as a camera and not a video camera for some reason involving international taxes. Not sure how true that is.


Both things are real, international taxes and sensor heating.
08/19/2015 08:46:47 PM · #21
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

Unless we're talking about the "spirit" of these challenges, which is the taking of still photos, I'm not seeing a reason outside of validation parameters that would prohibit this.

Well, that's exactly what we WOULD end up discussing if it became possible to validate still frames from videos. To be honest, and speaking only personally, MY gut reaction is that there's something just... off... about allowing video frames. Like, do we want to open challenges to the results garnered by someone who sets a camera up-and-recording in a likely-looking spot and just checks back at the last week of "tape" every rollover day to see if he has anything that fits the challenge? But then the logical part of me says, "But it's already legal to set up a camera wired to go off with a motion sensor somewhere where the photographer physically ISN'T, and really, how different would this be?"

So in my mind the jury's still out. It would need a lot of discussion, for sure.
08/20/2015 10:38:16 AM · #22
Folks put images up all the time that would never pass validation.

It's all a matter of perspective. Hands up.
08/20/2015 10:52:38 AM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

Unless we're talking about the "spirit" of these challenges, which is the taking of still photos, I'm not seeing a reason outside of validation parameters that would prohibit this.

Well, that's exactly what we WOULD end up discussing if it became possible to validate still frames from videos. To be honest, and speaking only personally, MY gut reaction is that there's something just... off... about allowing video frames. Like, do we want to open challenges to the results garnered by someone who sets a camera up-and-recording in a likely-looking spot and just checks back at the last week of "tape" every rollover day to see if he has anything that fits the challenge? But then the logical part of me says, "But it's already legal to set up a camera wired to go off with a motion sensor somewhere where the photographer physically ISN'T, and really, how different would this be?"

So in my mind the jury's still out. It would need a lot of discussion, for sure.


if someone wants to go through a weeks worth of footage and select ONE frame. have fun.
08/20/2015 12:39:33 PM · #24
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

Unless we're talking about the "spirit" of these challenges, which is the taking of still photos, I'm not seeing a reason outside of validation parameters that would prohibit this.

Well, that's exactly what we WOULD end up discussing if it became possible to validate still frames from videos. To be honest, and speaking only personally, MY gut reaction is that there's something just... off... about allowing video frames. Like, do we want to open challenges to the results garnered by someone who sets a camera up-and-recording in a likely-looking spot and just checks back at the last week of "tape" every rollover day to see if he has anything that fits the challenge? But then the logical part of me says, "But it's already legal to set up a camera wired to go off with a motion sensor somewhere where the photographer physically ISN'T, and really, how different would this be?"

So in my mind the jury's still out. It would need a lot of discussion, for sure.


if someone wants to go through a weeks worth of footage and select ONE frame. have fun.


This speaks to the extreme end of it, both from a volume and effort perspective, and we can certainly have a discussion about lazy photography, but that's not where I'm coming from.

Say a camera is set up to capture lightning during a 10 minute thunderstorm. What's the difference between grabbing a frame with the lightning bolt from a video file vs. choosing the one frame from the several hundred/thousand shot using an intervalometer vs. choosing one from a handful of shots using a Nero trigger? As I see it the photographer's intent is the same, and so is the effort in achieving the desired shot, it's just the methodology applied to and result extracted from the same camera.

So given that, if the source frame can be accurately assessed within a video file that has all the necessary information to identify the camera and time of capture, why couldn't it be accepted as the source during the validation phase of a challenge? That's the crux here, because if it's not in the top 5 there's a strong chance no one would ever know.
08/20/2015 01:03:36 PM · #25

this site is progressive enough to handle such dilemmas.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:46:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:46:11 PM EDT.