DV dumbing down?

sorry...

Sorry guys... looks like i've screwed up the poll :O just edited it to correct spelling and it all went awry! Ah that'll teach me... sorry... ignore second no and second yes! :S!

Fixed it for you. You have to delete the old poll, you can't just erase the other poll options and start over.

8)

If someone refuses to take the time to learn good production techniques and picture composition and the like, then the project will look like crap and it won’t get any serious recognition. I think DV allows people who would be excluded economically to participate and find a career they love. The basics are the same. There are more voyeurs (people who think they will like filmmaking only to make one or two short videos and give it up), and that will lead to an increase in poor quality programs. This will make it harder for the good stuff to filter to the top because the total pool is greater. However, I think that these technological advances will ultimately help the industry. I got to see a demonstration of some of the new Sony video projectors they’re trying to get installed into theatres, and the picture is fantastic. There are still some differences but most consumers probably won’t notice. This will reduce the distribution costs and allow even grater access that DV started. I think that since the whole process is cheaper and more streamlined every day, that what’s going to happen is that the next prodigy is going to be some kid in his back yard using his father’s camera and editing on his laptop. Is that a bad thing?

First and foremost, I find some of the things written here to be absurd.

One, just because a filmmaker doesn't yet have the money to make a 35mm film, or just because he is just starting out with a mini DV doesn't make him talentless.

Second, why would I ever want to shoot on Film? I have no sentimental ties to it. I have no need to slow my production down. Have you seen Once Upon a Time in Mexico? Film isn't dying (it'll never die cause some people will always prefer it), but it's soon to be on the backburner. I hear this stuff about preparing like I was shooting on film. Why? I'm not shooting on film, I'm shooting on video (today SD, tomorrow HD). Like it our not, you don't have to light a DV scene the way you would a film. Just today, I shot an important interview for national news; I didn't have the time to set up my light kit, so I used available lighting and positioned the interviewee in a position where I could take advantage of the lighting his house contained (a lamp, an overhead bulb, and sun coming in from a window). If I was shooting on film I would have spent two hours setting things up. Now, while I would prefer to set up my light kit, I can make do with DV. Just because I didn't set up a ton of lights and prep for 24 hrs, didn't make me any less creative. In fact, I had to be more creative because of my need for speed.

DV is not killing creativity, it's feeding it!

I find the notion that set up time equals creativity absolutely silly. Think about it, the word create means to make something out of nothing. How does setting up a bunch of lights mean creativity?

Not that we should shoot everything on DV in ava. lighting wih no prep. Completely on the contrary. We should prep, we should set up lighting well. But those things don't define our creativity.

Now, DV is increasing competition, thus driving down the costs of movies, thus driving down the money you can make being a filmmaker. So we may be leaving the world of twenty million dollar actors and entering the world where being a filmmaker is just like being a mechanic.

Poke

Yes and No.

I think the absurd speed at which one can shoot and edit a short is making people pre-plan less about their projects and ideas. I'm not talking lighting and crew, etc. but just basic shot and storytelling planning. I think we have more 'running and gunning' now because video stock and equipment is so cheap, which leads to less planned films most of the time. I think most the people in this forum are an exception. But for every one of them(who wants to pre-plan and script and think things through), there are 2 people who just want to make their own Jackass stunts and skateboard videos...which is fine...I'm just saying you're always going to have people who think they can shoot a film without planning anything, it's just way cheaper and way more accessible now with digital video, so it's gonna happen more often.

But on the flip side, since Video is so cheap, more can be tried and experimented with, which leads down the path of creativity. And since it's cheaper, more people will have the opportunity to create films without the expensive costs.

I don't think DV will crush the creativity of an already creative person, but it will create a person who thinks they can be creative only because they own a miniDV cam and some software. You're only as good as your ideas, not your technology.

DV Good

I think this is a really interesting question.

If I look at film history, new movements and new voices have always emerged as a result of shifts in technology, which bring production costs down and put film making into the hands of new people.

A good example of this, are the light weight 16 mm film cameras developed for war reports, during WW II. This then allowed, non studio, location film making to develop and brought about Italian Social Realism, which in turn influenced English Social realism in the 1960s.

We are currently in a similar position. New, cheap, portable technology is bringing down production costs. Computer power now means that editing suites are increasing in power and decreasing in price.

This will change things. New styles and voices will emerge.

Whether this will also bring about a lot of bad, lazy work as well, I guess the answer to that is probably, yes. However, that work will fade away into obscurity. Those people who believe that anyone can make a film, will discover that it's not the technology, but the ability to create compelling drama that makes good films.

Having done a lot of work on various professional DV formats, the other thing I have become more aware of, is that video requires very high levels of technical competence to compete with film as a creative medium. It requires very delicate lighting and creative understanding of colour temperature. On most video formats the colours are over saturated and because it handles low light well, it makes for real problems getting sufficient/creative use of depth of field, unless you are on the long end of the lens.

There will always be lazy film makers, who think that everything can get fixed in post. Don't worry about good composition, I'll re-frame it in post. Don't worry about good exposure or colour balance, I'll fix it in post etc. However, I don't think those people will emerge as the new voices of this time. There are many technical challenges to working with these new DV formats. rather than de-skilling people, I think that it will force people to develop new skills.

This is a great time to be an emerging film maker.[/i]

...and then I realized if you think shooting "MTV style" take after take is the way to make quality cinema, I can see how you might be conused on whether this generation was getting lazy. In a broad sense, I agree, but quality cinema from lumiere times until now and will forever remain unchanged.

First of all, allow me to say "ditto" to Poke's comments. He nailed it in my opinion.

However, I do have one thing to add. I For me, half of the fun is the adventure of discovering for myself what works and what doesn't. Sure, I've studied the principle concepts of film making from camera angles to good sound to effective edits to 3 point lighting.

But like I said, one of the most exciting aspects is the process of discovery. If I'm forced to follow a cookie cutter mold, half of the fun is removed. Some learn better by doing. It would be a mistake to write these folks off.

While some are sitting by dreaming of film, others are learning by doing in a highly affordable fashion, and having fun telling stories in the process - not to mention developing great relationships in the industry.

Regards,

Hutch DeLoach

I agree. Poke's got it down. The people who are lazy won't make it very far anyway because...they're lazy. I don't understand why taking the hard route (Film) to make movies is supposed to be "SO MUCH BETTER". The only advantage that film has over video is picture quality (and even that is changing). Video/DV makes things easier, which in turn gives the filmmaker more time AND money to spend on other aspects of their movie. DV is great and it can only cause good things to happen in the long run!

Re: DV Good

clive said:

Having done a lot of work on various professional DV formats, the other thing I have become more aware of, is that video requires very high levels of technical competence to compete with film as a creative medium. It requires very delicate lighting and creative understanding of colour temperature. On most video formats the colours are over saturated and because it handles low light well, it makes for real problems getting sufficient/creative use of depth of field, unless you are on the long end of the lens.

Click to expand...

Can anyone recommend a good book that discusses the subjects of lighting, colour temperature, etc. in DV?

Regarding lighting and color temperature, I suppose the bottom line for me is the awesome opportunity to monitor in realtime what the camera is actually capturing. A good monitor is almost as essential as a good camera - in some cases more essential. This means we don't have to "guess" what's going to develop on film - we can see in realtime what we are producing on video tape. As such, much of the pressures associated with the more technical concepts such as color temperature for film don't carry the same level of urgency for video tape. After all, the eye is the final judge or critic for video or film and we can use our eyes in realtime for video production as opposed to post production for film.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Hutch

Film V DV - from my view.

That is true and video is definately an easier way to see what is being seen by your capture device.
But with cinematography - (film cinematography) - you adapt to it so that you start seeing contrast and how the film might see it through your own eyes with experience and skill. The look of film is a whole character issue. With film you can work to fantastic luminance ratios, and really, if you want that sort of contrast you can only get it with film. HD is very very close to it! And if you're fortunate enough to have an HD camera without having to fork out expensive hire rates it's an amazing tool! Anything lower than HD really does not aspire to the quality that film gives. DV below HD is as flat as a pancake!
but! It's not just the quality of film that makes me a fan of it, it's also the process. It's not about it being more time consuming it's about it being a discipline. Loading, unloading, neg reports really keeps a very tight discipline to the shoot! If you muck up you waste money and therefore for people at the low end - training on film is the best way to get efficient! You learn the hard way!

My 2 cents

In my opinion DV is an outstanding way to plot a film. I understand that 35 millimeter is definately the way to go if you want to be recognized and that there are a great many people who will place production values over the story. As a writer I think that the only reason DV could be considered bad is because it expedites the filmmaking process and makes it so any one with a camera can go out in the backyard and shoot a movie. I'm not knocking this, I've even done a few of those myself, but the problem comes when these backyard goof offs are presented as more than they really are.

I'm interested in the filmmaking process and I am trying to get into it. I think DV is a great step to allow filmmakers with little to no financial backing to bring their stories to life. I do agree that if you care about a project you will work to make it the best it can be, but I can't criticize someone for wanting to get their story out there. I guess you can look at it like a Christmas gift. Some people obsess over the details and will even miss the day making sure everything is absolutely perfect and others put their gifts together and give them away early without the wrapping paper and other trimmings that we've come to expect. That doesn't make the gift any worse for the giving.

I think that as long as the story is well thought out, entertaining and coherent it's worth releasing if for no other reason to get (constructive) criticizm from those people who may eventually make or break your career. This is not to say that production value is useless. The audience must be able to follow the character's journey so sound and picture quality must be there.

I have seen my share of "bad" DV films, but I have enough emapthy to realize that someone's heart went into each one of them and while I might not like the final product, I am not the be all end all of film. I think that's the attitude everyone who looks at a film needs to have.

Like the title says this is My 2 Cents, take it or leave it.

William J Long III

My 2 cents

In my opinion DV is an outstanding way to plot a film. I understand that 35 millimeter is definately the way to go if you want to be recognized and that there are a great many people who will place production values over the story. As a writer I think that the only reason DV could be considered bad is because it expedites the filmmaking process and makes it so any one with a camera can go out in the backyard and shoot a movie. I'm not knocking this, I've even done a few of those myself, but the problem comes when these backyard goof offs are presented as more than they really are.

I'm interested in the filmmaking process and I am trying to get into it. I think DV is a great step to allow filmmakers with little to no financial backing to bring their stories to life. I do agree that if you care about a project you will work to make it the best it can be, but I can't criticize someone for wanting to get their story out there. I guess you can look at it like a Christmas gift. Some people obsess over the details and will even miss the day making sure everything is absolutely perfect and others put their gifts together and give them away early without the wrapping paper and other trimmings that we've come to expect. That doesn't make the gift any worse for the giving.

I think that as long as the story is well thought out, entertaining and coherent it's worth releasing if for no other reason to get (constructive) criticizm from those people who may eventually make or break your career. This is not to say that production value is useless. The audience must be able to follow the character's journey so sound and picture quality must be there.

I have seen my share of "bad" DV films, but I have enough emapthy to realize that someone's heart went into each one of them and while I might not like the final product, I am not the be all end all of film. I think that's the attitude everyone who looks at a film needs to have.

Like the title says this is My 2 Cents, take it or leave it.

William J Long III