I know my recent trip to Chernobyl wouldnt have happened if i didnt have my Canon 1dmkIIN. It was -16, the camera was frozen, totally wet and dropped down a flight of stairs i fell down and yet still managed to shoot the images perfectly.

With HDTV videocamera's they aren't designed for such rough abuse, but im sure that will change

But if one knew how difficult it is to do cinematography (in which there must be not one decisive moment, but thousands of them, reaching continuity), he or she would have no such fear.

Really, though... in the future I see the line blurring between still cameras and motion cameras. I mean... it's all just about the trade-offs between megapixels and FPS. At a certain point we'll have enough control over those values that labeling a camera as a "still camera" or "motion camera" may not be terribly meaningful. Eventually, they'll just be cameras with really good specs and you'll be able to choose how you want to use it. Once we're at the point where we can have 20 megapixels at 120 fps, then who cares if it's called "still" or "motion."

In the meantime, I think it's awesome that newspapers can use HD recorders to create still images at about 2 megapixels. I mean... why not? It's just another tool to use or not use, depending on your circumstances.

I just can't imagine a good reason to have fewer tools at our disposal. If you give creative people a vast array of choices, then they can make some pretty amazing things.

Personally, I’m not a fan of video or how they are using it in the Newspaper industry. There is a lot of 'buzz word' madness going on in the newspaper industry and how it handles the transition from paper to the web...and they are all throwing the buzz about without taking any formal plan. I've seen a lot of video content coming from newspapers in the last few months, most of it looks like a boring episode of COPS if you as me. 90% of the "New Media" content is nothing more than a slideshow with really bad choice of music. And if it says 'interactive' anywhere on the page, it normally never is.

I personally thing it's more of a fad, all these news things the newspapers are doing seems more because they can, not because its practical.

The image below, from the San Jose Mercury News, shows two stills taken by a photographer using a HD camcorder, Richard Koci Hernandez, in the paper. Both are good photographs, whether from a video still or not. I think they show how these guys are using the camcorders as they would stills cameras, rather than as video cameras.

Its natural progression at it's best but for me its the end of the decisive moment.Newspapers will see it as a way of saving money on using freelance photographers and just arming cheap college grads with a stock HDTV unit and telling them to point.
Rather than planning the shot, photographers will just point and film and then look for the right moment.

Another point to bring home is the fact that shooting GOOD film requires a huge range of skills, if the end effect is not having it look like a home video.

The still camera will still be there and it's always important to stress that its not always the kit which makes the picture, its the person seeing the picture in the first place