The interesting thing about that "Wisdom" project is that it was shot with a very expensive digital photo camera and the video was made with cheap handycams...
I actually liked the video though I thought it would be nice if it had more depth, but 15 minutes a person probably doesn't allow for more. I do like the complete package and the idea of a single serve website, sort of a digital interactive magazine.
This is not a critique because I understand what a huge undertaking this project was and one that the artist should be proud of.
http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/09/05/single-...s-a-cool-trend/I think we'll see a lot more of this.
As far as the actual camera or the technique of the video I do think it demonstrates how difficult it is in stills to carry the same visual look from strobe lit still imagery and transform that over to handicam video. Color timing can help, multiple parallel light setups can also get closer to matching the looks, but matching strobe and continuous is difficult, especially outdoors, regardless of budget.
Apart from that I fully agree that a 45k movie camera as shown can buy you a lot of value. Still, the full production costs of movies are generally much higher than photo shoots, so your business risk goes up proportionally. And you will depend on many more complex production factors, compared to photography. Owning just a movie camera doesn't mean much in itself, while a photo camera can be the single tool to make you a good income (unless you shoot for others only, in which case you can rent out yourself with your movie camera. But who wants to be in business to be told by others what and how to shoot exactly?) You could also become a DP. You wouldn't need anything else than a viewfinder. Or you could become the president of the US. You wouldn't need any gear at all then.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the terms you described I somewhat agree, though you are talking more along the lines of traditional production where moving imagery and still photography rarely meet on equal terms.
That has changed a great deal in the last few years and the crews on large still productions (and the costs) are not much different than that on smaller cinema or motion productions. Maybe sound, dialog, even camera format can add a different dynamic but the cost and the size of the crew and production can be very close to the same.
Owning a 30 or $45,000 digital cinema camera does not immediatly make the owner a film maker, but it also doesn't limit the artist to the roll of a dp. Many directors and photographers can not only work a motion camera but also can shoot stills, also create and be in command of the story and the visuals.
The thing I see from the $45,000 digital video investment vs. the $45,000 digital back investment is which one will really move your career and your art? I am sure each person will answer this differently.
It's not always a black and white world and owning and knowing the complete workings of a dedicated motion camera builds the same intimacy as owning and learning your own personal still camera.
I and many others shoot and produce still productions with gaffers, grips, swings, and a lot of cross purposed crew and once you get deep into the 6 figure range of production, adding another 20 to 30% to produce motion is becoming more than a client request, or an interesting back story, in some instances it's a requirement and one I believe many of us will see more of.
I think for some projects this is very difficult as just the story, even the camera framing can demand a much different perspective and technique on how you work. It also is difficult to do both the stills and the motion with equal justice. On others I think it is very close to the same discipline.
I've posted this clip before from a film editor I work with.
[a href=\"http://ishotit.com/SixMan4.mov]http://ishotit.com/SixMan4.mov[/url]
I don't know how others view it but I can see beautiful stills in this imagery, just like I am sure the film maker and director saw a compelling film.
JR
Quentin,
Sorry about changing the subject. So how bout' that Russian Lens?