Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Video - why?  (Read 25509 times)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2016, 11:02:34 am »

Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
I think neither the word "proper" nor the word "entirely" are required to determine if DSLR's have their use in cinematic productions or not.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2016, 11:29:04 am »

I think neither the word "proper" nor the word "entirely" are required to determine if DSLR's have their use in cinematic productions or not.
Why ?

A lot of people have just read silly forums that make out DSLRs have some huge impact on the cinema and television industries, but it simply isn't true.
They get used for the odd small niche application, but not for serious 'A' camera roles.

In the overall budget for a production the camera is just a tiny, tiny part. They don't cut corners on cameras when there are so many better cameras available than DSLRs.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2016, 11:46:46 am »

Why ?
Because I think neither of those qualifications are required to judge the impact of DSLR's on cinematography.
Pls. note I have no opinion if DSLR's are important or not (and I even don't care if they are or not), but to me they just feel like a cop-out to discard useful data that people might bring up.
Let people just bring the data without prematurely and overly constraining what is useful data or not.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2016, 11:51:27 am »

I enjoy doing video stuff, though mainly for documentary purposes. It costs very little to enable it on electronic cameras, and you can ignore it if you like.

As for its longevity: don't really care. The vast majority of everything the human species creates has a short shelf life, which IMO is as it should be.

-Dave-
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2016, 11:54:15 am »

Because I think neither of those qualifications are required to judge the impact of DSLR's on cinematography.
The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography.
It's just created a fashionable new route into hobby film making, just the 21st century's answer to Super 8.
The main difference now is that people post their work to Vimeo/YouTube/Facebook rather than have to gather friends and family round a screen. Just because anyone in the world can see doesn't make it any good.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2016, 12:18:05 pm »

I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D. It is feature length and has screened at a good number of festivals: currently hoping for a run at Sundance.
The people involved tell me this is not at all unusual for low budget films, but I'm not personally able to vouch for that.

On the other hand I have a lot of sympathy for anyone forced to watch an amateur video: with stills, I can always click rapidly past the less interesting shots.
Then again, if you look on youtube there are now amateurs making very well constructed short films. Give them a 5D and they'd be capable of making something very watchable in a cinema. There remains the usual problem of the people who are not good at what they do thinking they are brilliant :(

It also occurs to me that the 70's fashion photography ethos of shooting fascinating photos and hoping that the clothes managed to be visible enough that the client still pays the bill has survived through to video, despite the vastly higher production costs.

Check this out and tell me wtf it has to do with perfume:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz2m0olmPg

Then again, advertising a perfume via sound and vision necessarily obliges lateral thinking, no?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2016, 12:40:16 pm »

I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D. It is feature length and has screened at a good number of festivals: currently hoping for a run at Sundance.
The people involved tell me this is not at all unusual for low budget films, but I'm not personally able to vouch for that.

On the other hand I have a lot of sympathy for anyone forced to watch an amateur video: with stills, I can always click rapidly past the less interesting shots.
Then again, if you look on youtube there are now amateurs making very well constructed short films. Give them a 5D and they'd be capable of making something very watchable in a cinema. There remains the usual problem of the people who are not good at what they do thinking they are brilliant :(

It also occurs to me that the 70's fashion photography ethos of shooting fascinating photos and hoping that the clothes managed to be visible enough that the client still pays the bill has survived through to video, despite the vastly higher production costs.

Check this out and tell me wtf it has to do with perfume:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz2m0olmPg

Then again, advertising a perfume via sound and vision necessarily obliges lateral thinking, no?


I prefer the girl to the right; maybe she doesn't dance.

Very tiring to watch - I wonder what the advertising agency did to sell the pitch? Not bad without sound, though. Makes me wonder if advertising considers the negative vibes anymore? Hans Feurer did a wonderful stills campaign for Kenzo in the day ('83) with Iman. I think he shot on Lampedusa. But then it was clothes, not smells. ;-)

Rob

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2016, 12:41:55 pm »

I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D.
There have been a few 'films' shot with DSLRs, it the same way there were films shot on Hi8 and other amateur film formats.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2016, 12:53:43 pm »

There have been a few 'films' shot with DSLRs, it the same way there were films shot on Hi8 and other amateur film formats.
Seriously, are you comparing DSLR 4K video to Hi8?
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2016, 02:17:44 pm »

Seriously, are you comparing DSLR 4K video to Hi8?
No. you've missed the point.
There have always been examples of people using non-standard kit to make films with, but that doesn't automatically imply that the kit used is going to be routinely used for cinematography.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2016, 02:17:49 pm »

The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography.
It's just created a fashionable new route into hobby film making, just the 21st century's answer to Super 8.
The main difference now is that people post their work to Vimeo/YouTube/Facebook rather than have to gather friends and family round a screen. Just because anyone in the world can see doesn't make it any good.
You keep evading the point. Why does it have to be "proper" (maybe you can first define what proper means) and why does it have to be "entirely"?
Just saying "The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography" without any supporting data doesn't impress me as meaningful/factual information
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2016, 02:51:02 pm »

You keep evading the point.
No.
Quote
Just saying "The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography" without any supporting data doesn't impress me as meaningful/factual information
The problem is that proving that something hasn't happened isn't that easy.
Just look at any movie set and see what it's being shot on. Arri, Panavision, Red probably, a DSLR ? no.
Where you might see a DSLR is as a sacrificial camera on a stunt where there's a high probability of it getting trashed and it's low cost isn't worth worrying about. Even then they're are due to the problems of monitoring, run time, battery life, failure to match A cameras etc....

Do you have any experience of high end production on video ?
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2016, 03:05:07 pm »

Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
Tim Burton's stop motion movies have been shot with Canon DSLRs and Nikon lenses. To be accurate only 1 or two of his movies was made this way.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 03:28:08 pm by donbga »
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2016, 03:23:21 pm »

Tim Burton's stop motion movies have been shot with Canon DSLRs and Nikon lenses.
That's not video.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #34 on: September 01, 2016, 03:24:30 pm »

No.
yes you do, you haven't answered my question.
Do you have any experience of high end production on video ?
No, but I don't see how that matters. I'm just looking for data on both sides of the argument to make up my mind.
Given the qualifications you're asking for (proper/entirely) you're constraining for no good reason.
Dropping those qualifications will provide a broader dataset which is what I'm interested in
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #35 on: September 01, 2016, 03:46:35 pm »

Hi,

When doing slide shows video is a great compliment to stills. For a photojournalist, video can provide a context and stills provide an edge. In my "slide shows" I often mix video and stills, although stills dominate.



https://player.vimeo.com/video/52012348



Best regards
Erik

I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika.  I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film.  I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine.  Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled.  Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.

I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.

Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image.  The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all.  The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
 
What do people who shoot videos do with them?  I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public.  I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall.  I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations.  What would I do with a video?  I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once?  How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008?  It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video.  Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
 
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future.  This is a use for stills.  For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence.  Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’.  How many people have the means of viewing them now?  This is not a problem with prints from that era.  Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used.  There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images.  How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?

Can someone explain what I am missing, please?

Jonathan
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #36 on: September 01, 2016, 04:00:35 pm »

Explore all the imaging options & possibilities. My response: Fine & dandy…I'll decide what I don't like and what I do.

Do not explore these particular imaging options & possibilities because I don't like or approve of them. My response: Think I'll start with those particular ones, thankyouverymuch.

-Dave-
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #37 on: September 01, 2016, 04:23:18 pm »

I'm just looking for data on both sides of the argument to make up my mind.
Well just try and find examples of movies made with DSLRs.
From my recollection there are maybe four or five that have made it to cinematic release, out of thousands(tens of) made conventionally.

Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #38 on: September 01, 2016, 04:55:03 pm »

I have seen some videos made with DSLR cameras that were very well done and I enjoyed them. My wife has made a few video clips of during our travels of odd, curious, or beautiful events to share with family and friends. I have enjoyed watching some of those too, much as one enjoys remembering something while looking at a snapshot. At the same time I personally have no interest in making videos. I'm not even curious about it and have never tried the video function on a camera. While I don't care about making videos it's obvious that others do, and I enjoy watching their work once in a while. As long as I don't have to trip over it when I want to take still photos I'm fine with the video function existing on my cameras, even though I'll probably never use it. I know it adds some cost, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. 
Logged
- Dean

TomFrerichs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re: Video - why?
« Reply #39 on: September 01, 2016, 05:10:55 pm »

It will depend on the type of product to a great extent but the problem is not that is expensive to add features to anything electronic but it is too cheap to do so, fiddling with a camera's software hardly costs when compared to engineering a totally new lens mount for instance. In marketing terms you do need something new and different to attract the attention of the punter, whether it is of any discernible benefit in the great scheme of things is besides the point, you've got to be seen to be cutting edge in a digital world and at the end of the day Nikon's and Canon's aim is to sell more cameras.

How very true. Looking at camera reviews on popular sites, a significant portion of the reviews are dedicated to "video features," even if video truly is almost an after thought.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up