Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: [Tedious] Moving slideshows with 5DII  (Read 14253 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« on: November 26, 2008, 07:50:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Now the 5DII is out, are we going to be inundated with lots of really boring videos that are just a bunch of pretty shots with some music in background and with no thought regarding a story of any kind?
The moving image is a very different medium to the still image, yet loads of photographers are suddenly going to think they are videographers.
Just like having a camera does not make you a photographer, being able to shoot moving pictures does not suddenly make you a filmmaker. Plus the 5D is not ergonomically set up for video, so is even harder to use than a conventional video camera, without lots of adaptors.
What are people's thoughts? New era in filmmaking or ....?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 662


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2008, 08:01:16 AM »
ReplyReply

It is going to be very interesting to see how photography starts to ¨move¨. Moving pictures do not automatically imply storytelling, at least not in the typical narrative way. These are very exciting times to be a photographer. I wouldn´t worry too much about pretentious photographers trying to be videographers. The world of content is already full of crap. A little more won´t hurt.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 08:31:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sergio
The world of content is already full of crap. A little more won´t hurt.
Unless the crap is only up to your chin, add a bit more and you start to swallow the stuff!!!  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1465


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 08:39:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Digital cameras gave us huge piles of tedious, boring *still* photography, so what's the difference? The camera is just a tool, and in the right hands it can produce great images, still or moving. Sure we'll see lots of bad short films -- I'll probably produce some myself. Just wade through the bad and enjoy the good.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2008, 10:15:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Now the 5DII is out, are we going to be inundated with lots of really boring videos that are just a bunch of pretty shots with some music in background and with no thought regarding a story of any kind?
The moving image is a very different medium to the still image, yet loads of photographers are suddenly going to think they are videographers.
Just like having a camera does not make you a photographer, being able to shoot moving pictures does not suddenly make you a filmmaker. Plus the 5D is not ergonomically set up for video, so is even harder to use than a conventional video camera, without lots of adaptors.
What are people's thoughts? New era in filmmaking or ....?

Some one posted on LL in 1925 complaining about the release of the box brownie - the world is going to flooded with boring pictures..

I dont see it making any difference

Price drops means technology is more accessable to all - which means more dross and more gems

so the result will be more gems and a higher requirement for dross filtration - but ultimately more gems - so it has to be good

S
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:19:49 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2008, 12:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

But did the rash of dull still images get praised uncritically?
Which seems to be the case for any 5DII footage that gets spliced together in a few hours?

Photographers are closer to Directors of Photography, than directors or writers, so why should they suddenly think they can make films which is usually story telling, just because some stills cameras now do moving images? It's not as if video cameras weren't around before? Not to mention the big can of worms regarding sound, which is arguably more important than image quality. Advertising work can be quite different, but even then Ads are rarely a sequence of moving stills.

 I'm mentioning this as it not something they ever gets talked about with all the fuss about new technology. Rarely does anyone talk about stories or writing, sound occasionally gets mentioned. A shame as these are important aspects.

As regards more dross=more gems  theory, with a drop in equipment prices - sort of, but not quite.
Why? Before there was a filter where only those really keen to learn and work towards getting film/video kit tended to attempt filmmaking. However if all stills cameras come with video ability anyone can have a go as it takes very little effort compared to before, so the dross % will only increase and finding gems may be even harder.
Alternatively, most photographers will realise video is very different from photography and not go that way. And the film peeps will be the ones really taking advantage of the new combocams.
There seems to be more excitement amongst filmmakers than photographers, maybe as many of them appreciate the 5DII even more than photographers. Shame it doesn't shoot RAW though.
I'm still toying with getting one until the RED cameras come out, as it may be ideal for a documentary project I have in mind.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2008, 01:55:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
But did the rash of dull still images get praised uncritically?
Which seems to be the case for any 5DII footage that gets spliced together in a few hours?

Photographers are closer to Directors of Photography, than directors or writers, so why should they suddenly think they can make films which is usually story telling, just because some stills cameras now do moving images? It's not as if video cameras weren't around before? Not to mention the big can of worms regarding sound, which is arguably more important than image quality. Advertising work can be quite different, but even then Ads are rarely a sequence of moving stills.

 I'm mentioning this as it not something they ever gets talked about with all the fuss about new technology. Rarely does anyone talk about stories or writing, sound occasionally gets mentioned. A shame as these are important aspects.

As regards more dross=more gems  theory, with a drop in equipment prices - sort of, but not quite.
Why? Before there was a filter where only those really keen to learn and work towards getting film/video kit tended to attempt filmmaking. However if all stills cameras come with video ability anyone can have a go as it takes very little effort compared to before, so the dross % will only increase and finding gems may be even harder.
Alternatively, most photographers will realise video is very different from photography and not go that way. And the film peeps will be the ones really taking advantage of the new combocams.
There seems to be more excitement amongst filmmakers than photographers, maybe as many of them appreciate the 5DII even more than photographers. Shame it doesn't shoot RAW though.
I'm still toying with getting one until the RED cameras come out, as it may be ideal for a documentary project I have in mind.

It is an important point  that DoP is different from writer/director - put an other way a 5d doesnt give you vision or imagination

I think there is just a coming together of technologies - web bandwidth - cheap movie cameras with a photographic look - we can shoot it and get it out there - that is very now/new

whether what 'we' do is any good - only time will tell

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
timescapes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2008, 02:30:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Now the 5DII is out, are we going to be inundated with lots of really boring videos that are just a bunch of pretty shots with some music in background and with no thought regarding a story of any kind?
The moving image is a very different medium to the still image, yet loads of photographers are suddenly going to think they are videographers.
Just like having a camera does not make you a photographer, being able to shoot moving pictures does not suddenly make you a filmmaker. Plus the 5D is not ergonomically set up for video, so is even harder to use than a conventional video camera, without lots of adaptors.
What are people's thoughts? New era in filmmaking or ....?

Who cares?  Useless videos will find no audience.  Good ones will.  End of story.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2008, 05:29:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: timescapes
Who cares?  Useless videos will find no audience.  Good ones will.  End of story.
Sadly that's not the case. I was prompted to start this thread by viewing another very dull video, that was simply lots of random street shots at night, put to music, poorly assembled and yet this dull sequence received near universal praise. Some of the shots would have been great stills, but as part of filmed sequence, that's simply not enough.
No filming imagination or story telling talent was discernable.


Though I have to say I have been very impressed by your timelapse stuff.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6056


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2008, 12:08:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I do not care much about amateur video, so will refrain from commenting on OP, but I find something else hilarious: when 5D2 was announced, "real" photographers (myself included) were like: "cameras for real photographers need no stinking video"... now, when Nikon D3x is announced without video, "real" photographers (this time not me) are like: "Is Nikon crazy!? No video? I am not going to buy it and will switch to 5D2 instead"  
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2008, 12:26:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Sadly that's not the case. I was prompted to start this thread by viewing another very dull video, that was simply lots of random street shots at night, put to music, poorly assembled and yet this dull sequence received near universal praise. Some of the shots would have been great stills, but as part of filmed sequence, that's simply not enough.
No filming imagination or story telling talent was discernable.


Though I have to say I have been very impressed by your timelapse stuff.

I saw the Laforet video as well, and had exactly the same thoughts - there's another thread somewhere where I lament the same. Pretty and very impressive visuals, but so what? Granted, it was probably mostly shot as a tech demo rather than an exercise in short film, but the near-universal photographers' response doesn't bode well for what the combo-cam aficionados will be producing when 5D Mk II is released.

Film (short or long) is a collaborative art, and anyone thinking they can write, produce, direct, shoot, light, record, post, edit and distribute a film by themselves for a pittance should pick up Robert Rodriguez's Rebel Without A Crew for a sanity check. He shot El Mariachi on a shoestring budget - that was seven thousands of dollars in Mexico 15 years ago working mostly with friends.

As the saying goes, 99% of everything is shit. But what is said up in the thread makes me even more cynical than usually: photographers are not storytellers, and video needs a story in most cases. And sound. And editing. Etc.

Finally, for those who think there is no audience for the 99% which is shit, I present you this.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2008, 12:38:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
I saw the Laforet video as well, and had exactly the same thoughts - there's another thread somewhere where I lament the same. Pretty and very impressive visuals, but so what? Granted, it was probably mostly shot as a tech demo rather than an exercise in short film, but the near-universal photographers' response doesn't bode well for what the combo-cam aficionados will be producing when 5D Mk II is released.
It wasn't the Lafloret video that made me think this, that piece played like a music video with a storyline, admittedly a weak one, but then it was shot last minute with no time to develop a script and is impressive considering the circumstances/time constraints. 'Reverie' is way above anything else I've seen and these other clips are admired without any critical faculty it seems. "It moves - wow!!!" Seems to be the response. Haven't these people seen TV or been to the cinema, let alone heard of video cameras?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Provokot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 10:57:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course we will be swamped with millions of hopeless videos, but there will also be some exciting new work, fresh thinking and innovation; the medium will progress. The real challenge lies in websites like YouTube helping the cream to rise.
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2008, 12:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Now the 5DII is out, are we going to be inundated with lots of really boring videos that are just a bunch of pretty shots with some music in background and with no thought regarding a story of any kind?
That movies have literal stories is a holdover from earliest movies trying to emulate stage plays.  In a stage play the environs are so static and so as costly to modulate, you must rely on a linguistic story to keep your audience engaged.  Exception...rare pageant style productions.  Also, any other paradigm would have befuddled early audiences.  The popular idea of movies as necessarily story-bound is entirely self inflicted...movies can cover a lot of ground, and images can be a worthy "story" in their own right.  Think visual poetry.  "Koyanisqattsi," for instance.

All democratizations of technology have rocked the boat, thanks Morgan for Brownie reminder.  But ultimately for good.  Although we are awash in trivial still photographs, the quality of the best still photographic imagery is today (on average) far better than it was a few decades ago.  IMHO.  Just look through some old US Camera and other old "annuals" most of which is painfully trite and stiff as a board.  Of course nobody will ever be as good as Steichen and few others...guess I'm just too old.

edit.  Can't resist, there is a great movie example of the still_photographer / movie_photographer chimera shot in Russia in the silent era.  I believe it's called "The Photographer" on the US DVD I saw it on, I think it has also been shown on some of the old movie cable channels.  Basically it revolves around a photographer going out for a day with a hand-cranked movie camera and shooting a curious hybrid of movies and stills.  Cars driving around, an elevator going up and down, you name it.  Worth seeing if you can find it.  Everything old is new again.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 01:28:29 AM by bill t. » Logged
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2008, 10:14:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why anyone would think video in a $3,000 camera is going to increase the world's crappy video output. It will have no effect, because anybody can already make videos with equipment costing far less. Like a cell phone, for example.

On another note, you don't even need to have video capabilities in your dSLR to make a video. This guy made a video with a Nikon D200.
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2008, 12:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDClements
On another note, you don't even need to have video capabilities in your dSLR to make a video. This guy made a video with a Nikon D200.
Entire feature films have been shot with DSLR's, such as "Corpse Bride" and the upcoming "Coraline."  Also many product shot commercials and a few rock videos.

http://unit16.net/kozaflex.htm
Logged
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2008, 02:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
Entire feature films have been shot with DSLR's, such as "Corpse Bride" and the upcoming "Coraline."  Also many product shot commercials and a few rock videos.

http://unit16.net/kozaflex.htm

True, although I would draw a distinction between stop-motion animation and the sort-of live-motion type filming in the sample I posted.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2008, 06:25:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDClements
Not sure why anyone would think video in a $3,000 camera is going to increase the world's crappy video output. It will have no effect, because anybody can already make videos with equipment costing far less. Like a cell phone, for example.
Because lots of photographers will suddenly have a camera that is capable of results of a previously unafordable quality and who would never have used a video camera or cell phone as they weren't good enough and because they were photographers not video guys.
And like having a 5D doesn't make you a good photographer, a 5DII doesn't make you a filmmaker.
And the main reason I think that, is because of the amount of uncritical fawning regarding any footage shot on the camera, no matter how poorly put together.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3541



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2008, 06:45:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
That movies have literal stories is a holdover from earliest movies trying to emulate stage plays.  In a stage play the environs are so static and so as costly to modulate, you must rely on a linguistic story to keep your audience engaged.  Exception...rare pageant style productions.  Also, any other paradigm would have befuddled early audiences.  The popular idea of movies as necessarily story-bound is entirely self inflicted...movies can cover a lot of ground, and images can be a worthy "story" in their own right.  Think visual poetry.  "Koyanisqattsi," for instance.
Actually the first films were the equivalent of the content free 5DII films. Motion was such a wow and a novelty, that anything was a crowd pleaser.
After the 'invention' of the edit, storytelling became a possibility and the reason was stories were and are so important is that that is what engages people. Even if you have an action movie with loads of exciting and expensive  setpieces, if the story is lacking, the film is just not interesting.  Even 'Reality' TV is all about the story of the contestants or the situation, even straight documentaries will have a narative of some kind as without it, people lose interest. And telling stories through imagery is also fine [heck it's my job], but telling a good story is not something that stills photographers are usually adept at. Let alone all the complexities of filmmaking which get tin the way of telling a decent story. Lots of films have stories damaged or ruined by banal production decisions.
I love Koyanisqatttsi, but it is an exception and is as much about Philip Glass's beautiful music as it is about the cinmatography. But even then there was a sense of progression and a feeling of a story amongst the imagery and not just some pretty pictures put together with little thought.

Quote
All democratizations of technology have rocked the boat, thanks Morgan for Brownie reminder.  But ultimately for good.  Although we are awash in trivial still photographs, the quality of the best still photographic imagery is today (on average) far better than it was a few decades ago.  IMHO.  Just look through some old US Camera and other old "annuals" most of which is painfully trite and stiff as a board.  Of course nobody will ever be as good as Steichen and few others...guess I'm just too old.
The percentage of good photographs may be diminishing now that everyone has a camera and it's not just the keen and professionals like it was before with most people using a roll of film per year.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2008, 08:35:46 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2008, 08:25:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Because lots of photographers will suddenly have a camera that is capable of results of a previously unafordable quality and who would never have used a video camera or cell phone as they weren't good enough and because they were photographers not video guys.
And like having a 5D doesn't make you a good photographer, a 5DII doesn't make you a filmmaker.
And the main reason I think that, is because of the amount of uncritical fawning regarding any footage shot on the camera, no matter how poorly put together.

I was making two points that may have been missed (I am guessing that based on your reply):

1. If every single new 5D Mk2 owner in the world starts making crappy videos, it will not make the heap of crappy videos in the world noticeably larger, because it is already really really large because there are tons of cheap tools that enable everyone to make crappy video.
2. So what.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad