New cameras a bad thing?

[jambredz]

With the rapid influx of all these great new cameras, which will undoubtedly continue, do you think that it actually has a bad effect on films overall? One can't deny that the more time and practise you spend with a camera, the more you learn its little nuances...things that can only come after time really digging into the camera through real life scenarios and through testing. Do you think that because cameras are coming at such a rapid pace now people aren't spending enough time learning how to set up these cams properly for the various scenarios they are shooting in, then blame the camera and instead look to the next "best" camera soon to come? Nowadays do you think people concentrate too much on what these camera's lack instead of playing up their strengths?

Also do you think that because of all these cameras coming out people are blinded by them and totally distracted from the numerous other aspects that make a film good?

These are just a couple things i was thinking about recently.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I posted a thread right here in the Cafe, because in ANOTHER thread someone suggested one camera being FAR more "cinematic" than another....so I made a list of what makes a movie a MOVIE. Cameras ended up being last on my list when I really thought about it...

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I see your point, and totally get the vibe, but, no, these new tools will improve the look of film and video across the board. Some said it before, and I now concur: 2012 is the year of the camera.

 

[ugafan]

It reminds me of a quote from comedian Todd Barry:

The guitarist for Third Eye Blind was on MTV Cribs, showing off his house. He picks up a guitar and says, "this is my favorite guitar. With this guitar, the songs just write themselves."

Yeah, sure. Blame the guitar.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Well there is something to be said about familiarity.

Sure the new X camera is likely better than Y camera, but the artist must learn his tools well. I find it hard to keep up with one camera to the next... now that there is a new 'it' camera every year or less!

Cinematographers used to use the same film cameras for years and years. Films stocks would be replaced with new generations much less than we see camera turn over now. Thus they really knew how their cameras worked, and how the film emulsions saw the world. Cinematographers were so inclined to their medium they would joke that they see the world in 52- whatever.

There is something to be said about knowing how to get a B+ camera to 100% than using a new A+ camera at 75%. I just got used to the Alexa and the Epic. I think I have it now. But how long will that last? There will be a new model, new chip, new color space, new something just around the corner.

Cameras are like girls. They all work the same, but they all have small differences; differences in strengths and weaknesses. And it is up to us to learn what those are and to supply support for (or avoid) the weaknesses while utilizing and embracing the strengths. You know how strange it is the first time you're with a new girl? You gotta learn what she likes by using knowledge you gained from the previous and hope you've got it. Only practice makes perfect, and with all the camera flippin' going on, will we ever get to know our digital cameras as well as the masters of celluloid knew their emulsions? Likely not. But I guess we get colorists.

That's life.


The point is... if a cinematographer has two cameras, you'll likely get a better image from the older camera he knows by heart than the newer camera he's still learning the nuances of. With the fast camera flipping of today, who can really know any medium by heart before the next camera enters the market. And im talking about really knowing, not simply knowing how to use.

 

[mcbob]

I was thinking about it the other day... decades ago, your typical successful professional freelance videographer usually owned a single ~$20-30K camera to satisfy most clients. Then video became "democratized," and so now a typical successful professional freelance videographer has to own 3-4 $5-20K cameras to satisfy most clients.

Often, if the client doesn't specify what they want to shoot on, I'm briefly stupified deciding exactly which camera to use. I'm not a high-end guy, and I can see where it does have a negative impact (lack of familiarity and certainty) on my work. Of course I can also see the positive impacts (flexibility and capability) and would rather not return to the days when it was "just make do with your PD150."

 

[paulears]

Never known an Oscar or Bafta to go to Sony, or Panavision for the end product - they sometimes win awards for technical developments, but a good movie is a good movie, and apart from technical people, who cares what it was shot on? Cameras are tools. They help you do a better job, and that is all they do. The video industry iOS a combination of art and craft. The camera element is firmly in the craft area, and the public view the art. As I've found out to my cost, spending lots of money on equipment is frequently invisible to the people who pay for it. Only a few years ago when we were limited to VHS quality for distribution, and editing was destructive copying, anything we could do to keep the quality level up from shooting to viewing finished product was really important. Now we have technical people looking intently at image quality components that were unthinkable only a few years ago. However, we constantly as viewers, watch television broadcasts shot back in the seventies in analogue, recorded on reel to reel in composite back to back with programmes originated on very high quality digital kit. I never hear people moaning about the picture quality, they moan about the fact it's another repeat, or about the poorer acting, or the old vehicles - never about the technology.

The equipment is a side issue, it confuses the judgement of what is good, because we are looking at different features. I watch BBC on the bedroom TV in HD, because it's an HD TV, on the HD BBC channel, my wife watches the same channel in SD because it's number one on the remote. Very rarely do I bother to find the remote and switch once a programme has started. The difference is simply too little to reach across, pick up the remote and dial in the right number! Sad, but there we go.

When I get a project in that the client has specified particular technical requirements, I'll probably end up hiring in. Most clients don't really understand. If I hire in a camera that I discover has some additional features (e.g. gadgets to play with) I think to myself - ooh, shall I do some super slow motion or whatever the gadget is, and then look at the shooting plan and say no - it doesn't fit, isn't needed, so I'm going to just carry on following the plan. If I needed slow motion for a project, then this would have been dealt with earlier.

If you do a shoot and get presented with a camera you are unfamiliar with, then if it's a standard proper video camera, it will have been designed with the essential features easy to locate and use. If it's one of the new component cameras, then it's more difficult, and as for DSLR types where all the video necessities are hidden in menus and very basic video features are on the surface, it's even more tricky. This is where the cameraman needs to know the cameras properly, just to access really basic stuff. On what I call normal cameras, you rarely have to look very far to dial in a filter, or set the sound channels, or plug in a monitor, or .......



Good videos are made by people who understand the art and the craft, NOT just the craft.


What is bad - for me, is that the shelf life of current cameras is getting shorter and shorter, and the resale value suffers badly because of this. You see people on ebay trying to get ridiculous sums for a five year old camera, when for just a small bit more you get the latest, with everything 'better' - and a guarantee. I still have my old cameras because I'm not prepared to give them away for the cost of a couple of memory cards!