Quality in the Eyes of the Beholder...

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cameraguy:


Unfortunately picture quality does not matter to the average person. That may speed up the process of switching from film to digital. Plus if you shoot crappy video the S.O. effects won't look as fake as they would when mixed into higher resolution film.</font></font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can vouch for this. I belong to a video club and one of the members shot mini-dv outdoors at the Getty Center in Los Angeles.

When I asked if he was able to use some type of internal camera Neutral Density so that he could try and shoot at F 5.6 or F8.0 versus F 22 he said to me...

"I don't know Alex, I point the camera and it takes pretty pictures!" What I found so disappointing about this statement was this person was a former still photographer!

On the other hand, the argument that the filmmaker wants to see what the shot looks like right then and there is fine, but that's what polaroids are for!

Plus, aren't most of the mistakes that can go wrong with film developing now "fixable" in the digital domain?

Digital is always talked about in terms of replacing film rather than how it assists film to be even better.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 13, 2002 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[TA152]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 11:16 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[Greg Crawford]

It looks to me that this is a grater cultural issue.

For years still photography magazines have been idolizing mind replacing automatic feature. Way before digital became king.
Still Photo magazine readership had been declining. Articles offered less good how to stuff, only articles for newbees were featured.

The only still photo magazines that have good photos in them are fine art oriented and usually do not go into how to.

The same thing has been going on with Videomaker. To the point where the magazine publishes story borads and scripts for lazy people to shoot.

Jumping around again...from time to time I have shown my "Still Portfolio", sometimes I would hear, "What kind of camera do you own?" I would have been happier hearing what kind of lighting did you use. Or how did you create that mood and feeling?

It's always the technology that people are willing to pay for. When it comes to owning $$$ of studio equipment I can't compete with the cable companies. People are more interested in what format I'm shooting. or what editing system do I use. "No one ever asked Himingway what typewriter he used." ( I'm not sure who originally said that ). but it's true.

My still photography has given me a solid understnading of composition, lighting. optics and film.

My darkroom work has given me a understand of how far I can push the prossess.

Working in large format has givenme a more contomplative - Graphic orintation.

Shooting film has helped me lern how to light without making things look like a cookie cuter portrate studio shot. Along with how to light for movement. And an even better understanding of color tempeture, shooting wide open for selectivity and the art of collaborating.

In my video work, I try to remember what I have larned, the camera makes it much to easy from time to time. Or I find myself fighting with the automation.

[Mike Buckles]

Well Alex, you'll be proud to know that I recently bought an ND filter for my Mini DV camera, to control Depth of Field, and to open up the aperature to potentially saturate the color a bit more...so there is hope for camcorder users! Now I just have to get a polarizer for my super8...Mike

[Alex]

I'm assuming you purchased an ND6 or an ND9 filter, or an ND3 plus a polarizer.

One simple test you can do is to put your video camera on a tripod and throw it into the sea...ooops, kidding.

Put the video camera on the tripod and with the video camera on autoexposure, start rolling tape, and then take off the filter with the video camera rolling the whole time.

If you change your exposure requirements via the filters by three f-stops, going from an f16 to f5.6, I hope you see a difference.