So if I choose to film an entire 2 hour movie of a static shot of paint drying, does that have content? Why or why not?
GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout
- Thread starter DBP
- Start date
So if I choose to film an entire 2 hour movie of a static shot of paint drying, does that have content? Why or why not?
blake2404
Well-known member
Dude, your missing the point......and i have no idea where you are going with that whole thing. Content supersedes camera, especially now.........meaning, if you have something great to shoot, then camera equipment and budget doesn't necessarily mean you can't get a great image of that "content".
In that respect "content" is and always has been KING. I think maybe you are trying to debate for the sake of debating.
In that respect "content" is and always has been KING. I think maybe you are trying to debate for the sake of debating.
Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
Barry - if content is the *ONLY* thing that matters, why have you spent the last 5 years on the AF100 DVD, The HMC Book, The HVX AND HPX book, the DVX Book, Lighting for film and television, sound for film and television, HVX bootcamp DVD? The same reason I wrote my GH2 book. It is interesting and relevant to filmmakers and their quest to tell a story.
I am tired of hearing content is king. Some of the best films in history haven't even been narrative ones. Sometimes style is king, cinematography is king and the technological progress allows it all to exist. Without the technology, the content doesn't get seen.
I am not trolling. I really think that "content is king" is something we hear repeated on here over and over again that simply doesn't hold water when you sit down to think about it.
How am I missing the point? Does my 2 hour paint drying movie have content? If not, why not?
Content is king means that it's the most important variable, not that it's the only one.
Meaning, you have a much better chance of garnering praise with a fantastic story shot on mini DV, than you do with a crappy story shot on the Red Epic.
Would anyone honestly disagree with that?
Why are baby and cat videos shot poorly getting millions of views on youtube, and passed around, where as a ton of technically sound stuff is ignored?
Meaning, you have a much better chance of garnering praise with a fantastic story shot on mini DV, than you do with a crappy story shot on the Red Epic.
Would anyone honestly disagree with that?
Why are baby and cat videos shot poorly getting millions of views on youtube, and passed around, where as a ton of technically sound stuff is ignored?
blake2404
Well-known member
Ha, ha....ok, It's the old spectator rule for me. If one person sits down and enjoys seeing a film on paint drying, a man sleeping for eight hours or lips moving at 120fps then it has content. Everything has content to a degree. But in the end, in my humble opinion....when everything is removed....all the camera's, lights, crew, sound, music or whatever else you wanna cram into a project, There needs to be something resembling content. An idea, feeling, an action whatever it is.....without this simple element we have nothing to film....whether is be a 700 dollar camera or something more high end.
We can have a content debate to death, but i'm not sure that is the title of the forum post........but i digress.
Because a) it's free b) it's usually about a minute in length, not much of a time investment.
I strongly disagree with this. How many DVDs/Blu-rays of the Transformers movies were sold compared to The King's Speech? Or any number of mumblecore films out there?
EDIT: Oh wait, praise, yes probably. But praise doesn't pay the rent.
I agree that it could be considered off topic, but, I think (I could be misunderstanding) that this is what Steve intends. To move the conversation away from gear toward a discussion--even a debate, on what's more important than the gear.
If people feel it's too far off topic then we can call it what it is, it seems relevant to me.
You guys just let one of us know if it's too far off.
If everything has content to some degree or another, then why is content king? If content is automatically assigned, then why is it so important? If watching paint dry is just as legtimate a piece of content as Lawrence of Arabia, then why don't as many people want to see my 2 hour film?
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Haha, who is this Gary Huff guy?!
Gary, I'll match you and raise you a question. What is art?
BOOM. Your head just exploded.
Gary, I'll match you and raise you a question. What is art?
BOOM. Your head just exploded.
In art, is art itself king or the content?
blake2404
Well-known member
Splitting hairs. To the degree you are taking this "content" discussion, i'd say it's quite a subjective term/concept. But just to back up to the "content is king" statement? Well yes it is, in the respect that you need to know or have an idea of what you are shooting before you go off and grab any equipment........generally.
I personally (at my present budget) would shoot a film project with a gh2 over 5diii for example. That is my preference. So here the camera has been chosen, preferred, whatever.
But i know if i want someone to watch it, no camera is going to magically get people interested in my film. What happens in that film will determine that. So that is where content becomes king. Not king of an empty kingdom, but rather a very crowded palace with many other princes and dukes....lol.
"Generally" means you have an out, and can go just shoot something without any idea and still have content. You already said that everything has content, so even if my phone falls from my hands and lands on the ground in perfect fashion to activate a video recording, whatever the camera picks up, even if it is all black from pointing straight at the ground, has content. Because everything, to one degree or another, has content.
I think there were a lot of people who went to saw Act of Valor because parts of it was shot on the Canon 5D Mark II. Maybe not the majority, but I would be willing to bet it was statistically significant. That film didn't do too well with general audiences.
Yes and no. I would say that can be part of it, but there are plenty of other reasons people choose to watch films (i.e. the director, actors, cover art, ect.)
But it's crowded with a myriad of other reasons that people choose to watch movies, and those are usually over content.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To help people make better content. To empower them to tell the stories that they want to tell. To help them get the best from the equipment they're using.
The tools are a means to an end. They are not THE end. Nobody gives a flying fig what you shot on, as long as it doesn't get in the way or distract from what you're attempting to do. And the cameras of today have gotten good enough (aside from some glaring flaws that do ruin shots, like 5D moire) that it's nigh unto irrelevant which particular camera you use, as long as you (or someone on your crew) knows how to use it to deliver the results you want.
Which is, if I'm not mistaken, Zacuto's whole point. All the good cameras were good enough, only a couple (one of them being an iPhone, fer cryin' out loud!) failed to meet the bar of acceptable quality.
So now, in my opinion, the specific image quality characteristics of today's cameras just isn't all that important anymore. They're all good enough. All that matters now is which one works the way you want to, at the price that you can afford.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Because the content of your two-hour film is lousy. Hence why content is king. Or do you not see that you're specifically arguing against yourself?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Just like every box has content(s). But a box of dog crap is worth a whole lot less than, say, a bag of gold bars. Unless, of course, you're looking to fertilize your lawn, I guess.
Maybe you'd be happier if the statement was amended to "the quality and relevance of your content is king?"
I agree. Proof that quality content is king. If it'd been an actually GOOD film, lots more people likely would have gone to see it.
Example: 'Like Crazy'. Shot entirely on the 7D. IT wasn't a runaway success or anything, but it was well received from what I heard.
No, because you have changed the rules. Now, good content is king, not lousy content.
But, even then, now you have to define "quality" and "relevance"...and you also have to explain if that means that "quality" and "relevant" content always has an audience. There there has never been a film made that had good content that was overlooked.
I don't believe you can even begin to say that. You have no idea whether a better Act of Valor would have been more widely seen or not.