Attack of the DSLRs

SLR cameras used to be a pieces of photography equipment reserved almost exclusively for the professional user group. In the last couple of years, however, digital versions have become wildly popular among common users. These "DSLRs" offer higher quality pictures at a price point aimed at the general public.

A game-changing characteristic exists in the newest breed of machines--high-definition video capabilities. Of particular note is Canon's EOS 5D Mark II, grand award winner of Popular Science's Best of What's New 2009, and the new EOS 7D.

So speaking from a videography standpoint, why do we care? Three main reasons: lenses, size and price. A DSLR is compatible with a vast number of detachable lenses, giving more flexibility to the user with focal lengths, effects, and most-importantly to many, extensive control over shallow depth of field. The physical size of the cameras is convenient, but the size of the CMOS camera sensors are the real talking point. The large imaging blocks found on the DSLRs are comparable to 35mm film cameras, giving cleaner images in low light and again, shallower depth of field. Lastly, price is a major proponent of the recent interest. With a street price of $2700 and $1700 respectively, the 5D and 7D are an incredibly affordable alternative to more traditional equipment.

Since these are primarily still cameras, the ease of use, features and workflow aren't perfect from a video perspective. Lack of extensive audio controls, a compressed file format, and an awkward body architecture do cause some caveats, but are remedied by a host of third party innovations including mounting options, uncompressed editing codecs and firmware updates.

Despite the limitations, these new DSLRs are hard at work on the sets of a variety of recent programs such as Saturday Night Live, and in the hands of industry experts like Philip Bloom. In the hands of a videographer wanting precise control of the cinematic image, these new hybrid cameras are the "new thing", and with any luck, will pave the way for future developments in cameras intended primarily for video.

3D Domination

When I was eight, I saw Disney/Pixar's "Toy Story." It was an amazing film with computer-generated animation that far surpassed anything seen before. It even spawned a well-received sequel. The smooth, colorful scenes of "Toy Story" have even become an established style in the animation world, with many films and TV shows following suit of Pixar.

Nearly 15 years later, Disney is introducing "Toy Story 3," and to get the hype up, the first two films are being released with the feature (or should I say gimmick) of 3D effects. Beyond the idea of paying $9.50 for a movie I saw on TV last night, the implementation of 3D bothers me in the fact that it degrades my cinematic experience, visually and otherwise.

3D is the new thing, with films such as Dreamworks' "Monsters vs Aliens," "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs." These films bring in large 3D glasses-wearing audiences week after week, and it's not just for the young crowd with movies like "My Bloody Valentine 3D" bringing in $100 million in gross profits.

Call me old fashioned, but I have a real problem with trying to change-up the scope of cinema as we know it. It's bad enough having digital equipment replacing beautiful, time-tested film cameras, but 3D really crosses the line.

About a month ago I saw "U23D" in an IMAX theater. I donned my 3D glasses and was excited to see a concert video of one of my favorite bands. It was a great film, but the current technology makes a half-assed effort at delivering a true 3D experience. I feel I would have enjoyed it more if it was shot traditionally, without the distracting, quality-degrading red and blue outlines on Bono that make the effect work.

A concert video, however, is a much better application for 3D. With the incredible amount of time and effort that goes into making a modern Hollywood film, I doubt any director, or audience for that matter would want to take themselves out of the complex and subtle world the film has created for the quick buck made with 3D. Win any luck, 3D cinema will stay where it is in the animated, horror and special application categories, and not make its way to mainstream drama until 3D becomes a technique used for more than its pure gimmick.

Savor the Moment

It seems like every day or so there's a new gadget for sale that records a part of your life for later viewing. Web sites like Engadget and Gizmodo devote their entire existence to keeping up with the current electronic device trends. Digital cameras more or less started it all with a way to take pictures and avoid the high costs of developing film. Next came the video - 30 pictures a second to help you remember exactly how it all went down at your child's birthday party and the fourth of July parade.

As technology progresses, quality goes up and costs go down, and today's equipment is almost to the point where people can't find any discernible differences between the new item and last year's model. The question is not whether or not we have the capability to record each and every aspect of our lives, but rather if we should.

Going somewhere for the weekend? Don't forget your camera. The urge, or rather the obsession to "remember" something by recording it is what may destroy the very experience itself. Two years ago, I traveled to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area with a camcorder, and I came back with a pretty cool video. This year, I left the camera at home, and retuned with a richer experience.

Fumbling with a camera just to have some proof of where you went and what you saw may not be worth it. Did you miss your child's goal at her soccer game trying to take a grainy, shaky video? Last week at a concert, I saw many people holding up their cell phones recording video. I asked myself, how many times would I actually watch a video like that? Answer, probably none. The distraction caused by needing to record something only gets in the way of enjoying the experience at hand.

People need to weigh the situation for themselves, but moving beyond the hype and social pressures, I think most people would agree with me. I may be jaded by a work-life of capturing images, but I've come to feel strongly about living for the moment. So next time, leave the camera at home and just enjoy what you see.

TV: Plot - by Sam Mariotti

I had a difficult time deciding to write about plot or character next. The wonderful thing about TV and movies and writing and… everything, is that there are so many elements and none is more important than the other. It just makes it hard to decide the pecking order.

You see, a friend of mine said that his improv comedy teacher used to tell him to “forget the plot, just make sure you have a good, strong character. If everyone in the scene has that, then the plot will take care of itself.” I say… true. Especially in an improv scene. People laugh at and love a compelling character, that’s why good improv and sketch comedy are so successful. Think of a comedy show like Futurama. The plots are pointless, but we couldn’t care less because the characters are so strong.

I’d like to talk about plot and story though because I think that, especially in the serial drama, plot is just as highly important as character. What happens to the character and how they deal with it makes them that strong, defined character that we seek.

We are told that moments define people, and that’s well and fine for a short story, movie, or television series. We as a culture, however, have graduated from accepting a two-hour story as something that defines a life. We’ve grown to need more… hence movies with sequels and the on-going seven-season “movie” that serial TV offers.

Moments define people, but a series (er… serial) of moments defines their lives.

Every week we are invited to dive in to our chosen escapism via television. Here, we swim around in the ever-thickening, oh-so needlessly dramatic plots. As I’ve said before, this is where we can find our refuge, burying ourselves in fictional lives that out-do our own crazy lives by at least four and a half miles.

Just think about how unnecessarily theatrical (and effectual) your favorite shows are. Humankind has known since Aristotle’s Poetics that “the purpose of drama is to arouse pity and fear” in the audience. We fear that Derek and Meredith will never be happy in Grey’s Anatomy, we pity the poor suckers who are trapped in the mob life in The Sopranos.

Drama is dynamic, so the plot governs the story. In our beloved complex serials, we are constantly made aware of what is occurring on many different levels. We’re regularly slapped in the face by reversals that prompt our yelling at the TV and by revelations that can only leave us silently staring, our mouths agape. Such art is put into literature that makes us act this way that it’s a wonder that television is broadly thought of as such a mediocre medium.

Whether our serials are idealistic, realistic, or completely fictional, the dramatic plots that thicken and build will never fail to leave us at fatalistic crossroads. Yes, the characters could have chosen to treat a situation differently. But as we watch re-run after re-run, we realize that the stories and plots are so fabricated that had that character made another decision, Buffy would fail to slay vampires, and Jack Bauer would never have made it to hour 24. These shows have every ability to make us realize the consequences and potential of choices we make every day in our own lives. My thoughts are that “mediocre mediums” don’t tend to elicit that effect.

I’ll wrap up this edition with that thought, only because I like its truth. Next time, we’ll dive into the element of character and its substantial impact on shows we love. So until then, don’t turn off the TV. You'll miss out n so much of life!

Anatomy of a Shot: Week 1 - By Nate Haustein

I said last week that I’d start a new sort of series on my favorite shots over my years of production. Basically, the idea is to take a screen grab of a great-looking shot and talk about some of the aspects in it that make it stand out. Though there are many aspects that make up a particular shot, I’ll try to focus on one or two of them each post. Today’s topic is framing.

The above shot was taken outside a retirement community in Minnesota. I needed some cover shots for an informational video and headed to the grounds around sunset to try to get some good-looking footage. Sunrise and sunset are known to filmmakers as the “magic” or “golden hour,” where sunlight creates an aesthetic look just about impossible to duplicate otherwise. But that’s another post altogether.

Framing deals with the way a shot is put together. It defines what space an object or character takes up, and how it relates to the other parts of the frame. The specifics of framing can vary according to the aspect ratio of the screen (4:3, 16:9, etc.) but generally, a way of dividing the frame called “the rule of thirds” is used to decide where to place objects as to be the most visually appealing to audiences. For this said convention, the frame is split into nine sections, broken into thirds both vertically and horizontally. There are a number of ways this helps to set up a shot, the horizon, for example is usually placed on one of the horizontal lines, one-third or two-thirds of the way down, rather than smack in the middle. Why? It gives precedence to either the sky or the foreground. Just like depth of field, framing can help to draw the viewer’s attention to focus on particular elements. Much in the same way, the vertical lines create areas of interest, most notably on the intersections of these lines. Often objects or faces are placed on the intersections.

In my shot, you can see that the sun shining through the tree lies on the left vertical division. The brightness of the sun makes it the most prominent object in the shot, and making sure that this “character” lies in a particular part of the frame creates balance. How uninteresting would it be if every character of a film occupied only the very middle of the frame? The V shape of the tree also creates another frame within the larger frame. By placing objects within such natural frames, the shot can again draw attention and create interest. It can sometimes even create an emotional response, for instance if a character seemed to be entrapped within a frame, symbolic or otherwise.

Many variables are active in making this shot, including contrast, color, depth, lens effects, movement and more, but framing makes up the very base of everything, defining what the camera is looking at. Under no circumstances should the rule of thirds or any other “rules” be applied all of the time, or used without exception. Much of what is new, interesting and original comes from the negligence of such standards. The conventions seen in this post are simply a proven way to set up a shot that most people would find pleasant to look at.

Getting Ripped-Off in NYC - by Nate Haustein

I’ve been a little lacking in the posting department, but being sick last week made this week even busier than usual. I’ll make it up for you though, with a little traveler’s tip.

The photograph above depicts a camera store, but not just any camera store: behold, it’s a camera store in the heart of Times Square, smack dab in the Middle of Manhattan. You might ask why this is so interesting, or why I should care at all about this hole-in-the-wall place of business. Here’s my tip: don’t buy things, especially electronics from any of the shops you see in downtown NYC, you’ll pay double the price for half the item.

There are likely hundreds of such stores on the streets of New York, I know I saw at least 30 during my last trip to the city. All seem to be selling nearly the same things: iPods, digital cameras and other “traveler’s goods.” The doors are flung wide open, inviting you into the cool, air-conditioned interiors where in a split second a salesman will size you up and decide just how expensive a camera you can afford. Apart from the large number of knock-off goods like fake watches or mp3 players, these stores sport outrageously overpriced DSLR cameras, which will be the basis of our discussion.

While waiting at the counter, I saw an older man, perhaps of Japanese origin, looking for a camera while he was likely vacationing in the US. After selling him the $500 Canon Rebel for $800, the salesman became incredibly aggressive, making sure the customer knew he “can’t take good pictures without a zoom lens.” The lens, a 75-300mm which goes for about $175 in most camera shops was being pushed for an outrageous $750. I felt bad standing there, but the last thing I needed was a manager on my back for losing him a sale. I kept my mouth shut and exited the store.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with this type of salesmanship. It’s perfectly legal, and it even makes sense in New York City, where everything seems to be twice the price you would pay anywhere else. It just seems to me that these places make a significant percentage of their profits from under-informed, un-equipped consumers. It’s funny though, how unknowledgeable the salespeople can be. I asked about two 50mm Nikon lenses on the shelf–forgive me, yes I was testing them. One basic F1.8, and one high-end F1.4 (or something like that). Interestingly enough, the sales rep quickly looked at the lenses, looked at me, then said “$399.” Really? While thats about 4-5 times the price of the cheap lens, it’s actually a pretty good deal for the much faster one. As long as they’re making a profit, everything seems to be ok. I never tried to haggle...

On the other end of the spectrum is the online camera retailer business. If you look online, you’ll see the camera you want for thousands less than you’d pay normally. What usually happens here is the seller uses a “bait and switch” technique. That is, get you to commit to the item you want, then call you up and try to get you to change your order. This can take several forms, from saying an item is indefinitely out of stock to not including any of the standard accessories and charging $400 for the battery charger. It can get pretty nasty, and when someone is holding onto that $3000 charge on your credit card, it’s not a situation you want to be in. There are a whole bunch of horror stories on the web if you look around. When picking a retailer, one great resource to check is www.resellerratings.com. Simply type in the name of the seller you wish to check out and you’ll get the truth in seconds with real reviews from past customers. Remember, if you see a deal on the internet that seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I do want to add that not all New York camera stores are bad news. In fact, the city is the home of a number of top names in the photo business, including Adorama and my personal favorite, B&H Photo. Supporting a video business with equipment nearly exclusively purchased form their online store has sold me on their quality, and I’m usually hard-pressed to find a legitimate seller with prices any lower, so they’re a good place to start when looking for a fair price on the item you’re interested in. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, or more like ten blocks north and three blocks west.

So here’s the take home lesson: be informed about your purchases, especially if you plan on buying from sketchy NYC store keepers. Do your homework, or if you feel like you’re altogether clueless, head to a trusted camera shop, or your local big box electronics retailer–where the hired help doesn’t get paid commission and doesn’t get to make up the prices on the spot. Trust your gut: if you think someone is trying to deceive you, get another opinion.

More Commercials Due for Television (Sort of) - by Nate Haustein

I was watching the PGA championships last weekend, marveling at the incredible talent playing the course. By this time, most avid fans have come to realize just how much of a stake advertising has in the events. With the advent of television, print publications and the internet, producers have discovered how lucrative the opportunity truly is.

There’s just three easy steps to all of this:

Step 1: Pick a winner. Everybody loves a winner, and if people (especially kids) see their winner wearing a Nike hat, polo, or drinking Gatorade, they’re going to want to as well. The more your player/team wins = the more exposure they get = the more you sell.

Step 2: Push the brand. Stick your brand’s logo on as many pieces of equipment, clothing and event signage as humanly possible. It’s important to associate your name and image with an immediate subconscious response.

Step 3: Produce adequate reserves of product, price accordingly, and sit back to watch the profits roll in.

And thats really all there is to it. Of course people are paid millions of dollars to figure out precise marketing strategies, and how to reach specific demographics with specific products, but for the bare bones, this is pretty close. (Don’t tell your marketing agent I told you all of this by the way).

You may be wondering where I’m going with all of this, and I know it’s sloppy to get to the point this far into the post, but here it is anyway: what happens to the advertising prices at sporting events when television has reached the “HD Revolution?” Television stations have been broadcasting in high definition for a while now, providing a resolution over seven times greater than standard definition TV. Needless to say, it’s pretty crisp. HD promises that you will see more of your programs, with details that were never before visible. Details like logos and advertisements? Sounds about right.

A few years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to make out the Nike logo on Tiger’s hat unless he was relatively close to the camera. HD extends that distance considerably further. For instance, if the logo is distinguishable for 40% of the time with standard definition, HD may increase that figure considerably, perhaps even double it.

How does this affect television, pro sports, and advertising as we know it? Here’s how, and we’ll use Tiger as our hypothetical example once again. Tiger Woods walks around all day long sporting whatever Nike tells him to wear, and they pay him a lot of money to do it. On a good day on the course, a few thousand people see the logos on his hat, shirt and shoes. The real exposure, however, is on television, especially for championship rounds, and spectatorship undoubtedly reaches into the millions. If HD allows more people to see the Nike logos for more of the time, Nike is going to sell more apparel, and make more money. As a result of this, Tiger is going to want more money for his efforts, and in my opinion, he certainly deserves it. This reasoning would also hold true for the golf courses offering advertising opportunities, as well as any other sporting or other event.

As with any form of marketing, more exposure equals more money. HD has brought us an advancement in picture quality, though perhaps also a curse in the constant delivery of advertisements. It’s almost like a never ending stream of commercials. Maybe we’ll even learn to ignore it in time, just like we change the channel or skip thorough them with the Tivo.

Next Week: I’ve decided to start a weekly post devoted to my favorite shots. No not vodka, schnapps and the like, but rather images I’ve made over the years (or last week) that I’m truly proud of, and ones that I think I can bring some light to way they were produced. Nothing exceptionally fancy, but if you’re looking for technical tips on production and cinematography, these are the posts to look for.