Slashdot Mirror
The New School of Videographers
Provataki writes "This editorial discusses the impending explosion of hobbyist artistic videographers, in the same way that happened with digital photography just a few short years ago. The article claims that it's time camera manufacturers create camcorders equivalent in principle to the cheap DSLRs that we currently enjoy. Some beautiful HD footage, shot by amateurs, is shown too."
Are digital cameras (and even worse, camcorders), really a good thing? This well-written and thoughtful article argues that the answer is no.
I know what we have to look forward to--a thousand high definition videos of a bag floating in the wind.
Yay.
This was just on the cusp of being A Potential Big Deal when I was doing my master's in film school (finished in 2005). But honestly, the failure of most amateur and professional narrative (fiction -and- nonfiction) films is not the framing or the filming or the colors or the shots or the material. The failure is that not nearly as many people are as funny or as clever as they think they are. They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.
Over the coming next few years it'll be really interesting to see what *does* happen with more technology and less expense in the hands of amateurs and of professionals and of the "aspiring" class stuck between the two. But for now, YouTube ahoy.
I had been using a super old VHS camera found in a garage for years until I decided to purchase a nice little MiniDV one last summer. Great purchase for the price, though sub par low light performance. I'm finally comfortable with the digital editing programs (I personally like Vegas) and have to struggle to scrounge up wanna-be actors that'll work for peanuts. :P
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The only interesting thing I found in that article is that it proves just how much some people are ruled by an insane fear of everything and everybody. Playing the "protect the children" card to advocate restricting cameras is about as low as one can go. Likewise, using terrorism to advocate a police state is just flat out insane.
Oh, and attempting to spin documented cases of police brutality and flagrant abuse of power as "harassment" of cops is mind-bogglingly detached from all link to reality.
It all plays in to the same attitude of wanting 100% perfect safety and security that we've been seeing lately. Never mind that the cure there is worse than the disease.
At least I got my daily dose of pure, unadultrated FUD.
TFAuthor says "KDEnLive, Avidemux2 and Cinellera crash way too much for my taste"
So how often is that? For me it's once. For any software. At this rate, I'll never get to software Nirvana because authors are too busy adding "features" than optimizing and fixing old code.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
I don't know about the rest of you, but this article scares the crap out of me. This woman basically takes some technology, puts her 'slant' on it by saying it is used for illegal activities and then begins her outcry against the technology. This is crazy. I mean REALLY, seriously F*&ked up. I find it hard to believe that there are really people out there that think like this. I thought it was just limited to governments, large corporations and religions looking for control that used these tactics, not soccermom down the street. Of course, it does prove how pervasive those tactics have become, that it finally filters down into mainstream individuals in our society.
You know, I can take a toothpick and make it pornographic, use it as a weapon, etc. That does not mean we should RAIL against toothpicks!!
What really scares me the most about this article is that it is a direct assault against our freedoms. I don't own a video camera, but I do have the right to, if I wanted. With all of the freedoms we have lost in the last ten years, I hope people see this article for what it is: A deliberate attempt at gaining control through fear and trying to take away more freedom from us as a result.
I love how this article refers to "This foreign-made camera is one of Osama's eyes in America." A kit Nikon D70? I have the same camera, and last time I took pictures with it, guess what, I DIDN'T send them to Osama. I'll probably be on a watch list now though since I own a digital Nikon. Show me an American MADE camera, SHOW ME Tristen...I wonder where the car you drive was made? (and I don't mean BUILT)
:-(
The thing that gets my goat here is does this person actually believe this clap trap or is she simply looking to get a rise out of the general population of digital electronics consumers that use the internet? Are there Americans that believe this crap?
If so, I am appalled and ashamed for us as a people.
Ocean is land, covered with water.
...because I was reading Amateur Photographer last week, which was discussing DSLRs that could take multiple photographs at near-film/video frame rates. The implication was that users (or the camera) would take many close-together photographs, with the best one being chosen later. It was discussing the implications of this on still photography. (Of course, it could be argued that users of cameras with high-speed motorised film transport- which has been around for years- are already doing this to a large extent).
Of course, the viewpoint of the writer of the Slashdot article is coming at this from the opposite direction, that of videography. However, you can see that both fields might- or might *not*- end up in similar places, or at least using similar equipment. On the other hand, I can also understand that still photography and videography's handling needs may not be amenable to a compromise solution, so perhaps there will still be equipment designed with one primary use or the other in mind, even if the core hardware setup remains the same.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Cheap and good audio equipment won't make you a better musician, cheap and good digital cameras don't make you a better photographer, cheap and good electronic publishing don't make you a better writer. The technology doesn't make the art, but it does open doors to people who have the talent, but not the money.
The same goes with video. A cheap and good HD camera will not make you a better filmmaker, it will simply allow those with filmmaking talent more opportunity to explore and hone their craft.
All this technology is great, and it's very democratizing. It allows more people to pursue their creativity, and also offers the truly talented more opportunity to rise to the top.
I'll absolutely agree with some of the points - mainly that cheaper videocameras have made amateur videographers more numerous and producing more professional looking shots.
I'm not so sure AVCHD is going to replace HDV anytime soon - maybe for true amateurs. But I digress.
The raving about the Canon HV20 being the best consumer HD camera today, is, in my opinion correct. Now, I'm one of those new breed of "amateur" videographers, but instead of making nature shots, I'm filming feature indie documentaries with the tech - the fact that my footage is pretty damn good and I'm hoping to sell my work - but haven't yet (first one's still in editing, I've got about 12 hours of footage and some pick-up editing to do.)
But honestly, I don't think it's because of HD cameras that videography as a hobby is getting started. I've always been into videography but unfortunately, they haven't been making good consumer video cameras until the HV20. Even the HV10 was a major disappointment. Why? No audio input. C'mon guys, you had mic jacks standard back in the days we were all recording to VHS in these big bulky boxes. Why did you take them out, screwing those of us who bought cameras and wanted to use them for more than home movies? That's why amateur videography never really took off - never mind YouTube and Vimeo.
To give you the idea of the impact of good sound on a production - I'm spending $10000 on an indie documentary in New Zealand coming up soon. But before I learned about the HV20 and it's mic jack, I was going to go with a much lower-video quality camcorder because it had a mic jack for about twice the price. The mic jack is that important.
That said - I will now take the opportunity to shamelessly plug my projects.
"Makers" - A short subject documentary that asks the question: If American do-it-yourself ingenuity has become a counter-cultural movement, what does that say about our culture?
Preview Video up at Vimeo.
"Following Alexis West" - A feature documentary that follows the spirit of "Democracy in America" writer, Alexis de Tocqueville into the 21st century. An American travels to New Zealand to figure out the secret behind New Zealand's peaceful 1993 switch from a two-party, American-style system to a European-style proportional multi-party system, and the effects it's had on the country 15 years later.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
You must be reading a different article than I am. All I see is a bunch of chatter about camera, editing software, and video hosting selection. Aside from some brief bit about HD cameras getting cheap so more people are taking up amateur videography, the article has nothing to do with whatever it is you're ranting about.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I think he was referring to the article linked by the first reply.
I've been doing a little research on camcorders latetly (baby on the way, 3 other kids growing up, etc.) and it's a *really* shitty time for this kind of purchase. I have a 720p HDTV, but any decent HD camcorders are NOT cheap. The Canon HV20 lauded in the article would be great, but I don't have $800+ to drop on it. Even $300 is a bit of a stretch right now. And in the $300 range it's all standard def. Do I want to film a baby at standard def only to play it for him at age 5 and have him wonder why it looks like total crap? (For the slower of you out there: No. I do not.)
I'd imagine that 2-3 years down the road we'll have the sub-$500 HD camcorders, but that does me no good right now.
There's FAR too much change in the electronics landscape in general right now. Want to buy a DVD player? Have fun figuring out HD-DVD, BluRay, Progressive Scan, Upconverting, pulldown, etc. and finding something with even a small degree of future-proofness. Want to buy a receiver/amplifier? Best of luck figuring out Sirrius/XM, HD Radio, Digital vs. Analog, 20 different Dolby Digital/DTS formats, THX cert, adjustable/independant crossovers, HDMI switching, internet radio capability, ethernet connections, USB connections, ON TOP OF ALL THE "GOOD OLD STUFF" like S/N ratios, THD, etc.
I will not upgrade all the electronics in my house every couple of years because of new features. Bad enough I do that with PCs, but to duplicate this with all other major electronics purchases is untenable. And, frankly, given my current situation in life I really can only stand on the sidelines because eating and college are more important than HD video of family events. Perhaps this is part of the point of the article, but I have to imagine that if it's a problem for me that it's as much or more of a problem for others. Perhaps the sheeple are just buying something that looks decent and isn't too expensive (i.e. Costco seems to have stacks of standard def camcorders). But this is really stoopid because that SD video will be crap inside of 2 years.
Sorry to vent. I just wnat to buy some decent electronics that I can use for 10-20 years that will not be obsoleted inside of 2 years. A very difficult thing to do right now.
It drives me nuts that almost all of the consumer price range camcorders from most vendors are missing external microphone connectors and headphone jacks. Unstructured camera movement and far off camera audio are two of the obvious "amateur" mistakes.
It is much harder to create video that has creative value than this article suggests. Flickr (which I really like) does have some really great stuff, but I think much of it is of a particular style-super saturated colors, lots of depth of field, ample post processing-eye candy. Look for simple, well composed and exposed "straight" images without a lot of post processing and you don't see as much. The bar for "doesn't suck" isn't too high, the bar for uniquely outstanding is rarely reached.
In video the narrative is key, and as stated by others, many don't have much to say. To put it another way if you fill up a 4 Gb flash card with still images you are bound to get something. One can't shoot days worth of video with good audio, lighting, camera control, acting, and editing quite as easily hoping you might get something of value.
Many amateur videographers don't (yet) have much experience with the timing, editing, rhythm or natural structure of film. Think of it this way: music is taught to children from preschool, yet the recent explosion in home studio hardware and software has lead to a lot of mixed results. Some amateur music is really, really good; some is not. On the other hand, how many of us have *ever* had a chance to try being creative on film?
This isn't a new phenomenon. We saw the same thing when people suddenly had the ability to create personal web pages. As I mentioned above, we saw the same thing when people suddenly had the ability to create their own multi-track audio recordings. Now, we are seeing the same thing with videography. There will be a period where there are a lot of people producing junk (not like Hollywood doesn't already do this...), but eventually, the dilettantes will find something else to occupy their time, and those who are left will begin refining their skills until they are producing films that are as good as or better than anything commercially available today.
I, for one, can't wait.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
However, a whole lot more needs to come together before amateurs get lucky with a video. It just can't be done spontaneously like photography. You have to plan, write, act, block, illuminate and a million other things - which is why so many names roll by at the end of every professional movie. Compared to photographs, many more separate things need to go right before a good video is produced. And all those things coming together by luck is incredibly unlikely. So the future of amateur video will still look like YouTube, but in HD.
I don't think we need look to digital stills to see what will happen with cheaper video equipment -- we need only look at YouTube. There has been no cream floating there. A lot of the popular stuff is purile pap generated by bored teens.
Ah but Flickr and Photos.com... Flickr and photos nothing. Still photography is much more accessible to the producer, yes, but much less accessible to the consumer. So while photos.com ratings are gathered by a comtemplative specialist audience, YouTube ratings are gathered by pimply kids who pee themselves at mento-rockets, swearing and happy-slapping.
Face it -- editorial control cannot be replaced with wisdom of the mindless mob.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Now this is what gets me... everyone keeps going on about mic jacks, like we've got to record our audio and visuals on the same tape.
What I want is a simple time-sync link so that I can use a field recorder to get my sound without the usual in-editor syncing rigmarole. (Yes, there may be some time offsetting required to account for equipment lags and difference in the speeds of sound and light, but it would still be easier.) And I'd also be able to sync multiple cameras.
As an example of why this would help, consider the classic interview set-up: one camera looking over the interviewer's shoulder at the interviewee and one over the interviewee's shoulder pointing at the interviewer. Now, if the cameras are not synced and one interrupts the other, it is a nuisance to edit the switch of cameras. However, pro rigs don't have this problem. For the indie/hobbyist, the pro gear with these features is too expensive, or perhaps they can buy one unit. But if there were "prosumer" units with sync features, I'm sure many indies and hobbyists would buy more cameras. Then I could use a single two-channel recorder (or the audio in of one of the cameras) to capture the dialogue. On my PC, I could then edit like a live TV director does; run both videos (or thumbnails thereof) and just cut between shots. Quick and simple.
So, camcorder makers: build in sync sockets and you encourage people to buy more cameras... more cameras... more cameras....
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
A variety of reasons:
1. the most important part of a video is? The Audio. You can take something that was shot on a fischer-price pixelvision camera, and if you finesse the audio - it can "look" awesome. Audio matters in a first rank kind of way.
1. the other most important part of a video is? Storytelling. If it doesn't tell a compelling story, or an interesting story in a compelling manner, nobody gives a flying fuck. The wasteland of 20th century "experimental" cinema is proof. Andy Warhol did a 24 hour film of the Empire state building, and it was a pointless waste of filmic Koolaid that the avant garde sucked right down. Kubrick, Wenders, Herzog, and even into documentary filmmaking - the list is long - and it all proves one thing: Storytelling matters, and is tied with Sound for #1 importance.
2. Editing. Editing is #2, and it's a close 2.Editing won't fix a broken story, and it won't make something sound better. But it can take a mediocre story and make it more compelling. So editing is #2.
3. Acting. Assuming one is not doing straight nature documentary, Acting is required. There are a variety of vagaries around this - charisma is hard to pin down. But it is necessary, if one is going to make a compelling video or film.
4. Lighting. Lighting DOES matter, but it can be "worked" - sunlight is fine, if variable - but it helps to have a light bounce around to add some clarity and reduce shadows a bit. As a consequence, Lighting is a definite 4th. It doesn't usually break something, but it can make something.
5. Catering. If you have a crew that consists of someone other than yourself, FEED THEM. Seriously.A well fed crew and actors are a happier bunch who can do good work. If everyone is scampering off to feed themselves, you lose control of the set, esp. in an amateur / non-union production.
So - ALL of these things exist outside of the HD format, and they exist solely in the field of pre and post production. So: now we come to amateur productions in HD:
The sound? Sucks - built in camera microphone. Arf. You can hear the camera whirring. It's tinny and lame.
Story? What story? Cat poops on bed! Ewwww! end of story. that's a great use of technology. Or: the "avant garde" film maker who sits and shakes the camera while a naked woman reads the phone book. Great. That's something I'll remember forever. After I beat the crap out of the filmmaker for wasting 10 minutes of my life.
Acting? My sister was an understudy for her high school production of 1776! She's GREAT! Not.
Lighting? Hey - those CFLs are GREAT!
etc. etc. etc. Putting ever higher technology in the hands of citizens does NOT guarantee higher quality work, except in the narrow and meaningless sense of it being in some precise and lovely format that is de facto to the technology itself.
It's not bad that they have access to the tech, it's just no promise of quality.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I own a Sanyo Xacti C40. I love the ease of use and it does passable SHQ video at 30fps. On a 2gb SD card I can squeeze about an hour and a half of video.
One thing I wish it had is a jack for an external microphone. I might just hack one into the thing since there is room in there to add a 1/8" jack.
The other thing it needs help with is low-light performance. That can be easily solved as I plan to build an LED based lighting ring that snaps around the lens body. And I know this camera can see infrared so I'll make a visible LED ring and an infrared ring.
Then I'll buy one of the HD capable Xacti's.
Many good comments about talent vs. gear have already been posted. Better equipment does not make up for lack of training/skills/raw talent but it does open the doors for more people to give it a try.
Remember when Desktop Publishing was going to make everyone a professional writer and typesetter? Yeah, that didn't happen, but the landscape did change a bit as those with the relevant skills adapted to the new technology.
Just for fun, I thought I'd pull the following two quotes.
From the Canon website: "The stylish Canon HV20 gives you the ultimate in HD video and digital photo quality with advanced features for the knowledgeable and demanding videographer." Ultimate? For some reason Sony doesn't have a problem selling their HDC-F950 for $110k. Silly pros not realizing all the money they're wasting!
From the referenced article: "... but the (sic) Premiere and Vegas are the only "cheap" NLEs for Mac or Windows that support 24p (which is important if you want to edit movies, TV shows or simply your own HV20 24p footage)
Movies? TV shows? The quality of such a camcorder is simply too poor except for perhaps use as a stunt camera or for a consumer camera viewpoint. Most of the folks I talk to who are hobbyists don't realize that the camera makers are doing a number on them by promoting "professional" features (HD, 24p) that don't overcome the basic limitations of the camcorder -- tiny imager, lousy depth of field, crappy lenses, poor audio circuitry, extreme compression, limited dynamic range, etc. Putting headers and wheelie bars on an AMC Gremlin doesn't really make it into a sports car. (And yes, I've seen one decked out like that.)
I used to be a hobbyist videomaker. It's fun. Good for those who enjoy it, but there is a whole industry built around creating the illusion that by having gear with the right bells and whistles you'll be catapulted into being a pro.
Hear, hear. Audio is by far the most important element when assembling a video project. Your audio drives your narrative, and can compensate for mediocre or lousy video shots. I actually started shooting and editing video stories for the newspaper I work for several months ago, and I recently put together a list of tips and suggestions for budding videographers.
Oh, and one other thing I learned (the hard way): don't try to edit your movie in the Vista version of Movie Maker. Heartache will surely follow.
I don't think any part of the article insinuated that having cheap HD cameras available was going to make anyone a great filmmaker. The rambling on about sound, lighting, framing, story, etc. is obvious and extends to any art form.
The real point is that having these inexpensive cameras available allows those with the talent and patience to produce the quality for which cost was the barrier before. The rating sites where they can upload their product and get recognized easily gives them a far better chance of succeeding in the industry than the drudgery of demo reels and mini festivals that you would be required to go through before.
I'm definitely not one who would become a creative genius if I ran down to Best Buy and picked up a Canon HV20. All the video we have, shot on a very old Super-8 camera (not even Hi-8), is almost totally comprised of our kids running around the house, trips to visit relatives, my son's track meets, etc. It's crap, shaky (especially if taken by my wife) poorly lit and with typical sound where you can hear the camera trying to refocus. It exists however, for one reason: To enable us to remember those times when our children were young which we are already beginning to forget.
I will probably end up getting a new HD camera because even for a track meet it's a pleasure to watch. Some of the video on the Vimeo site could be collected into a atmosphere reel to play in a loop on a large screen TV during a party as moving artwork. It's this aspect of high definition amateur videos which is interesting. It doesn't have to be something you have to sit yourself down to watch and concentrate on one part of the screen but something that can be enjoyed in passing. The more cynical may look upon this idea as the video version of those "Natural Sounds" CDs but think of walking through an art gallery where Mona Lisa moved, changed expressions, showed you different sides of herself, a Canaletto in motion. Those out there with the talent will be able to produce these moving artworks and be able to be recognized.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Vimeo seems to offer the best value for HD seekers but they don't have the funding that Goo Tube has and they're just not gaining enough popularity to boost advertizing revenue. Web 3.0 may be the breakout cycle for HD, but for now the crowds are dictating what services survive and that means Goo Tube.
an infinite supply of cat, bug macro, and sunset videos...
QUOTE: "This well-written and thoughtful article" IS BULLSHIT!. ... BRILLIANT! ... like the taserings on campus ...
It's a load of unmitigated and paranoid GOP FUD.
The fact is - felonious: paedophiles, perverts, perjurers, thieving puppet politicians and abusive police etc. have every reason to fear being caught bang-at-it on film, tape or digital chips.
In terms of 'IN-security' - digital technology is no different than film, just faster - insofar as film can be: home developed, printed, scanned, sent from wherever and both can be manipulated.
OTOH: As satire
There was a time when they wanted to ban Polaroids and home movies too.
Now, with mobile phones, you can shoot video or stills of a crime - wherever and by whomever, then send it off before the 'authorities' can confiscate the evidence
However you slice or spin it - that's progress.
RR
Just my opinion, but HD video is not that great.
HD has a low bit-rate compared to proper DV video, HD camcorders do not record PCM audio like DV video does - and actually uses an outdated audio codec (and at a low bit-rate). HD also is harder to edit and lower quality thanks to it not recording every single frame as one complete image like DV does.
Add to that, most new camcorders seem to record on non-removable hard drives or memory cards - stupidly difficult to backup onto something other than yet another (expensive) hard drive in your computer as opposed to cheap tape.
I have seen well encoded amateur HD video, and it's just not that impressive.
The consumers got the digital equivalent of VHS/Betamax, from a decent image (DV) to a poor one (HD), and backing up of footage made harder not easier. We are now moving into a world where video and audio quality no longer matters.
Take Nobody's Word For It.