...
Yes an interesting thread and fair game for putting something up I'm sure it's far better than anything I could ever attempt. Experimentation is the name of the game. If I were to make one comment and this is just a general one ala video and end results it's that looking around I'm not seeing a lot of variety to this. Granted it's early days and ok big budget movies have hundreds working on them a cast, scripts lighting effects folks, sound engineers all play a big role in the end result.
But if you look at most of what is out there it's fairly predictable and that's something I apply to my own stills shooting I've far to often "played it safe" and got decent but well not as good as I wanted results. Sometimes you have to "throw the hammer down" and just go for it works or not. I'm seeing quite a lot of very narrow DOF shooting from DSLR shooters with video and static shots (ala tripod mounted) This has a place of course in film making but if you look at someone like Dante Spinotti a bit of a legend in his field what you see on various films he has done the photography for is a lot of variety in his shots. Granted some of this might be tricky on a technical level.
...
Ok so I don't have a lot of interest myself but I would like to see folks move away from just replaying the same kind of shot over and over there is an awful lot of choice in this field as as purely a viewer there is a big difference between having a bit of fun and a talented cinema photographer.
We've got to learn to crawl first, before we can run and in that vein, I believe that starting out with static shots, etc, is a good way to get comfortable with video. We all need to master the basic aspects of the craft first.
So to that end, people are learning about when shallow DOF works for video and when it doesn't. Same for static shots, etc. I think it is unrealistic to expect people who have been primarily trying to master photography to suddenly become masters of videography.
