I’ve decided to get into video. Simple as that… in theory. The reality is that the world of moving imagery is significantly more technologically complex than still photography. I’ve the basic concepts, but some of the more complex considerations elude me for now.
Take for example, monitors. For photography, you get yourself a decent monitor (one that can display the full AdobeRGB 1998 color gamut being ideal) and calibrate it easily with a cheap (relatively) colorimeter (e.g., the Huey). In video, there are “broadcast” monitors costing tens of thousands, field monitors for location shooting (start at $2k), and if you want to use a “regular” monitor, you need this $1,000 converter box that allows adjustability just like a “real” broadcast monitor. All for what? So you can show your footage on a million shitty screens in homes across the nation that are no where near your fancy calibrated monitor. Sigh.
Then you’ve got all the mystery and superstition surrounding video codecs, color space compression, workflow issues, the proper way to archive and backup all that material, etc. Then you’ve got $1000 hydraulic tripod heads, complex handholding rigs like Steadicam to allow you to shoot smooth handheld footage ($4000). Sigh.
I know, I’m being bitter and pessimistic. The very cool part about all of this is the camera itself. What an amazingly complex and powerful tool.
Stay tuned for a more “moving” experience here on dailies. Ha.
One Comment
Permalink
Of course, it’s what’s behind the camera, not in it, or even in front of it, that really matters. As someone who finds beauty where most would find nothing — alleyways, walls, stuff — I’m sure you can appreciate that.
I look forward to hearing about your video endeavors. Best of luck!