Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment

The New School of Videographers 103

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the film-it-yourself dept.
Provataki writes "This editorial discusses the impending explosion of hobbyist artistic videographers, in the same way that happened with digital photography just a few short years ago. The article claims that it's time camera manufacturers create camcorders equivalent in principle to the cheap DSLRs that we currently enjoy. Some beautiful HD footage, shot by amateurs, is shown too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The New School of Videographers

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03, 2007 @10:15AM (#21223421)
    Are digital cameras (and even worse, camcorders), really a good thing? This well-written and thoughtful article [shelleytherepublican.com] argues that the answer is no.
    • by Laebshade (643478) <laebshade@gmail.com> on Saturday November 03, 2007 @10:36AM (#21223537)
      Technology will always have illegal, immoral uses. You can use a DVD to watch the latest G-rated animated movie or some (fake) snuff film (some would argue that such a film is immoral). You can use a gun to defend your house -- at least, in the U.S. -- or it can be used by "terrorists" to shoot your children. Just because it has illegal uses doesn't mean it should be hard or impossible to be obtained for legal purposes.
      • by JonWan (456212)
        some (fake) snuff film (some would argue that such a film is immoral).

        Why is a fake snuff film immoral? On the shelf right now I have "Gag", "Experiment in Torture", and A crummy Scifi called "Decoys". If you want to go more mainstream how about "Angel Heart"? As long as its fake it's only a movie. Ack just remembered the "Faces of Death" stuff.

        This isn't directed at the parent post, but to those people that think that a fake snuff film is immoral.

      • by kent_eh (543303) on Saturday November 03, 2007 @11:46AM (#21224001)
        Or anything really. Why do guns always make their way into "innocent uses" debates. It's a device designed to kill or injure, even when used with the best intentions.

        The list of examples is infinite: Baseball bat, carving knife, wrench, rope, candlestick, piece of pipe.....

        The important point is there are an unlimited number of things which have a beneficial primary use which, in the wrong hands, can be put to nefarious use.
        Including words. Look at the sort of baseless fearmongering use this "well-written and thoughtful" article has put to innocent, harmless words.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Bemopolis (698691)

          Or anything really. Why do guns always make their way into "innocent uses" debates. It's a device designed to kill or injure, even when used with the best intentions. The list of examples is infinite: Baseball bat, carving knife, wrench, rope, candlestick, piece of pipe.....

          Guns have a beneficial primary use for their owners: they allow them to pretend that the size of their genitalia are not three sigma off average. This is why big trucks driven by city-dwelling windshield cowboys always have gun racks i

          • by spacebird (859789)
            They also allow people to defend themselves against opponents who would otherwise be able to overpower them. A 120 lb woman stands very little chance against a 220 lb male mugger, for instance, but that same woman can easily use a 14 oz handgun to level the playing field and protect herself.
    • Well-written and thoughtful? That article read like an elaborate parody.
      • We really need smiley's on Slashdot.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fishead (658061)
        I kinda agree with Shelly. My wife's Grandmother should be classified as a "terrorist" with her digital camera. It used to be that the high cost of film and developing would somewhat limit how much she could terrorize everyone at family functions, but since she got her digital camera a few years ago, along with several large memory sticks, the terror has been unrelenting!
    • Are digital cameras (and even worse, camcorders), really a good thing? This well-written and thoughtful article [shelleytherepublican.com] argues that the answer is no.

      As much as I believe you when the words "well-written and thoughtful article" are followed by [shelleytherepublican.com], the article is full of factual inaccuracies and downright lies.

      For example, the following:

      The majority of liberals who own expensive digital cameras are members of "kiddie-porn clubs".

      ...deserves a Wikipedia-style "citation needed" :)

      • by PitaBred (632671)
        You know, I really think that the next version of the HTML standard needs to add in <sarcasm> tags, just so articles like that will be unambiguous to the slow people of the world. I'm also a fan of implementing the Evil bit.
    • The only interesting thing I found in that article is that it proves just how much some people are ruled by an insane fear of everything and everybody. Playing the "protect the children" card to advocate restricting cameras is about as low as one can go. Likewise, using terrorism to advocate a police state is just flat out insane.

      Oh, and attempting to spin documented cases of police brutality and flagrant abuse of power as "harassment" of cops is mind-bogglingly detached from all link to reality.

      It all pl
    • by 49152 (690909)
      Well written and thoughtful article? [shelleytherepublican.com] Hehe, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

      Actually, this is excellent satire. :-)
    • I love how this article refers to "This foreign-made camera is one of Osama's eyes in America." A kit Nikon D70? I have the same camera, and last time I took pictures with it, guess what, I DIDN'T send them to Osama. I'll probably be on a watch list now though since I own a digital Nikon. Show me an American MADE camera, SHOW ME Tristen...I wonder where the car you drive was made? (and I don't mean BUILT)

      The thing that gets my goat here is does this person actually believe this clap trap or is she simply
      • A kit Nikon D70? I have the same camera, and last time I took pictures with it, guess what, I DIDN'T send them to Osama.
        Not that you know of... it secretly connects via an open wifi AP when you walk, I mean park, within range.

        P.S. Canon are better.
    • Shelleytherepublican is *satire* people. Out of the 10 or 11 passionate replies in this thread, only one person seems to have noticed that. Everyone else, consider yourselves trolled.
      • by jamstar7 (694492)

        Shelleytherepublican is *satire* people. Out of the 10 or 11 passionate replies in this thread, only one person seems to have noticed that. Everyone else, consider yourselves trolled.

        Tru dat.

        But how many people REALLY believe this satire is for real? My sister, goddess love her, really believes that Bush is not only right but the best president ever, that the Iraqis had WMDs, that the Iraqis were getting ready to use said WMDs on the US, and only President Bush can save us.

        • Yeah. That's why the satire is so good. The fact that so many people fall for it and think that those articles are serious is a testament to its power. The comments section enhances the satire like no other similar satire can (Colbert does the same thing, but his format does not lend itself to comments and also doesn't fool as many people). Reading the comments on every article on that site is one of my favorite exercises. 49% "shelley you're so right!" 49% "oh my god this is horrible how could you say this
    • by m2943 (1140797)
      You know, the sad thing is: I can't tell whether the article is supposed to be serious. There really are nuts like that out there.
    • I am glad that this has been moderated as "Funny". For a second there I thought you were actually serious. After reading the article, it has become apartment to me that our country has a lot worse problems than readily available digital cameras or even Islamofascists.
  • by EtoilePB (1087031) on Saturday November 03, 2007 @10:39AM (#21223557)
    This was just on the cusp of being A Potential Big Deal when I was doing my master's in film school (finished in 2005). But honestly, the failure of most amateur and professional narrative (fiction -and- nonfiction) films is not the framing or the filming or the colors or the shots or the material. The failure is that not nearly as many people are as funny or as clever as they think they are. They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.

    Over the coming next few years it'll be really interesting to see what *does* happen with more technology and less expense in the hands of amateurs and of professionals and of the "aspiring" class stuck between the two. But for now, YouTube ahoy.
    • They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.

      Fortunately, there's a ridiculously large number of professional writers who do, but who can't really break into Hollywood without so much work that they'd rather just be writers.

      I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a new class of films where the writer is more like a director and the director is more like a camera coordinator.
    • by MrSteveSD (801820)

      But honestly, the failure of most amateur and professional narrative (fiction -and- nonfiction) films is not the framing or the filming or the colors or the shots or the material. The failure is that not nearly as many people are as funny or as clever as they think they are. They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.

      Well sound tends to be awful, lighting tends to be awful (because proper lighting is expensive and awkward) and the actors tend to be pretty ugly.

      • by jamstar7 (694492)

        ell sound tends to be awful, lighting tends to be awful (because proper lighting is expensive and awkward) and the actors tend to be pretty ugly.

        Been watching a lotta Star Trek fanfic video lately, eh?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981)

      The failure is that not nearly as many people are as funny or as clever as they think they are. They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.

      200% true! In fact you can see this effect in professional TV every day. Despite the amount of money spent, and training, if the talent isn't there...

      However, the beauty of this new system is it does allow more cream to rise. (not a pr0n reference, although that is also true) I trained as a videographer and film cameraman

      • by nixman99 (518480)
        . . . the fact that the UK film and TV industry in the past 20 years is at best mediocre, and at worst, truly awful. There's very little new ideas, fresh blood and innovation.

        That's mostly true of Hollywood as well; they just have larger marketing budgets.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Confused (34234)
      The same thing was said about Super-8, VHS and any other film format whenever the prices for the recorders dropped and they became affordable.

      In a photograph, it's usually good enough if one gets two out of the framing, lightning and content right for moderate useful results. Even blind chicken manage that from time to time, if they take enough pictures.

      For a video, the same applies but for the whole duration of the clip, and then to add complexity to the matter, the clip needs also some story it tells and
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ahoehn (301327)
      Certainly there's some truth there, but digital photography has shown us that more accessibility to "professional" tools generally means more beautiful art being produced by "amateurs". I'm sure if you look at the average flickr submission, there are plenty of awful photographs, but if you look at the photos that others have found most interesting [flickr.com], or head over to photo.net and look at their Top Photos [photo.net] [Warning: Occasional Boobies!], you can see that there is a vast pool of outstanding photographic talent
      • I don't think we need look to digital stills to see what will happen with cheaper video equipment -- we need only look at YouTube. There has been no cream floating there. A lot of the popular stuff is purile pap generated by bored teens.

        Ah but Flickr and Photos.com... Flickr and photos nothing. Still photography is much more accessible to the producer, yes, but much less accessible to the consumer. So while photos.com ratings are gathered by a comtemplative specialist audience, YouTube ratings are gathere

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ahoehn (301327)
          You're missing the essential difference between Photo.net and Youtube. Photo.net is dedicated to ranking its content on artistic merit, while Youtube seems to be dedicated to ranking its content on merit of entertainment value.

          Which is, of course, why I said that part of the equation is the development of "the tools to find that fantastic footage."
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Half-pint HAL (718102)

            No, you're missing both the essential difference and the essential similarity.

            Similarity: there is no tool that can find aesthetically pleasing content -- this is a job for humans.

            Difference: the humans on photo sites appreciate quality aesthetics, the humans on video sites appreciate titties and mischief.

            Unless you have a closed club, this will always be the way. Viddler et al are happy just now, but there's a flood of MPEG diahorrea headed there way....

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by g0at (135364)

              Similarity: there is no tool that can find aesthetically pleasing content -- this is a job for humans.

              Difference: the humans on photo sites appreciate quality aesthetics, the humans on video sites appreciate titties and mischief.

              I think both you and your GP are missing another point, to some extent: It's [relatively] easy to shoot a good still photo, and post it. It takes a *lot more* effort (in terms of man-hours) to create a good film. Ergo, we'll typically find a proportionately larger amount of good still photography, compared with well-cut moving pictures.

              Yeah, I'm both an amateur still photographer and film (well, video) editor.

              b

    • My prediction is that the field is gonna go the way of every artistic field where the barrier to entry sharply dropped - more talented people will enter the industry because they had to the drive to do it with a decent home DV camcorder, and they're gonna push out the people who fell in to the industry and are sailing along just because of their resume. This is currently happening in animation - with the influx of animation training and computer technology decreasing the barrier to entry that traditional pe
    • Many amateur videographers don't (yet) have much experience with the timing, editing, rhythm or natural structure of film. Think of it this way: music is taught to children from preschool, yet the recent explosion in home studio hardware and software has lead to a lot of mixed results. Some amateur music is really, really good; some is not. On the other hand, how many of us have *ever* had a chance to try being creative on film?

      This isn't a new phenomenon. We saw the same thing when people suddenly h
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      actually yes. typically better than people that have a masters in film school. Talk to most of the Indy directors that made it big.

      the art of writing a good story and telling it can not be learned. you CANT learn to be an incredible story teller. you have to have the gift.

      The thing is you NEED to learn is cinematography. you either pay money to do it or you grab a camera and start learning it. both ways end up with fantastic DP's and cinematographers. Same for editing. you either pay to learn or simpl
  • by morari (1080535)
    I had been using a super old VHS camera found in a garage for years until I decided to purchase a nice little MiniDV one last summer. Great purchase for the price, though sub par low light performance. I'm finally comfortable with the digital editing programs (I personally like Vegas) and have to struggle to scrounge up wanna-be actors that'll work for peanuts. :P
  • TFAuthor says "KDEnLive, Avidemux2 and Cinellera crash way too much for my taste"
    So how often is that? For me it's once. For any software. At this rate, I'll never get to software Nirvana because authors are too busy adding "features" than optimizing and fixing old code.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by linuxpyro (680927)
      I use Cinelerra on occasion, and find that it's not too bad... If you're willing to get to know it and learn how not to anger it. After a while you can get the hang of things and find what you can and can't do safely. At that point it's actually not that hard to be productive.

      It's also not very intuitive. Again, once you learn it it's not bad, but for someone who's new to it it can be tough. This was the issue my brother ran into; his PC runs Ubuntu quite well, and when he wanted to edit video I sugges
      • If you're willing to get to know it and learn how not to anger it. After a while you can get the hang of things and find what you can and can't do safely. At that point it's actually not that hard to be productive.

        Well, as you say, it is possible to use Cinelerra, but video editing is still one of the major weaknesses of Open Source, and in my case, it's the only thing that keeps me from getting rid of my Windows partition =/ There's nothing like Premiere or Vegas, and let's not talk about Final Cut or AV

    • Every 10 minutes. I have my way to crash them by actually using them instead of petting them.
  • ...because I was reading Amateur Photographer last week, which was discussing DSLRs that could take multiple photographs at near-film/video frame rates. The implication was that users (or the camera) would take many close-together photographs, with the best one being chosen later. It was discussing the implications of this on still photography. (Of course, it could be argued that users of cameras with high-speed motorised film transport- which has been around for years- are already doing this to a large ext
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dangitman (862676)

      I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras. It's about having affordable HD video cameras in a similar segment to the affordable still digital cameras we have now. You can get inexpensive digital SLRs that allow full manual control, interchangeable lenses and excellent ergonomics. However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on, has shitty ergonomics, and any manual controls (if pre

      • by Dogtanian (588974)

        I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras.

        I wasn't really suggesting that it was; that was (bad) paraphrasing of what the article was about.

        However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on

        DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.

        Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated

        • by Dogtanian (588974)
          To clarify, this:-

          DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.

          Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated devices (either compacts or "bridge" cameras) with non-changeable lenses.

          ...was discussing affordable *still* DSLRs, and trying to make the point that they've not been around long either. Of course, affordable film SLRs have been around much longer.

        • by dangitman (862676)

          DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.

          That's certainly true. But what caused it? One thing that intrigues me about still photography is that there is serious competition over quality in a way that hardly seems to exist elsewhere in the consumer electronics industry. Are Nikon and Canon just "special" companies? They really seem to make products with the user in mind - innovating in both technology and usability. While in other areas you get competition on price, and on paper specs, but rarely the whole experience. And still SLRs, even inexpen

  • by tinrobot (314936) on Saturday November 03, 2007 @11:26AM (#21223853)
    Cheap and good audio equipment won't make you a better musician, cheap and good digital cameras don't make you a better photographer, cheap and good electronic publishing don't make you a better writer. The technology doesn't make the art, but it does open doors to people who have the talent, but not the money.

    The same goes with video. A cheap and good HD camera will not make you a better filmmaker, it will simply allow those with filmmaking talent more opportunity to explore and hone their craft.

    All this technology is great, and it's very democratizing. It allows more people to pursue their creativity, and also offers the truly talented more opportunity to rise to the top.
    • Cheap and good audio equipment won't make you a better musician, cheap and good digital cameras don't make you a better photographer

      Products like ACID and GarageBand make me a better "musician," if you first understand that I cannot play any instrument. Modern cameras make me a better "photographer," because I'm nearsighted and really need the auto-focus, and because not having to deal with various exposure settings gives me that much more time to frame the shot. Similarly, Photoshop doesn't make me an ar

    • by Eivind (15695)
      Cheap and good audio-equipment won't make -you- a better musician, but it will indeed lead to more good musicians overall. Because when the barriers to entry into a field are lower, more people get a chance at seriously trying it out. Which mean the overall talent-pool is larger.

      Back when only 1% of the people ever had a chance at trying their hand at photography, not many discovered they had the passion and talent for it.

      Today everyone gets to try. True, most have no particular talent for it, or no interes
  • I'll absolutely agree with some of the points - mainly that cheaper videocameras have made amateur videographers more numerous and producing more professional looking shots.

    I'm not so sure AVCHD is going to replace HDV anytime soon - maybe for true amateurs. But I digress.

    The raving about the Canon HV20 being the best consumer HD camera today, is, in my opinion correct. Now, I'm one of those new breed of "amateur" videographers, but instead of making nature shots, I'm filming feature indie document
    • Now this is what gets me... everyone keeps going on about mic jacks, like we've got to record our audio and visuals on the same tape.

      What I want is a simple time-sync link so that I can use a field recorder to get my sound without the usual in-editor syncing rigmarole. (Yes, there may be some time offsetting required to account for equipment lags and difference in the speeds of sound and light, but it would still be easier.) And I'd also be able to sync multiple cameras.

      As an example of why this would he

      • by Machtyn (759119)
        I'm doing this already, but it is EXTREMELY cumbersome. Audacity on one screen for audio editing. Then paste the audio into Ulead VideoStudio 10's one of 3 audio tracks. Place the main camera video on the main video track. Add the second camera's video on another track. Slice and dice and watch the frames very carefully to make sure I don't have a bad Japanese movie in the making (mouth movements out of sync with the audio).

        Yeah, I'm at the consumerist level. At some point I'm going to take a film c
    • by Ivan124 (1184065)
      I own the canon md101 which is canon's entry level minidv camcorder. In the US it is referred to as the ZR800. It does have a microphone in jack. Recording in low light conditions could be better though.
  • It drives me nuts that almost all of the consumer price range camcorders from most vendors are missing external microphone connectors and headphone jacks. Unstructured camera movement and far off camera audio are two of the obvious "amateur" mistakes.

    It is much harder to create video that has creative value than this article suggests. Flickr (which I really like) does have some really great stuff, but I think much of it is of a particular style-super saturated colors, lots of depth of field, ample post pr
    • Both the HV20 and the ZR800 that are mentioned in the article have external mic connectors. I don't buy cameras without a mic input either -- even if it's not in XLR format.
  • I don't mean this as a troll, but it seems to me that a lot needs to come together before somebody can produce a good video. If you put a professional DSLR in the hands of an amateur like me as he travels the world, he will almost certainly take five or ten excellent pictures in a year. Sometimes you just get blessed with excellent natural illumination on an interesting scene, and the camera chooses just the right shutter settings. For me, roughly one out of a thousand pictures is a masterpiece and ten are
  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Saturday November 03, 2007 @02:12PM (#21225051) Journal
    Why?

    A variety of reasons:

    1. the most important part of a video is? The Audio. You can take something that was shot on a fischer-price pixelvision [wikipedia.org] camera, and if you finesse the audio - it can "look" awesome. Audio matters in a first rank kind of way.

    1. the other most important part of a video is? Storytelling. If it doesn't tell a compelling story, or an interesting story in a compelling manner, nobody gives a flying fuck. The wasteland of 20th century "experimental" cinema is proof. Andy Warhol did a 24 hour film of the Empire state building, and it was a pointless waste of filmic Koolaid that the avant garde sucked right down. Kubrick, Wenders, Herzog, and even into documentary filmmaking - the list is long - and it all proves one thing: Storytelling matters, and is tied with Sound for #1 importance.

    2. Editing. Editing is #2, and it's a close 2.Editing won't fix a broken story, and it won't make something sound better. But it can take a mediocre story and make it more compelling. So editing is #2.

    3. Acting. Assuming one is not doing straight nature documentary, Acting is required. There are a variety of vagaries around this - charisma is hard to pin down. But it is necessary, if one is going to make a compelling video or film.

    4. Lighting. Lighting DOES matter, but it can be "worked" - sunlight is fine, if variable - but it helps to have a light bounce around to add some clarity and reduce shadows a bit. As a consequence, Lighting is a definite 4th. It doesn't usually break something, but it can make something.

    5. Catering. If you have a crew that consists of someone other than yourself, FEED THEM. Seriously.A well fed crew and actors are a happier bunch who can do good work. If everyone is scampering off to feed themselves, you lose control of the set, esp. in an amateur / non-union production.

    So - ALL of these things exist outside of the HD format, and they exist solely in the field of pre and post production. So: now we come to amateur productions in HD:

    The sound? Sucks - built in camera microphone. Arf. You can hear the camera whirring. It's tinny and lame.

    Story? What story? Cat poops on bed! Ewwww! end of story. that's a great use of technology. Or: the "avant garde" film maker who sits and shakes the camera while a naked woman reads the phone book. Great. That's something I'll remember forever. After I beat the crap out of the filmmaker for wasting 10 minutes of my life.

    Acting? My sister was an understudy for her high school production of 1776! She's GREAT! Not.

    Lighting? Hey - those CFLs are GREAT!

    etc. etc. etc. Putting ever higher technology in the hands of citizens does NOT guarantee higher quality work, except in the narrow and meaningless sense of it being in some precise and lovely format that is de facto to the technology itself.

    It's not bad that they have access to the tech, it's just no promise of quality.

    RS

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by talexb (223672)
      Mod parent up.

      Sound is essential to a great production. I can remember in more difficult times watching a rented movie on a fourteen inch TV, but with stereo sound going to a great set of speakers. (It was a phenomenal film called Delicatessan.) The presentation was terrific, and you completely forgot that the screen was tiny -- compared to the 32 inch screen I watch now.

      The sound and the pictures are supposed to support each other -- if there's clearly a mismatch, it's painful to watch and listen. If there
    • Hear, hear. Audio is by far the most important element when assembling a video project. Your audio drives your narrative, and can compensate for mediocre or lousy video shots. I actually started shooting and editing video stories for the newspaper I work for several months ago, and I recently put together a list of tips and suggestions for budding videographers. [beloblog.com]
      Oh, and one other thing I learned (the hard way): don't try to edit your movie in the Vista version of Movie Maker. Heartache will surely follow [beloblog.com]
    • Videography is not about making indie films with actors. At least not always. So what you say here is not always relevant or important.
  • I own a Sanyo Xacti C40. I love the ease of use and it does passable SHQ video at 30fps. On a 2gb SD card I can squeeze about an hour and a half of video.

    One thing I wish it had is a jack for an external microphone. I might just hack one into the thing since there is room in there to add a 1/8" jack.

    The other thing it needs help with is low-light performance. That can be easily solved as I plan to build an LED based lighting ring that snaps around the lens body. And I know this camera can see infrared
  • Many good comments about talent vs. gear have already been posted. Better equipment does not make up for lack of training/skills/raw talent but it does open the doors for more people to give it a try.

    Remember when Desktop Publishing was going to make everyone a professional writer and typesetter? Yeah, that didn't happen, but the landscape did change a bit as those with the relevant skills adapted to the new technology.

    Just for fun, I thought I'd pull the following two quotes.

    From the Canon website: "The st
    • >Movies? TV shows?

      I was speaking about ripped shows, not about shows recorded with these cameras. The point was to show that 24p is important for video editing, not that the HV20 is capable of doing uber-professional TV show recordings.
  • I don't think any part of the article insinuated that having cheap HD cameras available was going to make anyone a great filmmaker. The rambling on about sound, lighting, framing, story, etc. is obvious and extends to any art form.

    The real point is that having these inexpensive cameras available allows those with the talent and patience to produce the quality for which cost was the barrier before. The rating sites where they can upload their product and get recognized easily gives them a far better chance
    • I have already done that. I have downloaded much of Vimeo's HD content, re-encoded it when necessary to .mp4 h.264 and I play it back through our PS3 to our 55" HDTV. It looks great!
      • by ashitaka (27544)
        Great minds think alike! :-)

        What did you use for the re-encoding?

        My own implementation of this will have to wait for the projector and Screen Goo wall paint.
        • Most of the time is not necessary to re-encode, as they are on the right format already. But when I need to re-encode I just use Vegas Pro 8 at 5mbps. FFMpeg is able to do the job too btw.
  • Vimeo seems to offer the best value for HD seekers but they don't have the funding that Goo Tube has and they're just not gaining enough popularity to boost advertizing revenue. Web 3.0 may be the breakout cycle for HD, but for now the crowds are dictating what services survive and that means Goo Tube.

  • an infinite supply of cat, bug macro, and sunset videos...
  • Just my opinion, but HD video is not that great.

    HD has a low bit-rate compared to proper DV video, HD camcorders do not record PCM audio like DV video does - and actually uses an outdated audio codec (and at a low bit-rate). HD also is harder to edit and lower quality thanks to it not recording every single frame as one complete image like DV does.

    Add to that, most new camcorders seem to record on non-removable hard drives or memory cards - stupidly difficult to backup onto something other than yet another
    • You are talking bullshit (or you are just baiting). AVCHD records in 5.1 Surround, and DV is as much interlaced as HDV is. So all your points are mute, except that it requires more PC resources to edit HD video -- which is normal.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...