The River's Edge Blog

Attack of the DSLRs

2009-11-24T12:16:00.007-06:00

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

2009-11-24T12:14:00.012-06:00

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

2009-11-24T12:12:00.015-06:00

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

2009-11-05T16:43:00.007-06:00

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

2009-09-14T00:41:00.004-05:00

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

2009-09-03T11:38:00.005-05:00

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

2009-08-25T08:15:00.010-05:00

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.

TV: Categorizing - by Sam Mariotti

2009-08-23T21:13:00.007-05:00

What about the plot “bleeding” effect? Where is the line drawn between a tv series and a tv serial, and when and why do they bleed into each other? Can we define shows like Friends or Scrubs as “series” television when they have obvious subplots that are “serial”? My thoughts are… yes, we can define them as series TV. After all, just like with obvious series TV like Family Guy, we can watch the first, middle, and last episodes (or any one in between) and still know exactly what’s going on. Completely serial episodes in this “bleeding” category are so rare that we can hardly group them with more obvious serial television like Lost, Weeds, or The West Wing.

Serial television originally came from the soap opera. Think about how crucial it is to watch the episodes of a soap opera in order. With every twist, turn, affair, and coma, you’d never know what’s what if you jumped in and out of the show like you can with shows in the bleeding category.

A lot of this bleeding occurs in comedies, and I think that has a lot to do with the category change. Shows like Everybody Love Raymond and Seinfeld rely on comedy to tell their stories, so the serial subplot is a lot less necessary to pay attention to because the subplot is generally more serious and about the “real lives” of the characters. We wouldn’t enjoy or get lost in shows like these as much if the serial subplot was made as important as the comedy. Like I said before, these are simply different ways of storytelling.

Drama reigns in the serial show because we are following the dramatic lives of the characters through “realistic” turns and challenges in their lives. In Sex and the City, we find that we need to see the characters succeed in their love lives. In Heroes, we want to see our characters overcome and prevail even through their differences and sacrifices. We want to be reassured of Sydney Bristow’s strength through her never-ending trials in Alias. No matter how unrealistic the plot or storyline is, every obstacle, twist, and fall is real for the characters of the show, and therefore real for us.

This transference of realism is known as “suspension of disbelief.” When we watch, see, read, or hear a story (tv show, movie, play, book, song, etc) we pause our own skepticism and tag alongside the plot and the characters as if they are just as real as we are.

Serials tend to rely on dark comedy as much as drama for this same reason. Irony and sarcasm are real to us, so the creators and writers of our shows are keen to add these elements of real life to the fiction. The serial generally shies away from the unrealistic (but effective in its element) slapstick of the series. Though lines may be blurry at times, I don’t necessarily think definition is as important as understanding.

What about the shows that seem to reset every episode as if nothing really changes? Kenny always dies and comes back to life in South Park, The Simpsons never grow up, and Jerri Blank from Strangers With Candy is somehow back in high school at age 46. These shows are simply sketch comedy at its finest. They defy definition and we are happy to let them because they keep us laughing.

Realism, drama, comedy, and fiction are not the only factors for us to consider when thinking of our favorite shows. Next time, I want to talk about the importance of plot, story, genre, and theme. So please keep reading and most of all, as always, keeping watching TV!

Organizing Chaos - by Nate Haustein

2009-08-18T12:28:00.010-05:00

I just finished an exhausting 24 hours of shooting, in several locations and for several different clients and purposes. Traveling between 4 different cites and even more locations within them gives even the most in shape team a run for their money, especially when you’re hauling around an entire set of equipment. Though exhausting, its always rewarding to look back on the projects and see the footage or performances my crew and I achieved.

Last night we shot in Minneapolis, MN in a fairly active part of downtown, as well as some other various locations. The purpose: a webisode for a small internet-based company. More or less, we had an actor in full “rockstar” garb walking down the street acting like he owned the place. It was a lot of fun, and no one on the street really knew what to think of it. One thing I’ve learned from shoots like this is that organization is possibly the most important part of a complex production. Making sure that everything is completely planned out before the camera is even out of the bag can make or break a production day. Without a plan, we’d be dead in the water.

Producing films with higher levels of professionalism takes more people, more equipment, and more time to set up. I appreciate my team every day as we distribute production jobs, making sure that everything works how it should, and in the way the others expect it to be done. Getting along with your team, and being able to think alike makes a complex shoot enjoyable to do, and incredibly fast to complete. Even if you are working with a completely new team, clearly communicate your intentions on what the project is, how you want it to look at the end, and what people are responsible for. Making sure that everyone knows exactly what is going on saves time, and more importantly, money.

Some things I think are necessities for any shoot:

Make sure everyone involved knows when they are needed to be available. Then have them show up 15 minutes earlier.
Plan out exactly what will be shot. Make a list, or even better, a storyboard of the angles, lighting, and blocking.
Note the equipment, props, people, and anything else that has to be at each location.
Have roles! If you have people to help out, agree on responsibilities so that things get set up faster, and so there is less confusion or deliberation during actual production.

The list could be even more specific with things like charging batteries, having enough tapes/media, but it might go on forever. Something else that should be noted is that shooting also takes flexibility. Being in the field brings many challenges, mostly ones you don’t expect. Like that janitor walking down the hallway with a loud garbage can, or the worker who starts using a circular saw a few feet to the left of the camera. It’s raining? Uh oh. Being able to think on your feet, fixing problems without jeopardizing the flow of production is perhaps the most important skill to have. It takes time to learn, but once you figure it out, things get a lot less stressful when something goes wrong.

So now, it’s time for a vacation away. See you next time.

Battle of the Hipsters - by Nate Haustein

2009-08-10T08:11:00.009-05:00

I’ve found that writing an entry on Sunday night is rather relaxing, so join me tonight in my observations as I look at two marketing strategies from Microsoft–one I think that works, and one I think isn’t quite as effective.

Several years ago, Apple Computer began a sort of reinvention of itself, possibly one of the most notable in recent history. One that upped the computing power of its hardware and marketed its proprietary operating system, OS X, as one of the utmost simplicity. A hit series of “I’m a Mac” commercials featured young, hip Justin Long representing Mac computers, continuously antagonizing John Hodgman, acting respectively as a PC. Still running strong years later, the commercials highlighted all the features available only on a Mac.

Likely sick of being poked fun at, Microsoft needed to come up with a plan to battle these incredibly successful ads. The solution was (uninterestingly enough) the “I’m a PC” campaign. At first, the campaign focused primarily on the supposedly real people who use the Windows operating system. A human interest approach that exposed a good deal of talented and interesting characters and how they use their computers. So far, so good. In the last year or so, however, Microsoft has gone to a new sort of commercial. In these 30 second ads, so called Laptop Hunters are “found” in the parking lot of a big box computer retailer such as Best Buy, and offered $1500 or so to buy any computer they want. If it costs less, they keep the difference. Participants usually walk around, see some features they like in a few laptops, bash the Mac computers for price or performance, and then settle on an offering from HP or Dell.

Lauren is a redhead. Read more about that here. Oh, and EDIT: it seems like Lauren isn't really a random person. She's an actress. Oh well, I almost expected it.

Ok, hang on a sec. Who’s paying for these commercials? The branding says Microsoft, but these ads are selling computers. Microsoft is just making the software that runs on them. In the end, it seems like the take home message is “I got a insert PC manufacturer name here, and not a Mac.” In fact, it’s more like, “Anything is better than a Mac.” Since Intel chips became standard on all new Macs, they can run Windows too. I know I do on mine from time to time. But when it comes down to it, more PC-only models sold means more guaranteed Windows licenses for Microsoft. With a valid competing pre-installed operating system like OS X, it likely cuts the percentage of Windows purchases to the single digits.

Now lets get this straight, I’m not necessarily critiquing the Windows operating system, or any PC manufacturers in particular. I believe that Windows, and it’s associated PC hardware is extraordinarily valid in many situations. Then again, as market shares continue to shift across operating systems, this divide in application may very well change. I do think that Microsoft should rethink it’s marketing strategy to something more original, and perhaps one that actually markets their product for its own quality, rather than relying on the prices of the hardware it runs on.

There’s the bad, now for the good.

Another piece of software that Microsoft holds an incredible market share on is Microsoft Office. Completely integrated in the majority of business and educational establishments, Microsoft needs to find a way to peddle its latest revision of the program suite every couple years or so. We’re all sick of hearing about a program that allows us to do, usually, work. So updates have been, more or less, lackluster. Microsoft needed a way to advertise it’s money-machine as something, well, cool.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is it...

The trailer appeals in every way a viral video should. It’s funny, it’s exciting, it looks good, and it’s short enough for anyone to watch. Another key to the video is that it doesn’t take itself seriously, at all. Nothing is spared from being ridiculed, most notably the help-giving paperclip from years ago and an extensive list of fonts. At the end we all ask ourselves how on earth do infiltration teams and helicopters relate to Microsoft Office, but it really doesn’t even matter. The sheer awesomeness carries the trailer and the productivity suite on its own. Maybe all of this will be explained in 2010...

Why We Love TV - By Sam Mariotti

2009-08-08T17:57:00.013-05:00

We all love TV. I say this with generalization of course; I mean, I know there’re a few pariahs out there who claim they don’t have time for the tube. There are those who say they’d rather spend their time amid “real” literature with their noses buried in a book. Some might even say that television is a lost art— that the shows of today could never compare to the nostalgic comfort of "Lassie" or "I Dream of Jeannie."

The way I see it, and the way an overwhelming portion of the population sees it, television is no lost art at all. It’s in fact adapted, changed, and molded to our fast-paced lives to become just as important to us as real literature, just as nostalgic as "M*A*S*H," and cookie-cutter cropped into half-hour segments to fit any lifestyle.

For the next few weeks, I’ll be writing about why we love serial television. I’ll explain a couple major differences between a television serial (ex. "Lost," "Weeds," "Sex and the City") and a television series (ex. "The Simpsons," "30 Rock," "CSI"), just so we’re all on th

e same page.

1) In general, a serial calls for you to watch each episode in succession so you know what’s going on. You can’t just pop in and out like you would in a series and expect the same results (edge-of-your seat nail biting, emotional attachment, long talks at the water cooler, etc).

2) A serial uses a linear timeline to

build story and character while a series relies on a varied assortment of moments to do the same. They’re simply different types of storytelling, each with their own intent. Basically: serial=anthology of novels, series=collection of short stories.

So why do we love the serial? We all want, nay need, drama. I don’t just mean your typical dramatic thriller where boy and girl meet constant obstacles but still maintain a mad love for each other.

Whether it’s through drama, comedy, sci-fi or thriller, today’s television serials know our desires.

We desire the thick, juicy stuff that has us up at 3 in the morning with the “just one more episode” flu. We’ve grown tired of mythic storytelling so we’re given pragmatic testimonies. We yearn for relatable characters so we’re graced with anti-heroes.

Above all, we need a break from our own busy, tiring, tragic lives. Luckily, these characters that we know and love live lives that constantly spin more out of control than our own lives do. It’s a healthy version of Schadenfreude – we don’t have to derive pleasure from real people’s misfortunes, just the fake characters who embody them.

Finally, our beloved serials convince us that love bears substance, patience fosters virtue, and the courage to face the day pays off in the end. I promise it’ll only take seven seasons of learning from others’ mistakes to understand what we’ve always been taught.

I love TV, and I want to know why. I hope you want to know too. Over the n

ext few weeks, we’ll analyze different elements of the television serial that provoke our affection. So keep reading, keep loving, and above all, keep watching TV.

Popular Pirates

2009-08-03T08:44:00.004-05:00

Last week everyone was talking about a certain video posted on YouTube. Email forwards, radio hosts, TV stations and social networking sites were hot on the tail of this rapidly spreading piece of user-created content. In about a week, nearly nine million people watched a five-minute amateur wedding video called “JK Wedding Entrance Dance.” It was just that. Instead of conforming to the more traditional song, the dozen or so people in the bridal party did the unexpected and broke out the dance moves to Chris Brown’s “Forever.” If you haven’t seen it yet, spend a few minutes below and get up to speed with the rest of the country.

It was a novel video, but the thing that struck me most was the music. Chris Brown, “Forever,” in it’s entirety. As of late, YouTube has been increasingly concerned about keeping copyrighted music out of the videos on its site, introducing an automatic detection system that scans the music in uploaded videos. And with the recent downloaded music scares, that’s probably a good thing. So how is it, you might ask, that a video can survive over 9 million views (now more than 15 million) when it has an unlicensed soundtrack with one of the most popular songs of the year? Let’s analyze this a bit more.

About six months ago, artist Chris Brown had a problem when a few aspects of his personal life likely jeopardized his fan base. You can read more about it if you’re interested. Perhaps Brown’s craving to revitalize his image has left him (or his agents and lawyers) open to bending the rules a little bit concerning copyright infringement. Amazingly, the video has remained untouched by YouTube, or any representatives of the recording label, quite a feat nowadays for something other than an official music video. It seems as if everything thats’ been crammed down our throats related to copyright for the last decade can be changed as long as the original content owner profits from it. To be honest, it makes me a little nervous about our legal system’s whims, especially as a content producer myself.

EDIT: The couple has set up a website devoted to the video, trying to raise money for a charitable cause. The charity, The Sheila Wellstone Institute stands for ending domestic violence in communities. Honorable, and naturally it ties in to Chris Brown's incident. A bit of a dig on an artist who helped them become web-famous.

U.S. copyright law basically defines fair use as using content for critical, satirical, news or educational purposes, but requires the material to be “reasonably brief” and attributed to its rightful owner. That’s how shows like The Simpsons and internet blogs such as this one get away with using the material. As far as I can tell, the wedding video doesn’t fall under fair use. Even worse though are the freeloaders who copy the video to their own YouTube account, hoping to drive viewers towards their own goals and financial gain. Like this one. Shame. Shame.

Oddly enough, I saw a message from the original uploader of the video to the uploader of one of the copies. It read: “I am the owner of this video and if you do not remove it I will take legal action.” Huh, really?

I don’t want to come across as being critical of the couple and their families who did the dancing wedding video–I thought it was cute, imaginative, and progressive in nature. Not to mention it was never fully intended for a mass audience. I simply want to draw attention to the methods being used to market a song and it’s artist in a far different and unexpected way than was obviously first imagined, and the ways in which laws are being made and interpreted in a rapidly changing mediated environment. Apparently, if you become popular enough, copyright infringement is just fine.

SD Cards, the Future, and You

2009-07-30T20:42:00.009-05:00

Remember how DVDs were the next big thing? Or maybe for some of you, cassette tapes? Well I’m saying that the next big thing in media acquisition and delivery is the SD (Secure Digital) card. Now before some of you get on my back about internet delivery, hear this: even though the internet has provided a great way to deliver content, producers still need to account for people who are behind the cutting edge of technology, not to mention the psychological satisfaction of actually receiving a physical item. Perhaps in a decade the majority of the United States, and likely the world will have internet fast enough to satisfy all requirements, but until then, we need a new format to subside with. SD anyone? I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d rather not wait an hour for my HD movie to download when I can have it now off a piece of plastic the size of a postage stamp.

Cost for a card has dropped to a fraction of what it was 3 years ago, and capacities have increased nearly a hundred fold. Speeds have increased, and continue to do so. People want their content–now. Faster, more reliable. and likely soon to be cheaper than a CD or DVD, SD provides that speed for a transitioning user base whether it’s being used for audio, video, image or data storage.

Beyond content delivery, SD, and it’s newer, faster SDHC (Secure Digital High Capacity) variant has also become the recent standard for acquisition. Big names Canon, Nikon and Panasonic have all caved into the pressure to make SD the media of choice for consumer and prosumer grade point-and-shoot and DSLR cameras, and now a card that holds around a thousand pictures costs less than a roll of film. Its acceptance has made it cheap, universal, and available. What’s not to like?

SD has been in my mind for the last few months due to its relevance in the video production world. As tape-based formats such as HDV are in their way out, the obvious next step is a tapeless workflow, giving higher resolution, better data rates, faster transfers, and greater durability.

There are really only a few choices for this in the sub-$10,000 category of video: a segment with many independent producers such as myself. P2 cards, designed for Panasonic camcorders such as the HPX-170, give the greatest data rates but also have the most substantial price, well over $1,000 for a 32GB card, which in turn produces about 3 hours of top-quality video–let me remind you that one hour DV/HDVtapes are about $3. P2 cards are rather large, however, as they are designed to fit in the 54mm slot on some laptops- bad news for Mac users.

Sony’s answer to this is the SxS Pro Expresscard format–essentially the “new” laptop card format, coming in at 34mm. Compatible with their XDCAM EX camcorders, the SxS Pro sticks are also quite pricey, comparable to P2 at similar capacities. One answer to this price hurdle was made by a company called e-films, with their MxR Adapter product. The MxR allows the inexpensive SDHC format to be used inside an Expresscard carrier, eliminating the need to exclusively use Sony’s format.

The SDHC cards are mainly being used now by Panasonic, Canon and JVC. Of most note is Panasonic’s HMC150 camcorder, which records to SDHC cards up to 64GB in capacity. To compare costs with the other formats, a 32GB SDHC card costs about $270. JVC recently released several camcorders that record to the cards, and its only a matter of time before Canon, who has been manufacturing consumer models with SD acquisition for several years, releases new prosumer models that also use the specification.

Solutions for file-based acquisition have been around for a while, but so far have been expensive or limited in functionality for real-world situations. In my opinion, the FireStore, a hard drive based recorder did not meet the needs of all productions due to its limited storage space, physical size and dependence on a battery. This being said, it’s essential that the tapeless format be fully integrated into the camera.

There are also a number of negatives for SD including a 4GB file limit, the fragility of the card’s connectors, and the current data limit of the cards for higher quality recording. I do think, however, that most of these can be corrected by software updates, manufacturing practices and the general advance of technology in making newer versions, or as SDHC cards are concerned “classes.” Currently Class 6 cards are some of the top rated for video acquisition, maxing out at around 24Mbps for AVCHD.

For more on AVCHD, see last week’s post.

I’m not the only one banking on a bright future for SD. In the latest release of Apple’s MacBook Pro has ditched the Expresscard slot for one that supports SD. Keep in mind that the MacBook Pro is designed for media professionals. It doesn’t leave much for manufacturers to realize that they want their products to work with perhaps the hottest laptops on the market. Taking all of this into account, I hope to be producing entirely tapeless products from start to finish: shooting, storing and delivering on SDHC, or another similar format within the next year or so. With any luck, the normal consumer will adapt to the technology smoothly, perhaps with devices offering multiple options for viewing such as DVD/VCR combo players, making content delivery easier, more affordable and more compatible than it’s ever been before.

No Love for AVCHD

2009-07-24T16:27:00.005-05:00

I was surprised today by the release of the latest incarnation of Apple’s video production suite, Final Cut Studio 3. The update was sudden and without warning, no mention of it graced the presentations at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference in June or the giant NAB (North American Broadcaster) show in Las Vegas the month before. Nevertheless, in these days of rapidly progressing digital media, the advancements found in the new programs are quite relevant to modern workflows. Tighter integration between editing and compositing programs is one major selling point of the suite, as well as greater automation to speed production. Apple added 5 new flavors to the already popular in house PRORES codec, from an offline quality to a full 4:4:4:4 finishing codec. I found everything I expected and more in the hundreds of upgrades, except for one thing: native AVCHD support.

For a few years now, consumer camcorders have been using a codec called AVCHD, an MPEG4-based compression scheme that has remarkable quality at quite a low data rate. In fact, the compression is twice as efficient as widely popular tape-based HDV, not to mention the resolution is an actual 1920x1080 pixels, compared to the 1440x1080 of HDV. First used as a strictly consumer format, AVCHD began to move its way up the ladder to prosumer and professional demographics when the data rate being recorded by the cameras surpassed that of other formats, such as HDV. Around 2008, Canon and Panasonic (as well as several others) offered cameras with a data rate of 24Mbps, nearly that of HDV at 25Mbps. Considering the efficiency of AVCHD compression, and the option of uncompressed audio, the new format became a viable option for those looking for an affordable way of recording HD programming.

Now that you know your history...

Final Cut Pro, the central editing component in Final Cut Studio is now in its 7th revision. It touts itself as a program that can handle nearly any type of video format with ease. Apparently not AVCHD. The Final Cut solution to AVCHD is to first convert to Apple’s PRORES. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. In fact, it’s probably what I would do myself if I had a camera that shot AVCHD. The reason for doing this is to ease the computer’s processor during editing. Because the codec is so compressed, the computer needs to work hard to uncompress the footage for editing, slowing down the work unless one has a sufficiently fast machine – compression is an entirely different topic I’ll have to cover at a different time, but you get the idea. AVCHD is fully supported in iMovie ’09, shipped free with every new Mac computer. All I’m asking is for the $1000 flagship video editing program to support it, should someone choose to edit natively. One instance I might find it useful would be quickly cutting together vacation footage or the like. PRORES takes a lot of hard drive space, not to mention time to convert. Hacking together a few shots to put up on YouTube shouldn't have to take long in the world’s most advanced editing software. Video editors have some of the most powerful computers on the planet, for some reason, I don’t think that a little extra processing power is going to be a big deal for most, especially if the projects are kept simple. For someone serious about video production, they understand what AVCHD is, know when to use it, and know when to encode to something different – a choice that countless iMovie users don’t even have.

Sony’s Vegas editing software has natively cut AVCHD footage for some time now, and as more and more cameras are being offered in the flavor, it’s only logical for other software manufacturers to follow suit. In the brand new MacBook Pro I purchased last month is an SD card slot. A large percentage of current camcorders record to cheap SD or SDHC cards, in you guessed it, AVCHD. It would seem logical for Apple to fully support the format they are fully aware of, as the expresscard slot was removed for the SD option. The top-of-the-line Sony EX-1 and EX-3 camcorders record to the Final Cut Pro supported XDCAM EX format, yet Apple removed the way to transfer the files by eliminating the expresscard slot in the 15” MacBook Pros. I’m not saying I don’t like my computer, but sometimes things seem a bit backwards. Maybe someone will realize this soon enough and offer a fix in the next Final Cut Pro update.

Next Time: SD cards, the future, and you.

Current Trends - Red Marketing

2009-07-04T14:57:00.001-05:00

Perhaps it’s coincidence, but as of late, I’ve been seeing a new sort of trend in print and electronic marketing. It’s not the green revolution, and it’s not the customized content phenomenon; what I’ve noticed simply concerns the hair color of models and actors. Red, in a manner of speaking, has become the new black.

Yesterday a red-haired woman was selling me Zyrtec, then two commercials later, an entire family was having a Target sponsored picnic, their hair all matching the red, Bullseye logo. Looking at all the commercials I’ve seen in recent weeks that contained people, redhead actors occupy at least 25% of them, sometimes it seems closer to half.

It seems like everywhere I turn, a red-headed man, woman or child is trying to sell me a new product or service. Perhaps it is the novelty of it all that fuels the craze. Every type of business is trying to separate themselves from the competition, but the claim of providing something fresh and different needs to be accompanied by the perfect face to sell it. What better way to market an idea as original than to have what most people would consider a “rare” kind of person using it– a stand out individual promoting what companies hope will be a stand out product.

In the past years consumers haven’t seen many ads with red-headed people. For the longest time, blonde hair was the staple of standard marketing practice. In my opinion, people simply got bored. A characteristic initially used to make people stand out became the norm, requiring a progression in the cycle of public interest. Blonde hair may come back into style, but consumers need time to forget about it; perhaps for several decades, making now the time for a new push in establishing a norm. Though it is inevitable that the very thing that is new and different cannot stay that way for very long. As marketers begin to see a positive response in a certain tactic, its appearance becomes saturated within the market.

Hollywood actress Amy Adams even claims that dying her once blonde hair to red got her more work, appearing frequently as “kooky,” fun-loving characters. It must be a good time for auburn actors in the marketing business; maybe now is time for the rest of us to go out and buy it in a box.

Movie Review - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-07-02T23:35:00.020-05:00

We all knew going into the theater that day that the movie we were about to see would be big, bold, and filled with more action than the average person could possibly stomach. Director Michael Bay brings Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to theaters this summer, following the huge blockbuster success of Transformers in 2007.

The story of the last film builds in the sequel with the main protagonist, Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBouf) preparing for college. Besides having a shape shifting Camaro in the garage, Sam also bears the secret of the Autobots: a robotic alien race now enlisted by the United States military to hunt down evil Decepticons. When Sam discovers a remaining piece of the power-giving All Spark, the Decepticons give chase, calling upon The Fallen to destroy the Sun and bringing an end to the earth. Its up to Sam and his bombshell girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) to uncover the secret of The Fallen and save the world from a dark end.

I went to Revenge of the Fallen expecting robots, things blowing up, and Megan Fox - I got what I was looking for. The first scene of the movie shows a military attack on an evil Decepticon robot disguised a bulldozer. As waves of marines and helicopters swarm toward the machine, it springs to life and rears up into a 300-foot-tall behemoth that cruises down a Chinese highway squishing cars like bugs. Five minutes have passed it and already seems like the climax of any other movie you’d see on a Saturday afternoon.

The explosions are battle scenes are without a doubt the most intense I’ve ever seen in a movie. Michael Bay Employed the actual US military, so from planes, tanks, submarines, and aircraft carriers to foot soldiers, what you’re seeing a lot of the time is the real deal. There’s enough dust, smoke and fire in the movie to block out the sun, and be ready for a full assault on a remote desert outpost. High-altitude jumps, a rail gun, Blackhawk helicopters, and assault rifles with a dozen accessories are enough to complete any guy’s movie checklist. It’s all there, and it makes for a good time.

Two expectations down, one to go. The scene introducing Mikaela involves her draped over a motorcycle, painting a design on the gas tank. A golden glow illuminates her as the camera moves across. It was a well put together shot. In fact, it was a slow-motion-inducing, jaw-dropping, girlfriend-punching-you-in-the-arm kind of shot. Visuals are spectacular in the film, whether they involve its characters or varied world landscapes. The level of detail found in the robots is incredible; and the animations during transformation from vehicle to standing bot are without a doubt from the very finest in Hollywood and ILM. Apart from the amazing lighting found in every shot, I found the seemingly constant camera movement particularly captivating. The level of care to keep the camera moving up, down and around at all times is remarkable. It’s quite fun to watch, and really helps to sell this movie as an over-the-top, blockbuster hit.

There are, however, a great number of times in the movie where things are a bit heavy-handed or completely overdone. One example that comes to mind is when the time comes for Sam to leave Mikaela. The camera circles the pair 720˚ (yes 720˚!) as The Fray’s Never Say Never blares “Don’t let me go” in the background. Much of the music in the movie seemed forced, including another appearance from Linkin Park, but it did implement what is currently culturally relevant. Comedic content is hit or miss, and it altogether saturates the movie. I had quite a few chuckles, such as Mikayla struggling to get Sam to say “I love you” throughout the movie, but was a bit surprised on a few profanities and racy punch lines that involve a pair of robots voiced in a very obvious, “urban” fashion.

I’ll come right out and say it, Revenge of the Fallen is not a good film. Sure, the visuals are great and the acting isn’t horrible, but there is absolutely no subtlety. It’s a point A to point B story fed to you bite by bite, with hardly any room for narrative development or character growth. But before you write it off from your weekend movie fix, hear this: it was a lot of fun. That’s right, the movie was wonderfully entertaining, and because of that I would recommend it to anyone looking for an exciting trip to a sci-fi action experience. One warning, at over two and a half hours the movie gets to be a little long and perhaps too intense for everyday moviegoers, so be prepared to commit some time to this one.

So how does one rate a bad movie that they liked? Maybe I’ll break the rules a bit and give it two ratings, the first for its quality as a film and the second for sheer enjoyment.

Official Score: 2.5 Stars out of 5

Enjoyment Factor: 4.5 Stars out of 5

Combined Score: 3.5 Stars out of 5

Trailer

Post #1: Here Goes

2009-06-22T10:33:00.006-05:00

With all the information I utilize from the the internet, I figure it's about time for me to join in. So here we go, a semi-regular blog on technology and film, both technical and critical in nature.

Some of the things I hope to cover in the time to come:

Video production techniques and tutorials
Production Diaries
Film Reviews
Video Production Equipment Reviews
Commentary on current trends in the media and hardware
Video/Media industry news
Interesting articles or media found elsewhere that I find relevant

I'd also hope to tie in these posts periodically with the activities of my video production company, River's Edge Digital Media.

So without any wait, here comes the first post - a movie review for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.