I was wondering why I look different in photos vs. video. Is it mostly because photos are 2D? I just look awful in pictures, but not as bad on video.
Is it possible to have still photos from a video camera and have them retouched later? I figure this would give the most realistic look. But if I print the still photos will they look as sharp as regular digital print outs?
Thanks for any suggestions.

Video is a lower resolution medium and often not shot in stark light or close up so people do look better than in ill lit ill prepared photo's. When a photograph is done right with the right lights and maybe a little post production you should look just as good in fact better than the video shots.

On the rest of the question, stills can be gathered from video but the resolution is not great so the results can leave a lot to be desired.

I was wondering why I look different in photos vs. video. Is it mostly because photos are 2D? I just look awful in pictures, but not as bad on video.
Is it possible to have still photos from a video camera and have them retouched later? I figure this would give the most realistic look. But if I print the still photos will they look as sharp as regular digital print outs?
Thanks for any suggestions.

As creeduk said, video is much lower resolution (around 72 ppi when compared to print) so it carries a lot less information and detail (unless shooting in HD). Plus, standard definition video is interlaced meaning that alternate halves of the information are flashed on the screen rapidly 60 times a second so that all of the information in a frame is never fully on screen at the same time.

The result of all that is often loss of fine detail and a slight apparent smoothing due to the loss of that detail. That is, as long as it's on screen.

When you capture a video frame you're probably going to have a file that's around 720x480 at 72ppi, depending on the video format and capturing equipment. If you captured a frame with much motion in it, you will see the interlaced field lines and you'll probably have to deinterlace the image immediately throwing away half of the information which is then replaced by interpolating from what's left. All not very good starting points if you want a nice, clean, sharp print. But, it can be done. The results are usually not that great and the limited size and resolution will keep you to fairly small prints.

And just for the record, video is not 3D. It's only 2D, just like print. :classic:

--Racc

As creeduk said, video is much lower resolution (around 72 ppi when compared to print) so it carries a lot less information and detail (unless shooting in HD). Plus, standard definition video is interlaced meaning that alternate halves of the information are flashed on the screen rapidly 60 times a second so that all of the information in a frame is never fully on screen at the same time.

The result of all that is often loss of fine detail and a slight apparent smoothing due to the loss of that detail. That is, as long as it's on screen.

When you capture a video frame you're probably going to have a file that's around 720x480 at 72ppi, depending on the video format and capturing equipment. If you captured a frame with much motion in it, you will see the interlaced field lines and you'll probably have to deinterlace the image immediately throwing away half of the information which is then replaced by interpolating from what's left. All not very good starting points if you want a nice, clean, sharp print. But, it can be done. The results are usually not that great and the limited size and resolution will keep you to fairly small prints.

And just for the record, video is not 3D. It's only 2D, just like print. :classic:

--Racc

Thanks for both of your posts. It's very helpful info. I guess I will have to fine a very good photographer. I still am not sure why I look better even in video taken in the same lighting (not professional) as photos. I've taken still shots of myself in video as well as self timed photos in my digi camera. It was the same time of day, same room, same everything. But with the digi camera, my nose looked bigger, cheeks wider, more flaws magnified, that I don't usually see as 'defined' in the mirror. But the video image looks more of what I see in the mirror, of course not exactly the same. But I don't look as bad in video.
I just have sharp strong features, and they look larger or harsh angled in photos.

The result of all that is often loss of fine detail and a slight apparent smoothing due to the loss of that detail. That is, as long as it's on screen.

--Racc

So does that mean that the video image is making me look 'better' than I actually do in real life since it's smoothing out some details (flaws)? I always wondered what a person REALLY looks like in real life, is it the mirror image or the photo more realistic? I guess I must look pretty bad if the video is doing me a favor and slightening smoothing things out. I know I always look bad in pics no matter who takes them..unless the lightening is very dim. I just have a strong nose, strong wide apple cheeks that look almost like round balls stuck on my face when i take pictures smiling. Another reason why I hate smiling in pics.

It was the same time of day, same room, same everything. But with the digi camera, my nose looked bigger, cheeks wider, more flaws magnified, that I don't usually see as 'defined' in the mirror. But the video image looks more of what I see in the mirror, of course not exactly the same. But I don't look as bad in video. I just have sharp strong features, and they look larger or harsh angled in photos.If the changes are that drastic then it's probably more to do with lens size/distortion or quality of the camera. Different cameras can react vastly different to the same lighting conditions, too.

Is the video camera you're using the same device as the still camera? Some digital cameras can record a few seconds of video. If you used such a camera, I'm willing to bet that the images would be much more similar.


So does that mean that the video image is making me look 'better' than I actually do in real life since it's smoothing out some details (flaws)? Only in a very minimal way. Very tiny details tend to get lost in video, such as small hairs or maybe tiny freckels. We're not talking about a glamor makeover or anything like that. If you want to experiment... have someone shoot video starting close up on your skin so you can see the hairs and pores and then slowly zoom out to a full body shot and then take note of how long those tiny details are visible. Of course, all this changes with HD -- much higher resolution with that.

--Racc

I doubt the "better" you are refering to in video has anything to do with the resolution. As Racc says, it's probably more about the type of lens and the distortion it produces. Depending on the focal length of the lens certain features tend to be exagerated over others. Any good photographer will know which focal lenth will best suite your face.

There is however, another component to video which makes a big difference and that is movement. Although video is 2D just like photography, there is a time component that makes images look different than printed photographs. Human perception relies on visual clues to judge the shape and relative distances of three dimensional objects. When you display those objects on a two dimensional plane such as a photograph, computer screen or TV, the mind must use visual clues such as lighting and relative size to discern what the objects look like in 3D space. A 2D image with movement (such as video) will give the mind far more visual clues than a 2D static image (such as a photograph) even if the moving image has less resolution than the still image.

A good example of this is when a pregnant woman has an ultrasound done and photographed. When she's looking at the moving image the baby is easy to make out but when she shows the printed photo off to friends it's very difficult for them to tell where the head and body are. This is because the movement provides much more in terms of visual clues than the still image.

In your case, the video image is probably giving a more clear view of what you look like in three dimensions while the photographs are providing visual clues that may trick the viewer into imagining you look different than you do in real life. Fortunately though, a good photographer can take this into account and light/pose you in such a way that the final photograph will better hint at what you look like in three dimensional space.

I would definitely not recommend grabbing video stills as the will be too low quality, both in terms of resolution and compression, to do anything good with.

Another issue is people are often more relaxed on video as it is an ongoing recording rather than the 'pose' when having a still picture taken. A lot of people appear to come out bad on pictures as we freeze up and have wide eyes and gaunt looks waiting for the shot.

To clarify with a format being lower resolution and then watched on a screen (like TV) that has few lines, again lower resolution than your newer monitors. The image is stretched therefore softened/blurred. Only true HD has excellent video quality and sharpness of course it also requires a better TV/Monitor to view. Several actor/actresses are rumored to be unhappy with the new format as it shows far more flaws than the traditional medium of television.