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.
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.
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 use Cinelerra on occasion, and find that it's not too bad... If you're willing to get to know it and learn how not to anger it. After a while you can get the hang of things and find what you can and can't do safely. At that point it's actually not that hard to be productive.
It's also not very intuitive. Again, once you learn it it's not bad, but for someone who's new to it it can be tough. This was the issue my brother ran into; his PC runs Ubuntu quite well, and when he wanted to edit video I suggested Cinelerra. He used it for a while, but decided to invest in a used Mac just for Final Cut.
So, it's a powerful program, and worth looking into. This company actually makes turnkey Linux editing systems using Cinelerra, so it has potential.
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
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.
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.