A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
I found this video while searching for some tips on editing my audio. In the video, an older gentleman who grew up with film points out why the revival is irrational, in his opinion.
I always find the comment section of videos about this subject entertaining because I often learn new things when people argue about film versus digital. For example, I had no idea that Canon made film SLRs with zero viewfinder blackout! Also, someone mentioned that 7-year-old inkjet prints fade, but he has silver gelatin prints from the 1900s.
I don't see too many comments about large format there.
The original video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-nGwJUGFI
He uploaded one of his commenter's replies as a robot voice here. I'm not sure why. Maybe he thought it was good.
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Certain Exposures
I found this video while searching for some tips on editing my audio...
He uploaded one of his commenter's replies as a robot voice
here. I'm not sure why. Maybe he thought it was good.
He's trying to generate controversy, maybe because he's been on YouTube for 12 years and has a grand total of 16,500 subscribers to show for it. No idea why a guy trying to sell audio courses is talking about film vs digital still photography.
I gather that you're looking for advice on audio for video. You're probably already aware of him, but if not check out Curtis Judd's channel; also the JW Sound Group forum and the Gearspace (formerly Gearslutz) subforms on sound and video production.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
By limiting the information, it frames this "discussion". Film grain can be made in to a non-issue by limiting how much the original film is magnified-enlarged to produce a print. If this is limited to not more than 4x, film grain is often a non-issue. Yes, film type and other factors like color/B&W also figure into this, still lower the magnification, lesser the film grain visibility in the print. Notable are 8x10 and larger sheet film contact prints. These prints have no visible indication of film grain even if examined with a 4x magnifier on the print.
Canon has made pellicle mirror cameras since the Pellix circa 1965.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film56.html
Two more recent autofocus versions are the canon RT then later eos-1n RS which is one of my all time fave 35mm autofocus cameras (no mirror flip, not too loud, can go 10 fps, utterly reliable and abusable in ways that can and will surprise). 35mm images posted to the 35mm image sharing are made using the eos-1n RS or eos RT or eos-1v or manual F1n. They simply make images as required with no fuss.
Attachment 225362
Limiting information is often used in media for a long list of reasons. It could be due to the lack of awareness from the media producer to "editing" to bend the views of their audience then divide as a means to tribalize for some advantage.
Bernice
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
I think he makes alot of assumptions. One being that the ultimate end goal of all photography is the web or a digital print. Neither is my goal. It reminds me of the youtube channels where they spend more time on the cinematography than the actual photo content. I like looking at interesting places as much as anyone, but I really want to see the photos.
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmdavis
It reminds me of the youtube channels where they spend more time on the cinematography than the actual photo content. I like looking at interesting places as much as anyone, but I really want to see the photos.
The thing is, this isn't a simple problem.
People who want an audience for their videos will accept that they're in the business of making moving images accompanied by sound. This is not consistent with a slide show of still photographs. Also, unless still photos are made at, or cropped to, an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (aka 16:9) in the case of YouTube, every photograph in the video will be framed by black bars. Typically, camera movement in the form of a zoom or pan is used to introduce movement in a still photograph and to address the aspect ratio problem. The result of this technique is that the photo is not seen in its entirety. The compromise for people who make videos about photography is to show the photograph briefly. The viewer can pause the video and look at the photo as long as he/she wants.
This video weds an interview with the photographer Mitch Epstein to what is basically a slide show of his photographs. For what it is, I think that it's quite well done. Technically, it's dead simple to make a video like this, much simpler than making the kind of video that you have reservations about. The problem is that the format generates limited audience interest. In the 16 months that this video has been on YouTube, it has had 146 views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JiLVaNw1f8
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
The thing is, this isn't a simple problem.
People who want an audience for their videos will accept that they're in the business of making moving images accompanied by sound. This is not consistent with a slide show of still photographs. Also, unless still photos are made at, or cropped to, an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (aka 16:9) in the case of YouTube, every photograph in the video will be framed by black bars. Typically, camera movement in the form of a zoom or pan is used to introduce movement in a still photograph and to address the aspect ratio problem. The result of this technique is that the photo is not seen in its entirety. The compromise for people who make videos about photography is to show the photograph briefly. The viewer can pause the video and look at the photo as long as he/she wants.
This video weds an interview with the photographer Mitch Epstein to what is basically a slide show of his photographs. For what it is, I think that it's quite well done. Technically, it's dead simple to make a video like this, much simpler than making the kind of video that you have reservations about. The problem is that the format generates limited audience interest. In the 16 months that this video has been on YouTube, it has had 146 views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JiLVaNw1f8
I understand that. But photo content can include talking about the photo and the process. I've been using the concept of camera movements and zooms on stills since 1980. I agree that it works and can work well. But a key to documentary as a genre is to both entertain and inform. Tell me a story, a cogent story. Most of the videos that we are discussing are 10+ minutes and are clearly designed as short form documentaries. As I said previously, I like pretty places. I also like good cinematography. But to be effective there should be a good story with narrative, detail and example.
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
This is an example of something that I think works, from Mat Marrash. It has information, good cinematography, good story. I learned from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXV88qVxWlQ
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmdavis
This is an example of something that I think works, from Mat Marrash. It has information, good cinematography, good story. I learned from it.
I would characterise Mat Marrash's videos as instructional videos. He's actually a good example of what I talk about in post #5. He has a standard procedure for showing his photographs. He does a zoom out and holds the full photo, full frame but bordered by black bars, for about four seconds. This is long enough for a viewer who wants to have a good look to pause the video. In the video that you linked, see 10:50,14:47, 18:26 and 20:23. The photos are shown for a total of about 16 seconds in a 22 minute video. Maybe I misunderstood your post #4, but to my mind this does not satisfy the criticism.
Marrash's approach is typical, although there are variations. In his latest video (below), Thomas Heaton uses a combination of a pan and a zoom-in and holds the full photo twice as long as Marrash, but with a good deal of negative space around the photograph. The inclusion of camera settings will hold the attention of most viewers. I think that Heaton has a good sense of pace and that his method works better. Obviously, some people address the problem by using their photo editor (Photoshop, Capture One) as a frame for the photo accompanied by technical observations. Except in a video that is about editing, I don't think that this works very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUd75EVwkeo
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I gather that you're looking for advice on audio for video. You're probably already aware of him, but if not check out
Curtis Judd's channel; also the JW Sound Group forum and the Gearspace (formerly Gearslutz) subforms on sound and video production.
Thank you!
Re: A great video comment section for anyone that likes to argue on the internet :-)
Thanks for sharing, liked this interview. Direct, basic, has a good sense of Mitch Epstein and his work.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
The thing is, this isn't a simple problem.
People who want an audience for their videos will accept that they're in the business of making moving images accompanied by sound. This is not consistent with a slide show of still photographs. Also, unless still photos are made at, or cropped to, an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (aka 16:9) in the case of YouTube, every photograph in the video will be framed by black bars. Typically, camera movement in the form of a zoom or pan is used to introduce movement in a still photograph and to address the aspect ratio problem. The result of this technique is that the photo is not seen in its entirety. The compromise for people who make videos about photography is to show the photograph briefly. The viewer can pause the video and look at the photo as long as he/she wants.
This video weds an interview with the photographer Mitch Epstein to what is basically a slide show of his photographs. For what it is, I think that it's quite well done. Technically, it's dead simple to make a video like this, much simpler than making the kind of video that you have reservations about. The problem is that the format generates limited audience interest. In the 16 months that this video has been on YouTube, it has had 146 views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JiLVaNw1f8
