Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

St Petersburg, RU
3571 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: D7000 or D3100....long rant"

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Sat 02-Oct-10 06:09 AM | edited Sat 02-Oct-10 06:17 AM by km6xz

Jarvis also did a video before the D90 came out which compelled hundreds of thousands of people to buy the D90 who were not even that interested in stills.
The fact that there was no Jell-o effect was the same reason panning artifacts are not seen in 35mm 24 frame film: knowing how to shoot a video/film that tells a story intended while working within the range of technical limitations. Shoot well and skillfully and there is no Jell-o effect with any camera, plan scenes like they mean something and be in control.
This is why the whole video craze now it going to sell lots of gear, and ensure lots of upgrades and billions spent but most results in frustration. Shooting a compelling video that is worth watching is not much related to equipment, it is the skill and creativity of the production team. Yes, team, Jarvis, even in his apparent Gonzo style of finished product has a whole production team of people who know what they are doing and have individual expertise.

I have been around production of commercial video, film and music recording almost all my life and every one of the products that resulted in getting attention and meant something was done by a team of skilled craftsmen. I have never seen a totally amateur one man operation pull it off, despite the claims that new cheap equipment can make anyone into a cinematographer. It did not happen in the 90s when cheap digital recording gear was bought by the millions of units by people who believed that all they lacked in getting to be stars was money for pro gear. That is the same thinking that makes people ask, when you show them a candid you took that is really attractive(even if they are not in person) and they asked "what camera are you using, it must be very good?" It is the same mentality but this time it is the amateur video dabbler who is asking the question. The point is, the new cheap gear has some great specs and if specs meant anything that would be significant. But specs mean nothing to the finished product. None of those million of home recording artists produced much of interest and most faded away and sought other hobbies, some think the same way about video now that they did before with audio production. A skilled team could take this gear, or old pro gear and turn out solid interesting work. When I was active in recording, at one one time there are about 8 studio teams that produced 80% of the hit records, out of thousands of studios. When the home recording hit it big, the ratio of hits to wannabes expanded exponentially where millions were trying but even fewer produced anything of interest. If it was easy and did not require rare skills everyone could do it but they tried an couldn't. Fast forward to 2010. Everyone thinks they can produce a video that people want to watch. What a waste of energy, money and enthusiasm. If someone has the talent, a very rare quality, it is easier than ever to get funding for real projects. They do not have to invest anything in gear.

The whole point is, for the Jarvis team, and lots of other skilled teams, a D90, or a Kodak 8mm (ask George Lukas what his first notable film was shot with) is not a limitation that prevents work you are willing to watch.

Want to be happy with your videos? Forget specs and apparent limitations, learn how to get what you want despite gear, but be prepared to spend a GREAT more time than the general impression by outsiders think goes into something worth watching. Also, any weak link in your production that make to the final product will negate all the work. For example field audio. There is no such thing as a video camera recording acceptable sound with camera mounted mics so the angst over no built in stereo mics proves and such concerned future buyer of this gear is in for real frustration. Syncing sound and image as if they flow together and keep pushing the story along is a skill few think about or believe is important solely BECAUSE it is done so well in all the theatrical and commercial productions they have ever seen.
Sure, a cheap $700 camera might seem to an outsider as the missing link in their becoming the next Jarvis, but a peek behind the scenes at the production environment, and post production systems will make the $700 investment appear as it really is; a rain drop in a flood. A few people point to a few productions or small segments of TV programs done with 5DmII to prove their point that DSLR is ready for prime time, and just like the person asking what camera took the nice photo, those same people did not see the additional hassle a video post team was subjected to to edit those short segments into a coherent production. Video cameras look nothing like DSLRs not only because of shape and plan-form but because serious video capture has to integrate into a production system of standards in clocks, color references, time code etc locking of various capture sources, plus audio sync and external audio chain with additional team members. That is what makes a video production camera what it is.
If DSLR sensors are going to be a factor in video production it will be when those are integrated into a video camera with all those standard signals and sync interconnections are used that allow its output to integrate well into a production stream.

There seems to be one common trait with the new wannabe video producer/directors, they want to believe that equipment can bypass the requirement of knowing about the subject extensively. Those who DO excel have something in common, a drive and passion that has caused them to have read every book in the library on the subjects related, to attend every class, volunteer for every menial job on a documentary production or student films long before it became the current fad. And most did not attend formal education in the topic, or if they did, it was only after an advanced expertise was already developed. What set apart the few successful people is not their expertise or raw talent, it was the ability to invent new solutions to problems that were unique to each production environment. No approached to scenes were the same because conditions were not the same. A school that teaches a craft actually puts a person with those invention skills behind by teaching techniques, which are traditions all based on past routine situations. At the high end of anything, there is no routine.

The claims by beginners that they NEED HD and 60fps for their work is laughable. Now one in 100 even have the production post chain to even see properly what they captured, or an audience. It is a buzz word for novices who want to sound like they are on the inside instead of showing how clueless they are. No video, or sound recording was judged by the tech specs of the media, it is the results and perception created within the audience. A compelling story and imagery are not improved or diminished by the presentation layer. Not in any art.

If you are only wanting vacation memory captures, get a mini cam-corder, they are cheap, work great and are self contained, true value marvels.

Rant Mode: off
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

A general, generic topic D7000 or D3100 [View all] , hpcphoto , Fri 01-Oct-10 04:00 PM
Reply message RE: D7000 or D3100
Reply message RE: D7000 or D3100
     Reply message RE: D7000 or D3100....long rant
          Reply message RE: D7000 or D3100....long rant
               Reply message RE: D7000 or D3100....long rant