Motion Media in Magazines?

The idea of "living magazines" is one example of how media is changing, of how forward-thinking media makers will be able to find new opportunities as old ones evaporate. It also is an example of the "smaller" opportunities (as opposed to the dream of creating motion pictures, big budget T.V. or commercials) that will be available to media makers in the future. I suspect the future will be full of these smaller "disposable" media experiences throughout the day with the more engaging content being interactive.

I do have big concerns about e-waste for this type of media, especially magazines. What are the ramifications of creating largely single-use high tech media experiences?

The downside of this convergence between still photography and motion photography is that both traditional motion picture producers and still photographers are now competing for the same opportunities. In the end, the old rules will still apply: those with a good eye and who can shoot quickly and economically will thrive.

Helicopter Boyz and Your Future

The old ways of doing things are passing more quickly than many people realize. Or as Ted Hope succinctly puts it:

Cinema, in its current concept and execution, is both derived from and depending on a world that we’ve passed by.
• It is no longer is the most complete & representative art form for the world that we inhabit.
• It no longer mirrors how we currently live in the world.
• Cinema is now a rarefied pleasure requiring us to conform to a location-centric, abbreviated, passive experience that is nothing like the world we engage with day to day.

Mobile, light, nimble, ....those are the future media makers. It's actually really exciting, technology is moving so fast that it is already leapfrogging those who want to create old style media by using new technology (that would be the deluge of stuff out there that tries to pass itself off as innovative web-content or some indie film that really is just a low budget imitation of Hollywood film).  More people seem to like to do things now, or at least they want interactivity.  That's a good thing, right?  Does anyone really think that the old passive entertainment model was that great, aside from T.V. network executives?  Social media is just one example of people shaping media to their own world.

The new DSLR's are awesome, especially for people like me who like the discipline of distilling a story down to one frame; the addition of HD video/depth of field is like a gift. But there are lots of little miracles out there that will help change the way we tell stories, so I am equally excited about the S1000PJ's of the world as well (what was used in the Helicopter Boyz performance). What will write the future is how you, the creatives, put it all together. Don't mourn the passing of the old, keep your mind open to the answers that appearing daily and have fun playing with them.

OK. One Last Shootout

Zacuto's Great Camera Shootout '08 from Steve Weiss, Zacuto USA on Vimeo.

Zacuto did an interesting shootout, covering pretty much the entire range for state of the art image aquisition in 2008, from 35mm to a D90 DSLR. They talk for awhile at the beginning of the clip and the actual footage starts about midway through. I recommend downloading the whole thing and then watching it in full screen HD. Again, creating this type of test is a very subjective thing, regardless of how hard you try to be objective.

What did I take from this? 35mm film is still the most elegant solution, both in the established workflow and resulting image. In the cheaper end, one of my favorites, the HVX/Letus Elite combo still looks pretty darn nice. A little soft, but pleasantly so, and as you'll hear them say in the clip, it required very little post production work. This is something that people really aren't focusing on in all of these discussions about what is the "best" camera, how much money and time you are consuming in post-production. You can also pick up an HVX used for a pretty cheap.

I thought the HPX 170 didn't look too bad out of the box, for the money. It'll make a really nice low-cost documentary camera. I'd be curious as to how it'd look with a depth of field adapter on it. I'm also curious why the color looked a little thin on it compared to the HVX, given that the image processing should be the same (if it was an HVX200A). If the HVX used for the test is the original model, the HPX should have improved image processing.

The new HPX3000 and the EX3, to me, looked the most "video." I also was a little disappointed with the color reproduction of facial tones for the EX3. I don't understand what was going on with the Red footage, it looked soft, maybe they used the stock "Red lens" (don't get angry, it's a joke).

My choices? For a feature, 35mm. For a guerilla budget, the HVX/HPX with the Letus Elite. For the "jungle documentary", the HPX 170 or the EX 3 with a Flash Nano from Convergent Designs.

OK. I promise my next several posts will only deal with creative issues. No technology.

Interesting Times

Regardless of how you feel about the Red One as a tool, it certainly seems to have changed the camera marketplace. Camera companies tend to pace the introduction of new technology, both hardware and formats, allowing them to draw out the introduction of innovation in order to milk the maximum profit from it. (Yes, there are other reasons: for example, other companies need time to create products that support both the end formats and the hardware.)

HDV is an example. Originally created for the Japanese wedding market, the camera makers found that it was a marketable format as a step up (quality-wise and cost-wise) from DV. Several years later and many of the companies were still selling this "accidental" format, with Panasonic being an innovator with their P2/DVCPRO HD format. I won't go into HDV at depth, other than to say that it is what it is and it does what it does. I chose not to participate, for the most part sticking with DV and film.

What does Red have to do with HDV? Well, once the Red One was introduced, people started expecting (rightly or wrongly) an accelerated pace of innovation (both in hardware and formats) from the major camera companies. The real bombshell was when Red announced the Scarlet camera, a "3K" camera for "under $3K". What needs to be made clear is that the big camera manufacturers make nearly all of their profits from camcorders, from small-fry like us, and not from their high-end cinema cameras. The high-end cameras serve a role: R&D, prestige and also as an always changing "professional" standard that the prosumer market looks to with desire and dollars.


What has been the result of the Red marketing revolution? To a certain extent it has tied up the prosumer to low-professional level of the marketplace. Why? Because it seems many people are saving to buy their Red One, their Scarlet or an equivalent from one of the major manufacturers. The result is that you are seeing cameras coming out from Sony and Pansonic at a substantially lower price point than initially announced. For example, the HPX-500 has had a $2000 rebate for the past 6 months (the retail list being about $11.5K, with it actually selling at $10K and ending up at $8K with the rebate) and the Sony EX-3 was announced at about a $13K pricepoint at the 2008 NAB, yet is selling at $8300 at your local dealer 4 months later.

Now Red may be doing a little scrambling of their own with DSLR camera makers like Canon (5D MkII) and Nikon (D90) releasing cameras capable of 720p or 1080p. Earlier this month, Red announced that they were going to make a "replacement" for the DSLR market and that it would not be a replacement for the planned Scarlet or Epic. Yesterday, Red announced that, "We have changed everything about Scarlet because the market has changed and we have discovered a lot of things in the process. We have a new vision...." It appears as though they are starting over again with both the Epic and the Scarlet. What will that do to the projected release date of both products and to the seeming army of people waiting to buy them?

If you have any interest in DSLR filmmaking, here is a film that was shot within the past month on the Canon 5D MkII by Vincent Laforet. Remember, this is primarily a still photo camera.


I am not going to go into the technical/aesthetic issues between Red and other digital cameras. That is going on endlessly on boards. I did participate in a shootout last fall involving the Red One, 35mm and an HVX 200 (shooting Lomo anamorphic glass through a RedRock adapter). It is discussed here on Cinematography.com and the HD file of the test is available for download here. The best comment on the thread, for me, asked whether the accompanying photo was a still from "Revenge of the Nerds." YES!!


Where is it all headed? Is it the best of times or the worst of times? Will the format you buy into today be acceptable a couple years from now? Here's the best advice that I've received from a couple of pretty smart people: "Get only what you need to reach the quality level necessary for your next show." And, "Why buy when you can rent?" My head is spinning after researching all the cameras and formats out there right now for the documentary I am shooting. All I can say at this point is that I'd like to buy as little as possible and spend more time worrying about telling stories than obsessing about the technology. Or, as my former advanced cinematography teacher put it, "There was a time when DP's didn't worry about data rates." And to stop asking, like kids on the family vacation, "are we there yet?"

If reading this hasn't exhausted or bored you, here's an interesting article written by Rian Johnson on Red hype, resolution, color depth, the Sony F 23, and the Genesis.