Derek, in post #43 above I said, and I quote...
Having said all that, if that's how a person wants to spend his money--more power to him. That's his right!

Just like buying a battleship to go fishing in is the buyer's right,too. However, in such instances it does not always exhibit a great deal of wisdom.

Come on, now, how many times have folks posted here "I just bought __________ (fill in the blank), can someone here tell me, please, how to use it?"

OR...

"I just bought a shipload of really cool, expensive gear. I'm planning to shoot a movie that we're gonna transfer to film as soon as it's done. Can you good people please tell me how to accomplish all this? And by the way, we're starting the shoot this Saturday. Thanks!"

I'm talking about the people that buy equipment they have no clue how to use or why.

{edit}
Derek, a thought just came to me...

Perhaps I'm frustrated because there is so much focus on the "technical" and little or no focus on the "art" of filmmaking, which I firmly believe is evidenced nearly everywhere we turn these days--from Hollywood to here.

Jay

Perhaps I'm frustrated because there is so much focus on the "technical" and little or no focus on the "art" of filmmaking, which I firmly believe is evidenced nearly everywhere we turn these days--from Hollywood to here.

Hear, hear!

Excellent point, and one that we should all be reminded of every now and then.
If one has a good idea, and some talent, a "good" movie can be made with a $50 tube camera bought off eBay.

Cheers,
Marius
http://vidled.com

Hear, hear!
If one has a good idea, and some talent, a "good" movie can be made with a $50 tube camera bought off eBay.

Cheers,
Marius
http://vidled.com

No, you can't make a "good" movie with a $50 tube camera off ebay.

It is all about balance. You need a familiarity with the tools of your art in order to transfer your vision more accurately. There is nothing wrong with having an interest in the intimacies of the tools your are using. If nothing else, that allows you to create something that more closely resembles the movie you see in your head.

In my instance, I saw in my head a movie with 24fps motion characteristics and a relatively shallow DOF. I did my research and now I have the tools to get closer to my vision.

That doesn't mean that I have forgotten things like a good story or good actors or good sound or good cinematography or that I think they are less important somehow.

Now, maybe other people have gotten swept up in the technology and they have forgotten the other things that are important. I don't fault their interest in the technology. I just simply say their films suck.

No, you can't make a "good" movie with a $50 tube camera off ebay.

Hmmm.....a challenge? :-)

There is nothing wrong with having an interest in the intimacies of the tools your are using.

No, definitely nothing wrong with that. But then again, one could have interest in the intimacies of the $50 tube cam off eBay also! :-)

I just simply say their films suck.

Hehehe....good one, that!

Nice discussion; it's a very interesting subject, tech vs. art.

Marius -

It's not technology vs. art. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's a matter of using the two together and finding the right balance for what you want the final product to look like. Some use more than others, and each person who's shooting video will have their own idea of how much of each that they want to use.

actually, you can make pretty good videos with cheap equipment. back in the 90s, the fisher-price pixelvision camera was all the rage among art school indie filmmakers. i remember screening some stuff at a film festival by a teenage filmmaker named sadie benning who shot her stuff with, basically, a child's toy. in her bedroom, using barbie dolls. and her stuff was great!

now several of our own dvinfo-ers are attempting to resurrect the pixelvision camera, the irony now being that these gadgets are collector's items, and you have to plunk down $250 or more on ebay to get one, about the same price as the cheapest single-chipper DV camera.

with a single-chipper and a set of 24p filters, you can probably make a pretty good video that looks relatively film-ish.

progressive video and the available filter sets are the real revolution because they remove the video sheen. i tell you, your average college student cannot tell the difference.

i don't think anyone is telling anyone else how to spend their money, but i, personally, think it is helpful to have these discussions, to distinguish what we want from what's really necessary, and why it is necessary. in my dvinfo dalliances, someone, somewhere, i don't know who, but i'm sure someone's snide comments once saved me from buying a mattebox!

It's a matter of using the two together.

Very true.
Just sometimes they just don't get along and start fighting with each other. I hate when that happens!
In Hollywood, tech normally wears gloves with weights in them, and subsequently tends to win out most of the time.

Jay,

I agree with you on your last post. But I do think there does have to be some focus on the technical. Like Kelly said above -

"In my instance, I saw in my head a movie with 24fps motion characteristics and a relatively shallow DOF. I did my research and now I have the tools to get closer to my vision."

Personally, I'm more of an artistic type than a technical type. But when I set forward with the idea of making some nice videos (for testimonials, talking heads, etc) I knew what I wanted the result to be, and had to make sure I had the right tools to make it a reality. And everyone here in the forums probably has their own personal preferences on what equipment they feel that they need to accomplish their own film or video goals.

And frankly, I was really forced into the technical side, because there are so many components like sound, light, framing... the list goes on and on, that you have to balance to have nice final products.

I'm a total novice at this, but since I'm 32, I can't go back to school and take 4 years of film school (although I would really like to do so). So I'll have to learn through "doing," making mistakes and every other channel that I can. This forum was/is a great place to do so. Mostly, I've learned just from reading threads. Most of the answers are out there if you just do a quick search. It's great!

- - - -

Marius

Yes, I've even seen tech with a light sabre.

- - - -

Welcome to DVinfo.net Brian!

Sometimes it pays not to discuss the technology. I had an interesting discussion a while back with someone who made a wildlife series for a mainstream broadcast channel here in the UK, who is an avid XL user.

When he submits footage for broadcast he doesn't tell the broadcaster that it was shot on the XL camera. Instead he transfers to digi-beta and submits the work on this format. Why ? Because the broadcasters are hung up on technology and think that anything less than digi-beta is inferior.

I've seen one of these films. The subject matter captivates you and you simply don't notice the difference, because he used the technology to capture the art. He had a mix of film and DV formats in film, and unless pointed out, you don't notice.

The point here is that technology matters alot, he chose the XL camera for technical reasons (attachment options, portability, and all the reasons why we choose to use it), but the art is more important. Use the tools and all the technology you need to capture and create the art that you want everyone else to see.

Because the broadcasters are hung up on technology and think that anything less than digi-beta is inferior.

Yes, that's my point. It could be made to read, "Because __________ (fill in blank) is/are hung up on technology and think that anything less than ___________ (fill in blank) is inferior."

I had a potential client call last week from Barbados wanting something shot. He asked what kind of camera we used. When I said "Canon XL2" there was a long pause. Then he asked, "Do you not have access to a higher-end camera?" I wanted to say, "Sure, we can rent an Arriflex D-20," but I didn't want to tick the guy off.

Bottom line? I have great distain for techno-snobs.

Jay

I haven't seen the FX1 mentioned in this thread.

Thanks

I haven't seen the FX1 mentioned in this thread.

Probably because this is the "Canon XL2 Watchdog" forum. The thread was, in the beginning, discussing the Red Rock Micro on the Canon, not a Sony.

Jay

But thanks for stopping by Paul.

Just kidding - Paul, to answer your question, yes. And to make up for my smart a$$ comment, here's a direct link to some very nice images of the M2 attached to a Sony HDV unit:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35_hd.htm

I didn't realize it was a Canon forum, but thanks for answering and also for the pics.

Thanks

Kelly, Derek, et al...

(from another thread) I nearly have my XL2 set-up completes, with mattebox, radio mic and pro tripod now!! I must admit it does look the part!!! hehe


I rest my case. ;-)

Jay

Uh Oh,

Here we go again. :)

I think that the QUALITY of work that the filmmaker does is the MOST important to a client (and for themselves). But, I do think how equipment looks plays a role as well.

Should it? I don't think so, but it does. Just like other things such as personal & social skills in interacting with a client.

Recently I showed a friend of mine (who does not have anything to do with filmmaking, video work, etc.) my XL2. Just my XL2, as it was before I had any other gear. His first remark - "Oh man, that's cool. This thing has got to film good stuff." and he knows I'm a total novice at this. And while he was saying this and looking at the camera you could tell he was just in shock.

So when someone says "I must admit it does look the part!!!," I can understand where they are coming from. Emotion gets the best of logic in many cases. Or at least I know thats true for me. :)

So Paul,

When are you going to get your M2?