Profile

All opinions on this site are those of Mike Jones and are not intended to represent his employers or associates.

 

Posts

Entries in DSLR (3)

Monday
Oct032011

Start acting like an Amateur if you want to be a Professional one day

Aspiring Filmmaker - Professional Filmmaker.

I think we have a problem, a deeply flawed sense of what these two monikers mean. And in the digital age of the internet free-for-all, the problem is getting Worse.

This post may feel like a rant, but if you bare with me i promise to get to a positive and constructive point by the end.

Here goes…

Would all you multi-hyphenate, DSLR shooting, one-man-band, editor / director / screenwriter / colour-grader / filmmakers, with your ultra-shallow depth-of-field, Vimeo hosted music-video showreels - who have never actually had a paid professional gig in your life - please, for the love of God, SHUT THE FUCK UP…!

Please Stop blogging, please Stop tweeting, please Stop dispensing advice or setting up websites with your ‘pro’ techniques and commentary, please Stop propagating fallacy and ignorance, please Stop offering your opinions on what is or isn’t Cinematic, Please Stop signing your signature with a litany of job titles just because you own a fist-full of software plug-ins and a Mac. Please Stop Pretending…

Deep breath…

Ok, Allow me to qualify my consternation. 

There has been a distinct trend shift over the past decade in the way we discuss and use the term ‘professional’ particularly in relation to the screen media production. Once upon a time the term Professional had a very specific meaning - a doctor, priest or lawyer - specialized positions of trust. Later the term broadened and embodied a person who makes a living from a knowledge-based art or craft and is hence denoted as belonging to a ‘profession’. The word ‘profession’ derives from someone who ‘professes’  for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.

However the moniker of Professional seems now to be adopted not just by those who possess specialist knowledge and make a living from that knowledge, but also by those who simply claim to have a professional attitude, a professional mindset, a professional demeanor irrespective of whether they actually make a professional living from that knowledge or even whether they possess that knowledge or experience at all. In short, the notion of a screen media ‘professional’ has been watered down into a evaporating puddle of mediocrity and irrelevance.

Now certainly many praise the breakdown of such hierarchies and the, so called, democratization of creative screen production. And moreover, many companies have made a whole shit load of money selling stuff because of this breakdown (witness FCPX which will make 100x more money for Apple than FCP ever did) And I would be the first to champion the dynamism and vibrancy of a society as a whole when creative engagement is undertaken at a popular grass-roots level. To this I raise my glass in full and vocal support. 

However, there is a downside to this watering down that i feel compelled to point out.

Now, don’t get me wrong - acting ‘professionally’ is certainly an admirable quality and one certainly doesn’t need to be a working professional, to act ‘professionally’. (and arguably theres a lot of ‘professionals’ who rarely display ‘professionalism’) But acting professionally and having a professional attitude is Not the same as actually being a Professional. And to confuse the two is to do yourself a great disservice. Very often such delusion will deny or hinder opportunities to actually become a real professional.

Let us also not confuse Professional with Art. You, of course, do Not need to be a professional to make art. Indeed there is arguably no direct connection between the two at all. A Professional-Writer for example may occasionally write art - personally motivated creative expression - but more often a Professional-Writer will more likely be writing for a living - writing to commission, writing to a brief. In such acts of writing, ‘art’ is either incidental or a bonus rather than a requirement or goal. 

This again is the difference between the amateur and the professional. An aspiring filmmaker may spend a decade making art they love in an artform they are passionate about, even producing work of quality. And yet never actually be a ‘professional’ and make a living from it. Which is to say, they never need to have a daily rigor of discipline and deep knowledge-base to produce their art, but which would be crucial to day-to-day making a living from it.

So, having made these distinctions (not as a value judgement of worth but as tangible fact about what a ‘professional’ is) we can make a broad assumption about most Aspiring Filmmakers - that they actually do desire to make a living from it and build a professional reputation over a life-long career. Thus I come to my argument - that those calling themselves ‘Professional’ before they actually are, do their ambition no good.

My reasoning is very simple. The people best placed to be able to help them fulfill their ambition of becoming working professionals are those who already are working Professionals. They are the people who may hire you, give you work experience, introduce you to people, be your referee or recommend you for gigs. They may also mentor, teach, advise or guide you.

BUT, if you jump the gun and declare and pretend yourself a Professional, an expert, before you’ve earned it, then those Professionals will see right through your fraud and will likely Not have any interest in helping you. 

(I will refrain from naming names; needless to say a swathe of websites, bloggers and vocal ‘filmmaker’ online personalities and forums spring to mind that clearly fit the category of the fraud attempting to pose themselves as a professional; pretense at being a bastion of knowledge and experience when they have scant of either. I will leave these sites and individuals nameless for now in the hope that they will do some examination of self and realise their folly.)

Allow me to use myself as a case study. I call myself a professional for one simple reason; I’ve never worked in any other industries. I’ve never had a ‘day job’. Writing, shooting, editing and, in more recent years, teaching screen production is all I have ever done. Those skills and knowledge have in turn lead to opportunities in ancillary roles as critic, curator and commentator on screen production and even software development of tools for filmmakers. My profession has also taken me across mediums - from film, TV and radio, to online, live events and gallery spaces - fiction and documentary. This is how I make my living and along the way I’ve done many years of post-graduate formal training and study to continually make my profession viable as a living. It has taken nearly 20 years to get to a point where I now no longer have to hunt work, make a very comfortable living, and have some degree of flexibility to pick and choose projects that interest me creatively. My job is a working profession.

Now imagine what happens when the Wannabe fraud filmmaker described above - who calls themselves a professional but whose skills, knowledge and opinions are wafer thin - encounters someone like yours truly, who has taken decades to build a career and knowledge base in order to sustain their professiona as a living.

It’s not a fight that happens, or an argument or even angry words. or even some sort of snobbish exchange. What happens by and large, online and off, is…. Nothing. The Wannabe filmmaker armed with their DSLR’s, software plugins, blog website, Vimeo account, and a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance, is simply ignored; dismissed as irrelevant by the greater working professional industry.

The sad truth is that, despite the accessibility of both the tools of production and the means of distribution, the great champions of the successive DV, HDV and DSLR “revolutions” are generally NOT working professionals. They are NOT making a living from their craft. And whilst some may produce interesting creative works, their opinions and perspectives on ‘industry’ and ‘practice’, ‘aesthetics’ and ‘form’, rarely have any basis in real experience. 

Don’t get me wrong, Thats absolutly a-ok. They don’t Have to make a living to make art or contribute to the greater creative consciousness of the world. BUT, if they do wish to be a professional (in the purest sense of the word) then declaring their expertise in excess of their experience is NOT the way to achieve that goal. It doesnt help, it just makes them look stupid and arrogant to the people who could otherwise help them in their ambition.

The anti-film school wannabes seem to think that by avoiding, bypassing, ignoring or circumventing formal training they also bypass the label of ‘Aspiring’. The sense of entitlement the so-called digital revolution inspires, convinces them they can jump straight to being the ‘real thing’ simply by saying they are and avoiding a position where they would have to admit to not knowing. Which is what film school is, a place where you go to learn what you don’t know. Thus a student is invariably someone who admits that they don’t know and seeks to change that. 

On the flip side, this disease of the pseudo-professional filmmaker-fraud knows no bounds. I’m just as dismayed by the number of film school students who seem only to have enrolled in order to validate what they think they already are rather than learn what they don’t know. Film school is a waste of time for such people and teaching them is painful because they arent there to learn, they are there to prove.

Without doubt, the key to learning and success is being able to know what you don’t know and finding a path to remedy that situation. Inside or outside of film school there seem far too many who are blind to this truism. The broad rejection of learning and knowledge that prevails in western societies is surely the reaosn why, despite having so many cameras and so many screens and so many opportunities, we’re still making a lot of crap. 

But, I think the answer is really very simple. 

It’s time we reclaimed the word ASPIRING as a prestigious descriptor rather than a term to be circumvented or avoided. To say you are Aspiring is constructive. To say you are Aspiring is honest. Rare qualities in an online and interconnected world filled with fraudulent voices pretending to be something they have no claim yet to be and dispensing knowledge they don’t have the experience to understand.

In short, my message to those who may be guilty of these crimes (yes, you know who you are) is this - Start acting like an Aspiring Amateur rather than a Pretending Professional and I think you’ll find you get to your goal of making a living as a professional a lot quicker. Start acting like someone who wants to learn and knows they have much to learn openly and honestly, rather than slipping into the pit of self-delusion that will result in nothing but the perpetuation of ignorance. Be careful who you read, choose your sources carefully, check the ‘about’ page of the website to see if the author has credability. Cross-check opinions on technology and technique with writers who do know what they are talking about. I am a vivacious reader of websites and blogs about production technology but I can assure that 16 out of every 20 websites and blogs I encounter propogate nothing but fallacies, innacuracies and misunderstandings. To be an effective Learner you need to have good powers of critical-thinking to sift through the bullshit. Because there is a whole lot of Bullshit out there.

True Professionals are more likely to take you seriously and be inclined to help you if you dont try and pretend to be something you’re not. The honesty and openness of being Apsiring is much more productive than the close-minded arrogance of the fraud-professional. 

What is crucial to remember is that whilst anyone can make something, not everyone can or will be TRUSTED to make something with someone else’s money. This is the difference between the Fraud and the Professional. Professional screen production is ultimately a trust game. I was recently discussing this idea with Kris Wilde - arguably one of Australia’s most successful television writers and creator of outstanding crime drama series such as Wildside and EastWest 101. Kris commented that the idea that a great project, talent or script will ultimately win out is a myth. The only thing that matters is Trust. And Trust has to be built up over time. Trust has to be earned. This is true at every level; from a kick-starter indie project, to a major international production. Thus your ability to make a living from your knowledge and skills is based almost solely on how much people trust you and how well that trust is warranted.

And quite frankly the brigade of DSLR-wielding, Vimeo showreel hosting, film-tech blogging, aficionados spouting their multi-hyphenate job titles, have absolutely Zero Trust Value in the grand scheme of things.

So, Stop pretending - if you are an Aspiring Amateur then proudly say so - you’ll learn more and have people far more willing to help you and offer you opportunities. But if you persist with being a fraud, with pretending your merit exceeds your experience, if you insist on calling yourself a professional when you clearly are not making a living in the profession, then the only people who will buy into your trust value will be other frauds and non professionals. 

If you would like one day to make a living making screen media, then start acting like an Amateur. You’ll get there faster.

Heres a few websites that have the good-oil - written by folks who truly know what they are talking about…

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/

http://provideocoalition.com/

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/ 

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/

http://lfhd.net/

http://www.biscardicreative.com/blog/

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/

And, Trawling the plethora of websites of online fraud-pros that embody the issues above, I have concluded the following golden rules which apparently equate to being a ‘Professional DSLR filmmaker’.

  • The shallower the Depth of Field, the more professional you are. 
  • Always shoot aperture wide open despite the fact that wide-open is where the lens is least sharp, least clear and least effective.
  • Always matte to 2.40:1 despite the fact that it throws away 1/3 of the screen real-estate when your entire audience will watch on a 16:9 TV.
  • The dirtier the image the better; Lens flare, grain and artifacts are what make you a Pro. If you cant shoot them, add them in post.
  • Use the word ‘industry standard’ a lot. It allows you to validate yourself by your tools when you cant validate yourself by experience.
  • Avoid ‘narrative’ and ‘meaning’ at all costs. The mark of the real Pro is dreamy showreels of clouds and sunsets scored by Sigur Ros Radiohead music tracks on Vimeo.
  • Colour Grading always begins with a Bleach-Bypass filter.
  • Always have actors walk into focus (preferably with a melancholy expression). It makes you and them look cool. It’s a win win.
  • Ignore sound, it doesn’t matter. They’ll be listening to your ripped Sigur Ross Radiohead tracks anyway.
  • Size matters. Always make your camera look as bulky as possible with as many handles, follow-focus knobs and cables hanging off it as you can.
  • Rack-Focus everything. Professionalism is directly proportional to how many focus moves you can squeeze into a shot. It also helps you justify the cost of the follow-focus rig.
  • No one will take you seriously unless you use Prime lenses for everything. 

 

 

Monday
Sep192011

Cross-Platform, Multi-NLE, Tape-Less Transcoding Workflow Tips

If Workflow is the Answer, then it’s one hell of a Question…!

For a very long time post production workflow has been built upon consistencies - consistent delivery, consistent format, consistent platforms, consistent tools, consistent viewing environments. But then along came a veritable tsunami of digital detritus that washed ashore - in a very short span of time - a greater diversity of tools, formats, platforms and systems that all previous years put together.

And with that diversity came new expectations. Too often unrealistic expectations born of ignorance, but none the less a seismic shift in what was expected of production, the tools and the personal skill-sets that make it all happen.

It is within this digital dilemma that I have often been required to design digital post-production workflows that are flexible enough to satisfy expectations and take advantage of opportunities, whilst being rigid enough to provide some measure of consistency and reliability in an inconsistent and unreliable world. No easy task. Especially when we reflect upon the title of this post, ‘Cross Platform, Multi-NLE, Tape-less, Transcoding Workflow’ and add the suffix of ‘for non-standard variable viewing platforms.

To put this in practical and specific terms consider a…

- Multi-episode Web-Series 

- Shot on a variety of DSLRs and video cameras

- Cut by several hyphenate editors using different software packages

- Delivered in SD and HD; online, DVD, download and projected at festivals and events.

There is actually nothing unusual about this scenario - all over the world advertising agencies, museums and cultural institutions, indie filmmakers, corporate producers and traditional networks stretching out of their broadcast comfort zone are all doing exactly this kind of production everyday. 

Yet everything about this scenario is an anathema to the traditional notion of workflow which stemmed from a broadcast mentality and was cemented in to place with consistency and predictability. 

What I am presenting below is my recommended workflow tips on some specifications, techniques, ideas, tools and processes that aim to find a balance between digital flexibility and robust consistency whilst imposing managerial order over potential chaos. It’s not a comprehensive workflow plan, it doesn’t include ancillary and parallel processes such as sound-mix, colour grade, VFX work and so on - think of it more as a central spine of key principles and tips for video onto which you can bolt other processes you need. It is a paradigm I use myself and know to work well in both problem-solving and problem-avoiding.

Be aware that the workflow tips below are assuming certain things - assuming you are using low-mid range camera formats, needing to move between editing systems (especially now Final Cut Pro is dead and end-of-life), moving projects between computers and operating systems, working in small teams with overlapping skills and responsibilities and that your prime delivery is online and multi-platform. It will particularly focus on the NLE’s Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro. It covers 5 elements to keep you organised. 

1. FOOTAGE HANDLING AND FILE NAMING

2. TRANSCODING AND FORMAT STANDARDISATION

3. TRANSCODING TO DNXHD

4. TRANSCODING TO PRORES

5. PROJECT NAMING AND SAVING CONVENTIONS

_____

FOOTAGE TRANSFER AND FILE NAMING

(far too often the most neglected part of the process, the point at which the pain begins if not handled well)

1.     Create a folder on your hard drive with a unique name based on the date of the shoot, the card number and the camera (DATE_CARD#_CAMERA#). For example, a shoot on the 26th of June 2011 on Camera 1 would be named ‘260611_Cam1_Cd1’

If more than one card of footage was shot on the same date then the folders would be named ‘260611_Cam1_Cd2, 260611_Cam1_Cd3’ etc.

If multiple cameras were used then folder would be named ‘260611_Cam2_Cd1’ and so on.

This 3-part naming of DATE CAMERA# and CARD# will ensure that each project is clearly labeled whilst avoiding any confusion between cards and cameras. It is important that file transfer and folder naming be done immediately after a shoot day.

2.     If using a solid-state video camera (such as AVCHD cameras like the Sony VG10 or XDCAMEX cams like the EX3 it is important to maintain the folder structure and metadata as it is on the camera. This specific structure is the equivalent to your Tape Source. Plug the camera in and open the memory card, select all the folders shown and drag to copy them from the camera into the newly created folder (named as per above). These folders - now containing the source material in its exact file structure from the camera - should be back-up archived to external drives as the source-master. They should be treated as you would your source tapes from a tape-based camera.

4.     External hard drives used for storage and backup of video projects should be formatted the EXFAT format. EXFAT is a universal cross-platform hard drive format that has no restrictions on file size and can be used on both Mac (Snow Leopard 10.6.8 and above) and PC (Windows Vista and Windows7). Other hard drive formats such as FAT32, NTFS or HFS+ are not suitable in a cross-platform environment as they are operating system specific or have file size restrictions. Such incompatibilities will invariably create time wastage and impede workflow flexibility.

ADDENDUM

To make the whole process of file naming, managment and metadata logging, Adobe Bridge is your best friend. Richard Harrington of Creative Cow has a superb video tutorial on using Bridge to batch rename files in a tapless workflow and using Bridge to manage video files in Premiere Projects.

Check Richard’s Video Tutorial here.

TRANSCODING AND FORMAT STANDARDIZATION

Modern editing systems such as Premiere Pro can work with virtually all file formats and codecs natively on a single resolution-independent timeline. More antiquated systems such as Final Cut Pro cannot work with native formats, nor accommodate mixed resolutions with any efficiency, thus relying on transcoding to a lossless intermediate format simply to be able to edit at all (a la ProRes).

However, whilst a native format workflow in Premiere is effect and simple, there are still many advantages to working in a single unified codec and format based on a transcoding workflow. System performance, colour correction accuracy, faster exporting and consistency of results. Also, more importantly, Transcoding allows for a common video format to be shared between different editing systems and operating systems and take full advantage of project file compatibility such as AAF and XML.

For smaller projects to be edited in Premiere, then transcoding may not be necessary – in which case the files can be imported through the Premiere media-browser and edited as-is directly from the camera. For fast turn-around projects this is ideal. For larger projects however a lossless intermediate transcoding process, unifying all footage, is recommended.

In this regard, there are two main viable lossless intermediate codecs to serve this purpose; Apple ProRes and Avid DNxHD. ProRes is native to the Final Cut system and can only be encoded on a computer with Final Cut Pro installed (though it can be ‘read’ on any system with the free ProRes decoders installed). DNxHD by contrast is a free codec system that is cross-platform and can be installed on any computer, any operating system and encoded from any NLE. Both offer industry grade, 4:2:2 8bit and 10bit, encoding. (ProRes does also have a 4:4:4 variant but this is unnecessary for any work other than high-end visual FX)

(*NOTE: The Cineform digital intermediate codec blows both ProRes and DNxHD out of the water for quality, efficiency and flexibility. But it is not free so Ive left it out of the equation. Suffice to say however that if you spend the extra money you wont regret it and you can dispense with ProRes and DNxHD entirely) 

 

TRANSCODING TO DNxHD

These steps outline using Adobe Media Encoder as a batch-processing and encoding tool for processing and converting of video files separate from the editing system to DNxHD. Adobe Media Encoder is currently the most advanced and comprehensive encoding system of its kind. It’s wholly cross-platform and is bundled as part of the Adobe CS5.5 suite.  

1.     Create a Project Folder with a unique name for the project (refer project naming protocols section)

2.     Launch ADOBE MEDIA ENCODER (AME)

3.     In the AME Preferences tick ‘specify output file destination’ and direct it to the Project Folder.

4.     Open the source footage folder (named ‘DATE_Cam#_Cd#’) and navigate to the actual video files.

5.     Select all files in AME (click the first and then shift+click the last)

6.     Change the FORMAT to QUICKTIME

7.     Click on the current PRESET to customize the settings.

The following steps relate to creating a DNxHD preset. Once this has been made you will in future be able to select DNxHD as a pre-built template and not have to repeat these steps.

•     In the VIDEO tab choose VIDEO CODEC and select ‘AVID DNxHD CODEC’

•     Change Resolution WIDTH and HEIGHT to either 1920x1080 or 1280x720 

•     Change FIELD TYPE to PROGRESSIVE

•     Change ASPECT to SQUARE PIXELS

•     Click the save icon next to PRESET  and name this preset DNxHD

8.     Click CODEC SETTINGS and choose the correct RESOLUTIONS setting – 1080p/25 DNxHD 185, 10bit or 720p/25 60, 8bit (*note, despite the preset being saved, this last setting will need to be manually selected every time you use the preset.

9.     Press the Start Queue button to begin the Transcoding batch process 

 

TRANSCODING TO PRORES

 These steps outline using Adobe Media Encoder as a batch-processing and encoding tool for processing and converting of video files separate from the editing system to ProRes.

1.     Create a Project Folder (with a unique name for the project)

2.     Launch ADOBE MEDIA ENCODER (AME)

3.     In the AME Preferences tick ‘specify output file destination’ and direct it to the Project Folder.

4.     Open the source footage folder (named ‘DATE_Cam#_Cd#’) and navigate to the actual video files.

5.     Select all files in AME (click the first and then shift+click the last)

6.     Change the FORMAT to QUICKTIME 

7.     Click on the current PRESET to customize the settings.

The following steps relate to creating a PRORES preset. Once this has been made you will in future be able to select PRORES as a pre-built template.

•     In the VIDEO tab choose VIDEO CODEC and select PRORES 422 

•     Change Resolution WIDTH and HEIGHT to either 1920x1080 or 1280x720

•     Change FIELD TYPE to PROGRESSIVE 

•     Change ASPECT to SQUARE PIXELS

•     Click the save icon next to PRESET  and name this preset PRORES

8.     Press the Start Queue button to begin the Transcoding batch process 

(* NOTE: Final Cut Pro can also transcode to ProRes through it’s Log+Transfer utility, creating ProRes versions as it imports clips. The file result is the same however using Adobe Media Encoder means that you do not need to create a project or tie up your editing software for batch processing. The ProRes files can then be imported into either Premiere or Final Cut Pro for editing.)

 

PROJECT NAMING AND SAVING CONVENTIONS

It is crucial to adopt standardized naming conventions both for organization and production efficiency as well as to avoid disaster when project files become corrupted (which they undoubtedly DO and WILL..!) 

The following saving and naming procedure will avoid issues of file corruption and workflow confusion.

All editing system project files should be named with the title of the project and the current day date expressed as 6 digits. For Example: ‘AEROPLANES_260611’

(* NOTE: Americans may fail to recognise this date format that most of the rest of the world uses whereby DAY is first followed by MONTH. It’s the most logical way to express date because it works form the smallest increment to the largest - Day Month Year - and is an inversion of the format common in the middle east and parts of Europe where Year is first followed by Month and Day. Unlike the US-centric Month Day Year which has no logic at all… Month first may be fine if you never have to collaborate or send your project to people outside of the US borders, but if you do it will quickly become confusing and problematic - does 11062011 mean the 11th of June or the 6th of November..? If you want to persist with Month first I would suggest you trade numbers for letters in the naming protocol to avoid confusion, thus 11062011 becomes NOV062011)

On each and every day of editing the Editor should open the previous days project file and Immediately save a new project file with the current date (eg ‘AEROPLANES_270611’. This process should be repeated every day of editing so that each separate day of work on an individual project has a discreet dated title.

Since Premiere and Final Cut project files are merely directories that link to the media they take up virtually no hard drive space. By having a separate project file for each days work you are able to return to an earlier part of the process at any time and, more importantly, if a project file becomes corrupted you will always have the previous days file to draw upon. At worst you loose 1 days work rather than ALL your work.

Final Cut Pro project files are particularly notorious for corruptions and errors. With FCP projects it is recommended that you also save each day an XML version of the project file following the same date-naming convention. FCP XML projects contain all the same information as regular project files however they are human-readable, less prone to corruption and can be opened by other editing systems.

Whilst it would be preferable to utilize just a single editing software system there are effective ways to migrate projects between editing systems. Premiere Pro has the ability to open Final Cut Projects saved in the FCP XML format and likewise can also save out Premiere projects in the FCP XML format. This means that timeline, sequences and media (so long as they are transcoded to a lossless codec, eg ProRes or DNxHD because FCP cannot read anything natively like Premiere) can be migrated from FCP to Premiere and from Premiere to FCP, allowing a single project to be shared across users on different NLE systems and even operating systems.

(*NOTE: Premiere can also import and export AAF format projects files for Avid editing systems)

 

Tuesday
Sep152009

Why Capture the moment when you can Select it..?

Using a Movie camera for Stills is more significant than using a Still camera for Movies.

Why Capture the moment when you can Select it..? This seems to be the question some high-profile still photographers are asking themselves. Why work with a camera whose mechanics are based around the idea of ‘capturing’ a moment plucked from the air - a snapshot - when you can simply hit REC on a video camera, capture 24+ photos every second and then, at will, select and choose any of the captured moments you wish? Up until this point, the factor preventing this mindset was Resolution - the fact that still image resolutions are very high and moving image resolutions are very low. But the times they have a changed….

Reports from a recent Vanity Fair shoot is that famed Photographer Annie Leibovitz shot a session with Tina Fey not on the usual assortment of Canon and Nikon digital SLR’s but rather with a RED ONE. The process..?
1) Press REC.
2) direct the subject in real-time to pose.
3) Press Stop.
4) Import the footage and from the 4k rushes pluck out the ‘moments’ you want from the 24+/sec you have availible.

And photogrpahy will never be the same….

Whilst an argument that the resolution of of RED at 4k is still not anywhere near the native resolution of high-end DSLR’s (let alone Digital mid-Format) there are two things that must be remembered - 1) that with a 35k RED sensor on the way this argument has a short shelf-life. And 2) How much reoslution do you REALLY need for a magazine shoot and for website publishing. 4K from a  RAW image might struggle if you need to blow up to a large framed print or billboard but it  is certainly plenty for just about any print-publishing purpose.

Photography in this way becomes not a process of timing, reflex and moment-capturing but rather a distinctly different mechanic more akin to selection and image isolation.

Whilst much of the discussion about the convergence of Still and Motion image acquistion has focused on Still cameras shooting Moving images; I’m inclined to suggest that  moves - such as those by Canon with their 7D HD DSLR - to use a still camera to shoot movies are not anywhere near so significant as using a Movie camera to shoot Stills. The former simply changes the tool to do the same job whereas the later changes the entire cretaive process and premise of Photography itself.

At this link you can see some of the images captured for the Tina Fey shoot

And Here you can see some info about a similar shoot involving Bruce Willis