Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › Is the ‘Digital Revolution’ Dying or Dead? › “today the technology is r
“today the technology is relatively affordable, though it might be getting MORE expensive again. Expensive compared to WHAT?”
As always it’s nice to read your comments Earl,
You are correct in that prices for gear are relatively affordable. However, I’ve noticed with the change from tape based cameras to solid state not only are the camera prices rising, the blank media prices have risen exponentially. At least when Panasonic came out with the P2 card cameras, they left you the option of using inexpensive tape ($4.50 – $9 MiniDV or HDV) vice the $2k you would spend for the initial 8GB card. Though solid state cameras are using far less expensive flash memory cards, but most of those cards start at $150 for 8GB! Yes, that’s much less than the current price of a 16GB P2 card, but that adds up when you figure how many you’ll need on a shoot. You’re also correct in that people make breakthroughs and ‘deliver on their dreams’. I myself faced a similar and daunting problem when I ventured out on my own into this business (tons of experience, no connections, very little money and no resources.) Still though, I slogged it out and put together enough work on my own to get a sponsorship that paved the way for me to make my first feature film. After that, it was all me despite no change in circumstances. What made the difference form me was I was doing this as the revolution was well underway and the fact that you could build a whole studio for less than what one broadcast or one hollywood studio camera cost. The digital revolution is what made it possible for most of us participating in these posts to do what we do. My concern is for the ‘newbies’ coming into the biz. With the economy undergoing it’s sisemic shift and gear manufacturers taking away inexpensive options, how much tougher will it be for them to ‘deliver on their dreams?’
“While I am not at all surprised, I am always disappointed when people condone evil in light of its “context”
I am sorry you feel disappointment Film814, but I don’t need any ‘defense’ for my view on this topic. Earl is correct about his thoughts on censorship so I won’t elaborate on them. However as an artist it is my responsibility to tell a story in context. If said context takes the audience into ‘a place of evil’, I’ll make my best efforts to do so within the context of the story. I don’t believe in violence, nudity, foul language and so on just to have it in there. Audiences (despite what hollywood thinks) are pretty smart and can easily tell when you’re throwing in something as a gimmick. Movie making is just like painting or creating music. The brushstrokes or notes when placed in context of the piece will make it memorable, whereas gimmicks are forgettable. Far as ‘Evil’ is concerned, my years in service and working with law enforcement has exposed me to the worst and best of the human condition and character. To not tell those stories in context ‘is evil’. You mentioned pedophilia being portrayed being taboo, but you forget the film ‘Lolita’ in both it’s incarnations. The 1960’s version was watered down by censorship to the point of making it ‘titilating’. The 2000’s version ‘went there’ and showed irrefutably how such a situation is reprehensible and must be guarded against. Also, why must people continue to insist that our films and television have caused ‘moral decay’ in this country? To borrow Earl’s line, ‘decay from what?’ I don’t think the movie ‘Wall Street’ inspired the current situation we now face. I do agree that there has been a breakdown of traditional family in the last 40 years, but the movies didn’t do that. All films do is reflect the times.
Lastly, I agree with you Aspy in that YouTube is a mega-pain. Yet, I don’t see it going away. The great benefit/side effect of the digital revolution has been the ‘democratization’ of media creation. We pros complain (and rightfully so) about the ‘crap’ that gets put on the ‘Tube’, but that’s based upon our training, experience and critical eye. YouTube is the electronic version of the ‘Polaroid’ or ‘happy snap’ disposable camera. The attitude then and now is; all you need to make movies is have a camera and an internet connection. Unfortunately, people have accepted this and now as Chris mentioned ‘we have a new screen’ crap and all. I do hope you are correct that the revolution still lives and ‘it’s marching toward better stuff. I figure I’ll need to ‘pull my wader’s up higher’ in order to get to it.