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."
Technology will always have illegal, immoral uses. You can use a DVD to watch the latest G-rated animated movie or some (fake) snuff film (some would argue that such a film is immoral). You can use a gun to defend your house -- at least, in the U.S. -- or it can be used by "terrorists" to shoot your children. Just because it has illegal uses doesn't mean it should be hard or impossible to be obtained for legal purposes.
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.
The list of examples is infinite: Baseball bat, carving knife, wrench, rope, candlestick, piece of pipe.....
The important point is there are an unlimited number of things which have a beneficial primary use which, in the wrong hands, can be put to nefarious use.
Including words. Look at the sort of baseless fearmongering use this "well-written and thoughtful" article has put to innocent, harmless words.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
However, the beauty of this new system is it does allow more cream to rise. (not a pr0n reference, although that is also true) I trained as a videographer and film cameraman over 20 years ago in the UK. It was (and to some degree still is) very difficult to succeed in the UK in this business, unless you knew the right people. Elitist organisations, unions and funding bodies all did their best to keep out those they didn't like.
To some degree this would be valid, were it not for the fact that the UK film and TV industry in the past 20 years is at best mediocre, and at worst, truly awful. There's very little new ideas, fresh blood and innovation. Most people with talent in the UK leave to go to other countries to find real work. That's what protectionism does for you. UK film and TV does not reflect the best of UK talent, it reflects those that are most successful at networking the right people.
While 99% of Youtube and similar is total garbage, the digital revolution is the best thing that's happened to those who DO have the talent. It makes things much easier for them to succeed.
Until they in turn create the new elitists I guess...
The same thing was said about Super-8, VHS and any other film format whenever the prices for the recorders dropped and they became affordable.
In a photograph, it's usually good enough if one gets two out of the framing, lightning and content right for moderate useful results. Even blind chicken manage that from time to time, if they take enough pictures.
For a video, the same applies but for the whole duration of the clip, and then to add complexity to the matter, the clip needs also some story it tells and the sound should be ok too. The same blind chicken that manages decent pictures will manage a few decent frames in a video clip, but without fail the garbage before and after it will destroy any possible positive impression and the result will be junk. All the time.
The result will be, that with a lot more effort the usual hobbyist will manage with video only to produce material that scares away the audience. With photographs at least he can select his three good shots and be appreciated.
This revolution will again fail to happen. Video just takes too much effort to produce results that aren't total crap.
--
Confused
Certainly there's some truth there, but digital photography has shown us that more accessibility to "professional" tools generally means more beautiful art being produced by "amateurs". I'm sure if you look at the average flickr submission, there are plenty of awful photographs, but if you look at the photos that others have found most interesting, or head over to photo.net and look at their Top Photos [Warning: Occasional Boobies!], you can see that there is a vast pool of outstanding photographic talent that has been unlocked by digital photography.
Certainly cheap HD video equipment will lead to a lot of high resolution crap, but I'll bet that a lot of fantastic footage will come out of it as well, along with the tools (a la photo.net) to find that fantastic footage.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
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'
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.
actually yes. typically better than people that have a masters in film school. Talk to most of the Indy directors that made it big.
the art of writing a good story and telling it can not be learned. you CANT learn to be an incredible story teller. you have to have the gift.
The thing is you NEED to learn is cinematography. you either pay money to do it or you grab a camera and start learning it. both ways end up with fantastic DP's and cinematographers. Same for editing. you either pay to learn or simply dive in and learn.
That is the cool part about photography and video. you certianly do not need a formal education to be good at it. formal education can make you better. it can prepare you for the Insane drivel of dealing with studios, producers, executive producers, distribution, etc... but honestly you learn far faster by being screwed your first time than anything they can teach you in Film school.
If you want to learn to shoot the same thing that everyone else does, go to film school. if you want to be creative and succeed do it yourself. stop wasting time at film school and get out there and shoot, direct, edit.
film schools are great for making your assistants and crew. They do not make world class directors and writers.
I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras. It's about having affordable HD video cameras in a similar segment to the affordable still digital cameras we have now. You can get inexpensive digital SLRs that allow full manual control, interchangeable lenses and excellent ergonomics. However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on, has shitty ergonomics, and any manual controls (if present) are accessed through lame touch-screen menus. If you want a video camera that you have much control over, you have to fork out big bucks for professional models.
In still photography, you have these affordable SLRs that are modular (at least in terms of lenses) and give you total manual control. Of course, you can buy a top-of-the-line pro camera like the Nikon D3 - but they usually don't offer that much more than the inexpensive ones. For 99% of photographers, a Nikon D40 or D70 does the job fine. Most of the difference comes from the quality of the lens (and photographer), anyway. You can use the same lens on a cheap DSLR, or an expensive one and get much the same results. But if you want a decent lens on the video camera, it's hard to get. You are usually stuck with the built-in piece of crap. This is where the video camera companies are falling behind. They charge a ridiculous premium for things like interchangeable lenses, which is much higher than the cost differential of manufacturing it.
the result is that a video camera is a comparatively bad investment. When your DLSR body becomes obsolete, you can still use your nice collection of lenses. When your digital video camera dies or becomes obsolete, you have to chuck the whole thing.
... and then they built the supercollider.