IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Using a HD camcorder makes you a better videographer
.
.
.
I believe in the above statement I have made, before I give you my reasons why, I'd like your views.

Regards

Based on previous discussions on this subject, I think you should tell us what a videographer is, in contrast to a filmmaker, documentary maker, drama maker, visual storyteller... it's a bit too all-encompassing to get a relevant answer...

To me videographer means someone who takes footage with a video camera - is that the same as a cameraman? So I probably agree with you on that score, but I don't think it's related to filmmaking as such, in that a film is a collection of footage that put all together has a coherent structure or tells a story or something like that...

And that deliberately doesn't include the "pretty pictures put to music" genre

... and a good saw makes you a better carpenter, a good car makes you a better driver, a good spade a better gardener, or a good pot a better cook.

Nope. I don't think so. But, as Chris says, it depends what you mean by videographer.

Someone who simply shoots videos? No ... because without an eye for composition, the images with a good HD camera would be less acceptable than those from a seasoned and skillful videographer using a cheapo.

Will HD turn a badly shot rubbish story into an epic? Nope. I don't subscribe to the 'never mind the quality, feel the width' syndrome. I hope judges never ever judge on a film's image quiality rather than its content.

So, I'd be very happy to hear the reasons! Prove me wrong!!

I presume the primary reason would be that HD is much less forgiving and more of the image is visible.
Therefore focusing has to be more accurate; as more background is potentially clearer it's more important to consider depth of field; as more detail is visible in the image, greater attention to costume, make-up or the appearance of the subject in general is necessary.

... how am I doing, Col?

Hmmm. Interesting. Those are all things a good videographer (as opposed to a good film-maker) should or would look for anyway, so I guess that by emphasising or highlighting the situation, HD would help to get the various 'settings' right.

Point taken.

I guess there are more though ... ?

In sufficient posts to get me to elaborate.

what I will do is offer my definition of a Videographer........

one who knows the intricasies of using a video camcorder to capture the moving image
one who is capabe of composing each shot in a creative manner
one who knows how to get the best moving image recorded onto the equipment they have
one whos moving images when edited can tell an entertaining story through the moving image alone
one who knows how to set up their camcorder to achieve a particular effect
A videographer can be described as a camera operator, focus puller and Director of Cinematography all rolled into one hands on individual
one who knows the difference between an f stop and an f sharp

In the context of my question it is not about editing or scripwriting or about the completed movie it is all about the captured motion, the rushes.

col lamb wrote:In sufficient posts to get me to elaborate.

It doesn't look like anyone else feels like posting.. Why not elaborate anyway? I'd like to hear your reasons.

I'm assuming it's more than - Clearer pictures amplify slight mistakes, that might otherwise have been lost in SD shots, or something along those lines?

Col - your definition of a videographer places far higher demands on skill-sets than they'd place on a photographer. Note that I'm not disputing this - just that it irks me when a photographer is getting paid more than I am at a wedding, and I'm Mr Videographer.

tom.

Tom, when you find yourself feeling irksome about it, and you need a little help to feel philosophical, just give athought to what nurses get paid.

Don't quite follow your argument Tim because I don't know what nurses get paid. But if they love their job as much as I love mine they'll wonder why people pay them at all, when secretely they'd do it for nothing.

tom hardwick wrote:Don't quite follow your argument Tim

I was simply reminding you that remuneration rarely bears any relation to work/effort/importance in an attempt to prevent you becoming too irked by what wedding photograhers get paid

Tom, whatever you do get paid it ain't enough, you do a fabulous job, I'm only sorry that I can't get married again - not yet anyway!

On the HD question, of course good pictures are important to a production and there's no question that HD is enabling us to produce pictures equal (or even superior) to those obtained in the old days with an Arri 16mm camera shooting on Eastman Color Negative stock. However, it goes without saying surely, that far, far more is required to ensure a successful film.

By the way ''pretty pictures cut to music'' can be made into a successful and enjoyable film. Speaking personally, I've had at least three such films broadcast over the last forty years.

Michael or another who has been in the amateur field a long time but has a better memory than I have
remind us of the name of the guy who made plasticine animation films, long before W&G.
Of all the amateur films I've seen over the years, not really that many compared with some of you, his are the ones that stick in my mind as being memorable.
One was about a soldier returning, injured from the war, expecting to be greeted as a hero but not having that experience.
The other was of an ageing magician whose act had gone off and who was playing to a very small audience when he thought he saw his long-dead wife and stage partner in the audience and his act suddenly blossomed until he realised his mistake.
(I may have misremembered the details and actually don't care though I'd love to see them again.)
Probably shot on 8mm film, 4:3, and don't tell me that with the right camera/lighting etc. this was Hi Def because definition wasn't the point. It was how he got expression and pathos out of modelling clay.
These films should be required viewing for people who say that definition, aspect ratio, knobs and whistles are important.
Does anybody know what the maker of those films is doing now?

Peter, his name was Cooper, can't recall his first name. I met him several times as we used to win Ten Bests in the 1970's and were on TV together and the NFT - those were the days for non commercial film making! His films were fantastic, you're right, and with such pathos. But your point about the technical quality of the picture is not really valid. Pictorial excellence for animation and such may not be too important, but a documentary on the Lake District or Antarctica is made immeasurably more effective with wonderful pictures.

Cooper's films should be in the IAC library because when the NFT (to their shame) discarded all the Ten Best winning films from their library the IAC stepped in.

Michael got it while I was still combing my fuzzy memory: Lewis Cooper.

His film Deja Vu is on tape FT/V50

He won an award for At The Stroke of Midnight in 1987

But as Michael says he came top acclaim in the days of the Movie Maker Ten Best awards. His single best known film must be The Life and Death of Jo Soap. Read about it at http://www.animatormag.com/archive/issu ... 3-page-14/

Dave