Farcical techno-debates over 'professional quality'

The are times when the cinema and broadcast industries are truly absurd; when the people who work within these fields, and the institutions they work within, display attitudes and perspectives that are truly obnoxious.

The great and never ending debate that draws us all in with remarkable regularity is that over Quality, Image Fidelity, what is and is not acceptable, what is and is not viable for professional production.

This debate masquerades as being technical, of being concerned with scientific and mathematical detail, but in truth it is almost never anything to do with technology. The ever running quality debate that manifests as 420 vs 422, intra vs longGOP, film vs digital is nothing more than a thin veneer over a debate that is really cultural and psychological.

The debate that positions some cinema technologies as unworthy and others as superior is actually about those individuals and institutions expounding these distinctions to justify their own choices, their own decisions about their own work. It’s techno-protectionism , an artificial premise to protect the status quo.

I find it difficult to see these ever present arbitrary distinctions between ‘professional’ and ‘consumer’ cinematic technologies as anything more than self-justification.

Much contemporary commercial advertising is built on the premise of justification rather than promotion. Apple is good example - ads such as the infamous ‘I’m a Mac’ are far more about making existing Mac owners feel superior and justified in their choice than they are about convincing non Mac owners to jump ship. Prestige car manufacturers run a similar game, advertising to exiting owners to build brand loyalty as much if not more so than to attract new customers. More Public Relations than Advertising.

This notion taps into the psychological state humans fall into in self-validating their ‘life’ choices as consumers. Buy ‘x’ brand of car and all of a sudden you will see that brand of car everywhere. Buy ‘x’ brand of TV and your eye is drawn to every shop window displaying TV’s to see if they have ‘yours’. And its this last idea of ‘yours’ that is so crucial to advertising and brand building - personal investment.

This, it seems to me, is exactly where many of these farcical techno-debates of quality or professional vs consumer, arise.

Case in point…? HDV. Fact: currently the BBC considers HDV marginal for broadcast purpose. Marginal?

Below are stills from the very successful Australian independent feature film GABRIEL. Shot for a paltry $150,000 on a JVC101 HDV camera at 720p.











Marginal for broadcast? You have got to be f%#king kidding me? Gabriel is a film that looks absolutely fantastic, well lit, well shot, a great visual feel, high in visual detail and long on range in the image between light and dark. And I dont believe there is anyone other than a cinematographer who could differentiate any difference between the visuals of this film and anything 1080, 2k or 422 colour space. Indeed it would only be filmmaking professionals who would care.

So why the still ongoing bitchin’ and moanin’ about HDV inadequacies, motion artifacts, - complaints that now extend to XDCAMEX…? How can the complaints possibly be considered legitimate when you see a 720 long GOP 420 image look This Good, this detailed, this rich?

Is it really technical quality distinction? Or is it much more about personal validation and self justification? Is it more likely about the desperate attempt from those who feel threatened by a $150,000 feature that looks comparable as anything shot on equipment far more expensive.

Sometimes I find it hard to think beyond the idea that there’s a whole lot of filmmakers in the world with small-penis syndrome - those who feel their professional manhood so under threat they need to draw a hard and arbitrary line in the sand to make themselves feel secure as big-dicked professionals….