And the real point you are making Jay, is?

What did you get from the article? There's where you'll find the answer.

Very Zen Jay . . .

No, I'm inviting you to tell me where you're at with this.

And yes I will read it.

Regards,

Grazie

I read it, and I still want to know where you stand on it.

Regards,

Grazie

Probably rates as the most vacuous article I've read.
What we attempt to create is a bit like a symphony, it starts with nothing more than ink on a page and can end up as one of the most wonderous things man creates...or not. The ink could have been in the wrong place, the first violin out of tune, the conductor had no feeling for the work, the acoustics of the concert hall muffled the sound. DUH!!!
Anyone who thinks the statements that article makes were worth the time to write is clearly in the wrong business. A more appropriate line of work would be collecting the garbage that they've written.

Bob.

Well, Bob, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Graham, I think his point is well made. A viewing of the vast majority of videos on the Internet would support his hypothesis. Of course there are those technophiles who will disagree. And that's all right, too.

the article is stating the obvious,, but not a bad thing to be reminded,, I've got some XL1 footage that blows away some footage I shot on cams costing over 10 times as much .....if I feel I need reminded again.

The components that make the video are the manuscript, orchestra and conductor. The location is akin to the media, and that is largely irrelevant.

We could argue about the relative accoustics of the Albert Hall or the Sydney Opera House but Nigel Kennedy's violin sounds as good in either, or for that matter in a field or cow shed ;-)

If the media is important in any way, then we might as well burn all silent movies, as they presumably, are also a waste of time?

It seems to me that the author is clearly in the right business, concentrating on content is the important thing.

YouTube proves that, awful media but some of the content is brilliant.

Andrew

If the media doesn't matter then why aren't we still making silent movies with hand cranked cameras on grainy B&W film?
The people who made many of those movies struggled under appalling conditions to tell their story. In the 100 years since, many, many people have worked to make the story easier to tell, perhaps their efforts were wasted? Do the efforts to improve the technology make what went before redundant, of course not.
Do I think it matters if you shoot your story on DVCPro or HDCAM? Of course not, what matters is that people do think about the choices, when they stop arguing over which is the better choice the impetus to improve those choices goes. I've no doubt there's fora around where makeup artists argue over the best greasepaint. I doubt anyone here would pick the difference in front of a camera and it sure isn't going to make or break the telling of a story. But if we decide to tell them it doesn't matter why will they strive to improve their craft.

Sorry but I get pretty fired up about this, I cop this sort of nonesense a fair bit. Some young kid wants some bit of expensive gear to tell his story better and others tell me he doesn't need it because he's wet behind the ears and his story isn't worthy of what he wants to use to tell it. I'd never pass judgement on the worth of a story someone wants to tell, every story deserves to be told as well as it can be if someone's got enough fire in their belly to have a go at it.

The same goes for Nigel Kennedy (and I don't have a clue who he is), I've no doubt his violin sounds excellent in the middle of a field but I bet it sounds better in a great concert hall. Perhaps we've wasted a shipload of money building the Sydney Opera House and look like wasting another $600M to make it even better. Now I can't stand opera and I'm no fan of classical music either but I'm right behind making the venues for it better.

And as for the YouTube argument, well, what about reality TV, that just proves you don't need a story for people to flock to it. And yet I've bumped into a few of the crew from some of those reality TV shows and they are some of the most technically complex and crew demanding programs on air.

Bob.

So, Graham, where do you stand?

Bob, you need to lighten up a bit... get out more... stretch your legs. Your undies appear to be all bunched up!

I hate reality TV and love Youtube. Does that mean I have to get a cheaper camera?

Laurence, quoting from the article, "If you get the story, your format doesn’t matter. If you don’t get the story, your format doesn’t matter."

So, Graham, where do you stand?

You still haven't said. I read that you have quoted others.

Still waiting.

Regards

Grazie


edit was that I left out the "personal pronoun" - apologies

I hate reality TV and love Youtube. Does that mean I have to get a cheaper camera?

No, it means you should start shooting 35mm film to get the online lushness espoused by vic milt here recently.

:O)


I also have some stunning XL1 footage, but I don't like DV. Why? It works OK for closeups in certain lighting, but falls apart otherwise. I spent a long time trying to get footage that was acceptable to me from a DSR-500, then checked my results with other pros who said, "no, this is it, it doesn't get any better than this."

At that moment I started looking for a format that would hold up in just about any situation.

Why? To make my life easier. No more, no less.

Guys.....

I still have a hard time just trying to get things in focus......
through the lens and in my heart.

What was we talkin' about?

Oh ... formats

EDIT: Wife's comment:

I see the enjoyment you have taking your camera out and shooting the bluffs
and forests. I simply enjoy the fact you ask me along and hold my hand while
you tell me about doing a rack focus.

I guess whether I use a DV or XDCAM does NOT matter it is the enjoyment
of shooting it and sharing it with others in my life.

Graham, I said in the first post that Jim had some "excellent thoughts" on the subject of formats. My choice of words, or so I would think, are (or should be) a clear indication of where I stand.

Simply speaking, I am in total agreement with him. I posted the article in an effort to share some information with those who may have missed it or who were not aware of the article or who had never given the topic any consideration.

As for myself, from everything I've seen over the years, and it seems to be increasing as every month goes by, we are far more enamored with the means than we are the end. We are more concerned about the tools than we are the finished product. And based on the majority of the material out there, regardless of the venue, this has been proven time and time again.

Ah! Your last sentence is pure "Jay"!

So, let me give you my spin on things - as I have a render going on, this is great time-space to do it in!

Ahem . ..

You say "we are far more enamored with the means than we are the end" - excellent point Jay. You have gone a stage further than the article. You use the word "enamored". What I understand by that is that you are saying that this pursuit has become more important. And for some this IS the grail. This is how they express themselves. May not be mine and I understand now that it is most definitely not yours. However it is "others" - more power to them, is what I say!! Without this search for the "other" we kinda wouldn't be wrestling with the detail and the colour of HD. But, but but . . part of this whole concept of "content" is telling the story AND finding ways - and that COULD be new ways - in doing it.

You see, I don't have a single view to new stuff. I don't have a single view to people's ability to tell a story or their ability to take footage that may just suffice but extends INTO that material to the point where the narrative benefits.

Pursuit and skill. Skill and pursuit. Whether it is me behind my camera OR boffins working out the next best thing, it is all good.

Latterly I've started to recognise my own personal value in HD. Previously I saw it as an amazing detail capturing device/format. But now I am starting to see how artists are using it and how they are taking on the format -IN SPITE of itself.

And I think this is where my development has always been.

Whether it was in my previous art form or now with video, it is WHAT I can grub out for myself that matters. Now, I could NOT have been even contemplating this if it wasn't for the frontiersmen pushing forth for greater knowledge and application.

I don't think anybody here would argue that we all have to recognise the balance/struggle between form over function. Nope, I take that back, we always WILL be at loggerheads over this. But it is because of our own separate development.

What do I want? Presently I want the Canon A1. Why? 'cos I've see some stuff on it that indicates to me I could be stretching myself a lot more with it than I am at present with my kit. I can see the values of colour and layers being all the more valuable. Valuable 'cos I think this will add MORE to my story and provide me with content with which I could live far better. And strangely/ironically it is the HD > SD work I've seen that gets me going!

So, Mr J, that's were I stand.

Best regards,

Grazie

"we are far more enamored with the means than we are the end. We are more concerned about the tools than we are the finished product.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? My primary concern has always been content, but I also see the value in using high-quality equipment. Yes, at some point, investing in even higher quality equipment results in diminishing returns. As long as the equipment used doesn't get in the way of the story due to poor image or sound quality, then you have used equipment that is "good enough", anything more would be a waste of money, anything less would be unfortunate.

There is a huge difference between even a "lowly" V1u and the video recording capabilities of my cell phone. I have seen crap produced on mega equipment and I have seen brilliance produced on a cell phone camera. Of course, in the case of the cell phone brilliance, I end up wishing it would have been produced on something better.

John

And as for the YouTube argument, well, what about reality TV, that just proves you don't need a story for people to flock to it.
I'd have to disagree... there is a reason why these so-called "reality" shows hire writers. They create storylines out of the footage and may use editing to add drama into the show, even if it isn't necessarily what happened. You may not like those particular stories... but some people like them.

Artists have always had to deal with technique as well as concept.

Go to the simplest technical "art tool" - the stick of charcoal. (It don't get no simpler that that!)

Now look at the charcoal drawings of Jean Auguste-Dominique INGRES ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/048627621X/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-6507303-4381726#reader-link )
Talk about technique - wow!!
How close could any of you (us) get to something like THAT?

So what?
Well, we are artists in a highly technical format. To look at Ingres requires nothing more than eyes. To look at ANYTHING I have ever done requires an entire technical society to be fully functional.
(Huh?)
Yo brother... no electric - no Victor. In fact, no recent computer PLUS Windows XP - no Victor. Sobbing heard in background as Victor continues... "I have a Gold award winning interactive show I produced in 1997 [wow ten whole years ago!!] that I CAN'T EVEN SHOW ANYONE - because who the hell has Windows 95 anymore??... sobbing stops as MIlt gathers himself. "Ingres stuff is over two hundred years old. Who's gonna even be able to SEE my stuff in two hundred years - when I can't even play stuff thats a decade old." Sobbing starts again...

ANYWAY...
anyone that bothers to read what I have to say, knows I continually harp on "Concept is King - go shoot something!"

Now, I had the good fortune to shoot and produce high-end stuff in full 35mm with sound by Howard Schwartz recording, Panavision cameras, scene by scene color correction on a Rank Cintel, 40 men crews, trucks, money and the best writers in the industry. Won a bunch of prizes, too.
I have ALSO had the good fortune to shoot and produce many projects in DV with two man crews (I always like an assistant to "help out") and Vegas. Won a bunch of prizes with that stuff, too.

Now I'm working in HDV - love it! (Still working toward new prizes)

Laurence (who I love, BTW)... if all you're doing is going onto YouTube, you don't need a whole lot of high-end equipment and processing (but you knew that, anyway).
CourseDesign - I liked that commercial (lurkers search for "how did they do that?") but my point (and question was) "What technology were they using to DELIVER such incredible quality on the internet?"

Now... to me... technique (or LACK of technique), equipment (or LACK of equipment) and process (or well you get it) -
all those elements are only PART of a successful project.

It's the artist who decides how important the color, resolution, saturation and all those other "words" are to his project. And those decisions make his or her "look", and we, the wonderful public, determine whether we like or hate that look.

If the recent documentary, Wings of Migration (RENT THIS VIDEO NOW!!!) or - "March of the Penguins" was shot on DV or a telephone, it simply would not have worked.
Likewise, if the recent documentary, "Sicko" was shot with 35mm and a crew with dolly - well, I doubt that it would have worked either. (Please don't flame me about "Sicko"... we're trying to talk CONCEPT here.)

So it is YOUR responsibility, as artist, to choose the medium that will best reflect your vision - or conversely - choose the concept that you have the money, skill and tools to execute.

We are in a technical artform. So in many ways, we must be technicians.
But to be successful, we must be artists First, and then master the skills we require to convince our audiences, "Hey... this is GOOD!"

That's the final trick.

best,
v

I've taken Jays good advice, had a good sleep, stood in the sun, smelled the flowers, even rearranged the underwear.

I think we're all wrong, even Jim Freely and for the wrong reason.
We're duped by the nature of the web as a medium. Visit any video or film forum and it's all about the techie stuff. One could wrongly conclude that that's all anyone sweats over, that no one thinks the story or content is important. But I think that's the wrong conclusion (well I sure hope so), it's quick and easy to post "Should I buy an A1 or a V1?" and you'll get enough opinions to keep you reading for hours.
But if you'd spent 5 years refining a script the very nature of the web doesn't lend itself to "Here's my 500 page screenplay but I think the dialogue at the end of scene 67 is a bit off, anyone got any opinions?" A story I suspect needs face to face communication to discuss, we need all the things humans use to communicate to have a meaningfull dialogue about it, unlike all the techie stuff you can't reduce it to a set of numbers.

It's the same here, we talk about this and that NLE but they're only tools, all get the job done one way or another. Very, very rarely do we discuss what really matters, the art of editing, a bad cut is a bad cut no matter what it was done with. Just because we don't discuss it doesn't mean we don't devote a lot more time refining our craft than we spend discussing the tools of our craft.

Bob.