Why your camera does not matter

David Jimerson said:
I don't know if you meant to...
Click to expand...
i meant to... in my usual flippant manner. :) these discussions on what the craft and art of filmmaking is supposed to be, can be like "scraping your arm with a cheese grater." (i like that!)
 
Last edited:
Can we all just agree that tools do not enhance talent but talent enhances tools? I don't care if you're talking about still photography, video cameras, film cameras, cars, hammers, cheese grating, or bondage sex chairs.

-Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
Can we all just agree that tools do not enhance talent but talent enhances tools? I don't care if you're talking about still photography, video cameras, film cameras, cars, hammers, cheese grating, or bondage sex chairs.

-Jeremy
Click to expand...

LOL : Agreed
 
I do think there's a huge difference between still photography and film/video.

In a narrative film, you imagine what you want to happen, and then attempt the perfect capture of it with all the right tools.

You could not capture what your mind sees using a handheld $200 miniDV home movie camcorder.

I agree with the article that some people think better equipment = better final product, and I agree that they are wrong.

The thing is though, there are going to be certain tools that make us closer to capturing our imagination as closely as we can see it. If we are set on having this captured as close to perfectly as possible, I see it completely reasonable to set out on having the best equipment that will help do the job.
 
There were aesthetics even the most talented directors in the world couldn't achieve (over the decades), until the tools to caught up with them. Still photography/painting cannot be said to be the same. And Yankee has pretty much nailed the rest :thumbsup:

:beer:




RED # wish I was higher
 
I realized I never concluded my post with the difference between still photography and video/film.

In the Ansel Adams type still photography, he was just taking pictures of nature. This is different because he is not capturing his imagination, he is capturing something that is already there. The camera really does not make a difference in that. If an amateur photographer went into the woods and took a picture of a tree with a $10,000 camera, it wouldn't hold up to somebody who took a picture of the same tree in a much more imaginative way; say the tree in silhouette infront of a sunset with an eagle flying over, all perfectly composed.

It isn't the writer of the article's fault, because they were referring to real-life still photography, and I think on that topic, they're pretty close to correct.

Does make for some interesting topic for us selfish DVXusers to relate everything to ourselves, though. (not calling anyone selfish)
 
bballplaya283 said:
some people think better equipment = better final product, and I agree that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Better equipment IN THE RIGHT HANDS will produce a better final product. That's the crux of the whole thing -- is it the tool that's holding you back?

For many people the simple answer is "no".

I've given this example before: Rick Parks was our lead artist at Westwood Studios, and he was a phenomenally talented artist in multiple mediums. Perhaps the most amazing portrait I ever saw him do was specifically because of the medium he chose -- Etch-A-Sketch. (of course, 90% of what made it so amazing is because it was done on an Etch-A-Sketch; had the exact same drawing been done in pencil or charcoal or whatever, it wouldn't have had the same impact.)

That said, how many artists choose Etch-A-Sketch as their primary medium?

Can we sum it up like this? it's not the tool, it's the artist. But, a variable-frame-rate high-definition cinegamma/cinematrix HVX beats the pants off an old VHS camcorder for any rational usage... better tools let artists have more options and can be a factor in creating better art.

But if you're not an artist, it isn't gonna help.
 
Barry_Green said:
Can we sum it up like this? it's not the tool, it's the artist. But, a variable-frame-rate high-definition cinegamma/cinematrix HVX beats the pants off an old VHS camcorder for any rational usage... better tools let artists have more options and can be a factor in creating better art.

But if you're not an artist, it isn't gonna help.
Click to expand...

Wow, well said... That's it... period.
 
There's a reason why Arts and Crafts were separated even when we were little kids. Even though my Mom still loved my potholders and popcicle bird feeders, there was something missing that other kids (and the picture on the box) were able to attain.

Why is there a director sitting right next to a DP? Shouldn't one be able to handle it by themselves?

Again, the article was very overstated. I think my word for $$ would have been much higher...

"Dude, you want that new camera? It ain't gonna help you make better art or even ensure you will always get the best picture out of it."

I STILL feel that each time I turn on my camera I don't hear a clunk, but "psst... hey -- you're an idiot!"

Fun discussion. Who's responsible for the omlet? The Egg or the Chef... or the Chicken???

Reminds me of the old Aptitude/Potential discussion... where your Aptitude is developed from (pre-) birth thru age 6-9 ish and potential is what you end up doing with that given aptitude... Some people have big buckets they can use to carry lots of water while some people with big buckets only choose to carry little water -- others have little buckets but carry them full every time... and sometimes they even reach the thirsty king.

CaptM
 
jaustere said:
Anyway, an interesting read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
Click to expand...

I shot several short films, one that won two awards, using a Sony TRV-950, my first camera. I used that camera for just about everything to the point where I was limited by its lens size and its overly simplistic controls to go further. In looking at all of the cameras the DVX100b was the next logical step for me to take since it has everything I could ever dream of.

"The camera will not make you a film maker", my friend Big Scotty told me. He got the Cannon GL-2 and beleived that just by having it will help him make great films. Not true, you can still shoot crap with a high end camera just like you can with a cheap single ccd camera.

"Film makers make film, not film cameras" - same goes for video. What makes a film good is the care taken to plan, compose, light, consider and perform. Doing this develops your film maker skills, meaning you get faster and better each time you do this. The film maker puts value in to the scene and that is what the camera is recording. Of course a good camera will only add value to a scene that has value..but if the scene has no value, the camera will not add anything to it.
 
I agree with pretty much everything that was said here... :) Enjoyed reading the discussion when I got home.

I was thinking about it at work today, and I want to be clear that I realize the article I linked to is not meant to apply to digital filmmaking, and I also realize that photography and filmmaking are very different (i.e., the disparity in quality between the best and worst film/digital camera is much less than between the best and worst video camera).

I also realize that there is also a huge difference between those videographers/filmmakers who use cameras as part of a hobby, and those who use them as part of their business. The businessman is of course going to require whatever equipment the market expects while the hobbyist/artist needs to realize that if he has a story to tell, he can and should use whatever piece of equipment available to him.

But mainly, I just thought the article had some interesting stories/examples of how it's the artist, not the tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top