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!