OT: DSLR video a fad???

megabit wrote on 11/7/2009, 7:50 AM

Bob & Jay,

Both of you know perfectly what the other one is talking about, and of course what DOF is and how to handle it. It's just a matter of wording, I guess.

Having said that, I'd be tending to agree with Bob's wording. A cinematographer like most of us here (i.e. not using unlimited amount /quality of light, or $50,000 lenses due to financial reasons), has indeed much less viable ways of controlling the DOF than a photographer has, even with a medium-priced camera. The reasons are obvious:

- due to some fps standards in video, we're rather limited with shutter speed choices
- due to an average, prosumer type camera lens characteristics, we're also limited to somewhat narrow workable F-stop range; with the iris above F5.6 causing too much diffraction softness.

Whether DOF is a tool or an artifact, it really depends on the operator; if he can use it to achieve his goals, the artifact becomes a tool!

Piotr

Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/7/2009, 8:58 AM

No, Piotr, contrary to popular belief, I am not a mind reader. I take what people say here at face value. I try not to read anything into their words (it doesn't always work).

The subject of the thread is questioning the efforts by some people using specific equipment in order to attain a shallow depth of field and their obsession with it.

During the course of the conversation, two statements were made that DOF is not a tool and that cinematographers have no control over it. Both statements are totally incorrect. It’s of no concern to me what someone thinks about cinematography or DOF, they’re entitled to their opinions. However, what does matter to me is when someone who does not fully understand it, or gives that impression, makes erroneous statements regarding the topic. If such flawed comments are not properly addressed others who are less knowledgeable that come here seeking advice would leave with incorrect information.

arenel wrote on 11/7/2009, 9:00 AM

YOU ARE TELLING A STORY as Grazie said. The low light ability of the D5 is great, the audio sucks, the camera is hard to control and move. Using DOF to help tell the story is worthwhile, but for an event like a wedding where there is rarely a take two, you need an upscale client willing to add another shooter to the budget,so that a couple of video cameras are covering the basics. Having run a lot of 16mm through my Arri, I am willing at my advanced age to leave film to someone else. I like most of the things about video.

Ralph

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 11/7/2009, 12:11 PM

Shutter and the amount of light... Those are really wrong ways to go about controlling DOF as it starts with choosing the right camera for the job. In general i prefer the full sensor cameras but if a job requires it one reaches for 2/3" or even 1/3" sensor. It all starts with the camera choice so for instance shooting "Citizen Kane" with one of those DSLRs would be totally foolish as there are plenty of options with much smaller sensor (thus much easier to achieve the infinite DOF) -- that said though if someone tried to do something like "Citizen Kane" in our times would it still be such cinematic achievement? I don't think so.

DGates wrote on 11/7/2009, 1:34 PM

It's not a fad. If anything, it's a look into what video cameras of the next couple of years will evolve into.

farss wrote on 11/7/2009, 2:19 PM

I was going to use the word "perspective" however I stopped, thought, and decided that perspective is part and parcel of shot composition. In hindsight using the word "composition" was a mistake.

Bob.

NickHope wrote on 11/7/2009, 10:58 PM

Cinematography/videography is often more than just telling a story, and sometimes not really at all about telling a story. What about sumptuous visuals to be enjoyed for purely aesthetic reasons? Some of the films I enjoyed most, I barely followed the plot because I was too busy getting off on the images.

Grazie wrote on 11/7/2009, 11:41 PM

(Oh Nick you ole tease you! - This thread is starting to resemble the sketch in the ")

Cinematography/videography is often more than just telling a story,and sometimes not really at all about telling a story.

OK ok ok ... but once you take away just telling a story?

"What about sumptuous visuals to be enjoyed for purely aesthetic reasons?"

OK! But once you take away the sumptuous visuals and the pure aesthetic reason - yeah? - what have you got?!? Yeah!?

"Some of the films I enjoyed most, I barely followed the plot because I was too busy getting off on the images."
OK!! Once you take away pure visual beauty- yeah - what is left! THE STORY! - Hold on, there ain't anything left . . .. ?

De-constructivism has its place. It's just over there, on the 3rd shelf, next to the coffee and sugar. Found it? Point being that once we have remove all functions of making a "viewable" film all we have is a separated out set of ingredients that look quite nice in piles of "how-to's" but that's about it.

Oh yeah Nick, maybe just watching sumptuous shots ( and I DO most certainly agree with you) could be the counterbalance to something more tragic or heart wrenching or contra- . that is the purpose of the edit - AT THAT POINT? - And yes I love watching videos of marine life.

Back on your theme (there's narrative) again, initially I could not concentrate/watch "Lord of the Rings", I was too immersed in the stunning visuals, it took me 2 attempts and a gap, before I got to the story. For me this WAS Content over Narrative. Was it meant? Wouldn't have thought so?

Grazie

farss wrote on 11/8/2009, 12:03 AM

HOLD EVERYTHING!

This is getting into a topic very dear to me but before anyone says anything else can someone please define "story"?

Bob.

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 11/8/2009, 12:29 AM

Rather than the word "story" we should be using the word "purpose." When we are talking about the story what we are really talking about is the fact that there is a purpose behind the film. And it's just happens that the story, in the most traditional sense, is the easiest way to give the film a purpose, but it's not the only way. Thus you have Godard who gives a purpose to his films with unorthodox staging and editing (and often bizarre content of his character's speeches). Because the definition of purpose changes from person to person, the definition of "story" varies too thus for one Malick's "New World" is filled with story while for another it's boring and with no point.

farss wrote on 11/8/2009, 12:53 AM

I think I'm on the same wavelength as you. When I hear "story" I think of "story teller". Those people of yesteryear who wandered from town to town earning their keep by telling stories.

There was a very interesting doco about the evolution of story telling, how it evolved from strange paintings in caves to the visual medium. Some of the techniques used in cinema are thousands of years old.

To me a movie such as Barraka or Nick's underwater footage has no story but it has a purpose. It illuminates the world in which we live.

Bob.

Grazie wrote on 11/8/2009, 1:41 AM

" It illuminates the world in which we live." - To be illiuminating one needs a reference. And THAT ain't a story? Oh, Pah...leeese!!!

Without an understanding, either consciously or subconsciously, we have to be aware of the language that is being placed in front of us. Show a Martian shallow DoF and he wont get it! It's all about communicating a "shared" language. And that IS most definitely a story . . . Musing and vagueness's are too stories. They may be wanderings and ramblings through our minds, but they most definitely are relating to a set of prejudgments, and where, pray, have they come from? And more to the point, are they link causally together? Well I think so.

Grazie

farss wrote on 11/8/2009, 3:09 AM

'To be illiuminating one needs a reference"

Not at all, anyone with only the sense of vision can gaze in wonder at a fish or Mt Everest. To comprehend the story of Romeo and Juliet one needs langauge. A blind man can learn a language and comprehend every narrative ever written. Sadly he will never sense the color red or blue or sense the beauty of a fish or stare in awe at Mt Everest.

Do we need a reference to sense the effect of color combinations or the notes of a musical scale. They are innate to our universe, bound in whatever it is that forms the fabric of all things. No doubt there's quite a story in why that is so :)

Bob.

Grazie wrote on 11/8/2009, 3:27 AM

No doubt . . . .

Coursedesign wrote on 11/8/2009, 7:29 AM

To me a movie such as Barraka or Nick's underwater footage has no story but it has a purpose.

I loved Baraka precisely because it told a story.

The story was told without words, like a still photograph can tell a story without another photo of the context.

My own "most award-winningest" photos were of this type.

One photo showed only "a pair of hands clutching a handbag," but the fairly contrasty darkish black-and-white print told a story because of the light from a very dark rainy sky (that you can't see, this is just the light source), the skin of the hands expressing 90 years of living with many joys and sorrows with many age-related marks just like the old rain coat she was wearing, and the clasp of the hands showed a fear of the future (caused by the tearing down of her house to make room for a shopping mall, although you can't see that sub-context from the photo of course).

Another was just a photo of a bicycle headlamp, but because of the limited DOF (necessary here!) the headlamp tells a whole story about "the future" as filled with great hope yet with some uncertainty.

I think the best determinator for whether something is story or not is whether "it" gets the mind going in some particular direction.

It doesn't even have to be same direction for all people.

Just think of a traditional story teller talking about something, say "a national healthcare system." One person gets his imagination rolling along the lines of "They're socializing everything in this country," while another listener thinks, "Now I can finally start my own business without having to worry about losing my health insurance."

Stories are always told in the mind.

arenel wrote on 11/8/2009, 3:09 PM

I spent many, many hours filming underwater and many occasions presenting at underwater film festivals. The footage I saw there was beautiful, but in many cases boring. Lovely shot after lovely shot, perfectly framed, pretty fish swimming through, gorgeous invertebrate life. All these scenes have stories within them and if you don't find the stories and tell them you only have pretty postcards from the sea.

Early in my career, I saw a film by Harry Pedersen, "Village beneath the Sea." Harry had done early natural history shooting for Disney. That film shot in 15 feet of water in the Bahamas, changed my outlook and direction completely. Harry told the stories of the creatures around a coral head. The jawfish, the 3spot damsel, the octopus, why sea urchins have such great defenses with their needle sharp spines, and why they run for their lives when the sun comes up. They are really good to eat if you know how!

Ralph

arenel wrote on 11/8/2009, 3:39 PM

Cinematography is only one part of making a film. Our visual sense caused many of us to choose it first, but the other crafts play large parts as well. Nearly all of the film I shot was MOS, if you don't know what that means you are too young. It goes back to the early sound days in Hollywood with German directors like von Stroheim. "Mit out sound." With video you never turn off the camera when interviewing. With film there was no need to waste footage, you shoot the talking head in the ways needed, master, medium, closeups, reaction, and turn off the camera. The guy with Nagra did the whole interview.

Ralph

farss wrote on 11/9/2009, 12:40 AM

I'm old enough to have shot MOS with a clockwork Bolex. Never know what MOS meant though. Thanks, one less thing to wonder about.

Bob.

essami wrote on 11/9/2009, 2:20 AM

I've shot videos and film with super 16mm, super 8, miniDV, Sony EX1 and my cell phone. The cell phone video was in MoMa, New York ;) I gotta say I love my GH1. I most often choose it over any of the above.

The DSLR and DOF might be a fad at the moment and thats precisely why so many people are using it. But like all trends there will be a new trend soon enough.

DGates wrote on 11/9/2009, 4:30 AM

DOF isn't the sole reason folks are digging these cams. It's also their kick ass low light ability that can't be touched by ANY traditional video camera, no matter how expensive.

DigVid wrote on 11/9/2009, 5:47 AM

"Never know what MOS meant though."

From something I remember from my film school days in the early 1970's (and with a little help from Google)... The term "MOS" is used, on a slate, when a scene is filmed without sync sound (or any sound). This directive is widely thought to be a homage to Ernst Lubitsch who would say, in his thick Berlin accent, that he wished to shoot some footage "mitout sound." "Mit" means "with" in German...ergo...without sound..."mitout sound"- "M-O-S."

Coursedesign wrote on 11/9/2009, 7:18 AM

I'm old enough to have shot MOS with a clockwork Bolex.
Me too, and I trust you had access to and declined the electric motor that was provided (with lead-acid batteries)?

(The electric motor wasn't crystal-controlled, so the film moved faster when the battery was fully charged and then slower and slower as the charge dropped [or the temperature did], while the "clockwork" ran like "a fine Swiss watch." :O)

If my life depended on coming back from end of the earth with footage, that's a camera I would strongly consider. Between that and a selenium exposure meter, you never have to worry about running out of batteries because there aren't any. And if the camera should be run over by an SUV, the SUV will probably be in more pain...

Never know what MOS meant though.

Well, you still don't know for sure. The Legend of MOS has never been confirmed, and the historians in Hollywood have really tried.

Should make a movie about it really, but should it be sound or MOS?

If you haven't read David Niven's memoir, "Bring On The Empty Horses," you still have a treat waiting for you.

The title was spoken by a foreign director (who of course meant "riderless horses"), but this immediately caused a disruption because everyone on the set laughed so hard they had tears in their eyes.

David Niven also shares some personal moments that are worthwhile reading for anyone getting into Hollywood. It would be a major spoiler to just say what it was, because he told it so extremely well.

He was a real "mensch" to use another word that has made it into the English language.

farss wrote on 11/9/2009, 12:41 PM

No access to an electric motor. We were told the camera would "teach you to keep your shots short". Seeing as how we only had a few hundred feet of B&W neg that was a very good thing.
That little short movie we shot at school won 3rd prize in the Sydney Film Festival against competition shot on 35mm with huge budgets.
You can probably understand why I have a bit of a chuckle when people try to tell me you can't make a movie unless you use camera xyz.

"He was a real "mensch" to use another word that has made it into the English language"

Oh, now you have touched on the problem I have with this darn word "story". You mentioned a still photograph. Can I mention this one from the Vietnam war era. One could well argue that that image did more to change the course of that war than all the words written or the millions who took to the streets in protest.

Where is the story though? We don't need to know the names, the places, the dates, the impact on our brains lies not in a story. I cannot find a word in the English language that describes what is in a photo like this that conveys something into our brains that has an immediate impact. "Gestalt" comes close but it isn't really the right word, I'd be be abusing the word to use it as such.

Why this matter to me is because it goes to the heart of my efforts to explain what we do as editors. The problem seems to be in our language, we simply don't have the word(s). I've had several Hindus tell me what their word "Om" means. I understand the concept but knowing it is impossible to me, my DNA seems to lack something that theirs has.

Bob.

Coursedesign wrote on 11/9/2009, 3:39 PM

Yes, that still photo doesn't need a caption to have a real human impact...

I thought you were talking about this photo:

South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Viet Cong officer with a single pistol shot in the head in Saigon, Vietnam on Feb. 1, 1968. The photo, by photojournalist Eddie Adams, became one of the Vietnam's War's most indelible images, winning a Pultizer Prize in 1969.

I've had several Hindus tell me what their word "Om" means. I understand the concept but knowing it is impossible to me, my DNA seems to lack something that theirs has.

It's not different DNA, it's just that it has a very deep meaning. It's the closest to "42" we have in human languages, and very few Hindus are able to explain it. Brahmins (the most well educated usually) often talk about it from an academic standpoint, where they know everything about it without having experienced its meaning.

Start with the special Sanskrit character for Om, which is often written as Aum because each of the three letters convey the meaning of three of the five parts of the special character:

The "A" (Aah) sound is the sound of creation, "U" (OOO) sound is the sound of preservation, and the "M" (MMM) sound is the sound of destruction.

For a human, that is "birth, life, and death," but the AUM sound symbolizes all of creation.

One famous book says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God."

The Hindus say exactly the same thing, and add that the Word was AUM.

Linguistic scientists state that the modern word "Amen" (and the Moslem "Amin") originated with "Aum."

[This is not as weird as it might seem. English is classified as an Indo-European language, and it contains many words from old Indian languages.]

In the AUM character above, the lower curve (bottom of the "3") represents the dream state.

The upper curve (top of the "3") represents the waking state.

The "tail" represents deep, dreamless sleep,

The crescent shape represents "maya", the veil of illusion that makes the world appear in a certain way (a shared experience that is not "false" but not the whole of existence).

Finally, the dot on the other side of this, "Turiya", represents transcendence (aka "the fourth state" beyond waking, dream, or dreamless sleep). This is "oneness with God" or "oneness with Creation" or "returning to your source."

In this state the subject and object become one, so there is no longer a personal experience.

Looking at it from a human standpoint, when we are in fear we contract our world to be as small as possible, while when we are in a state of love our world expands. When this love is unlimited, we "become one with the universe."

Modern Western cosmology has a mathematical model for the ongoing creation and destruction of universes that fits in exactly with the Hindu cosmology.

And if you think Hindu astronomers and cosmologists were walking around in leased loin cloths while telling tall stories around the camp fire, you'd be off by quite a bit.

Thousands of years ago they accurately calculated earth's precession through a 25,800 year cycle, and they invented the positional number system (such as 23 = 2x10 + 3x1) while the rest of the world was carving notches into wood. "That'll be XXXVIII shekels and XLIII gerahs, please!"