larsbc
Forum Pro
To be fair, it should be said that your thread title was pretty obvious clickbait, too. It didn't accurately reflect what your real point was.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Video Is Absolutely Boring
- Thread starter OzRay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympus om-d e-m1
larsbc
Forum Pro
I'd like to see the same critique applied to all the photos that get posted to this forum. The majority of them are weak rehashes (and that's being generous) of more well known works and themes. But guess what? Almost all of these lame photos get a pass here and no one uses them as evidence to assert that still photos are boring.
Also, I don't think a video has to tell a story in order to be successful, just as a photo doesn't have to tell a story in order to succeed (despite the time-worn "conventional wisdom" adage that says otherwise).
I wouldn't, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I'm fine with critiquing an individual bit of art, but I wouldn't condemn an entire art form because of one boring video or photo. That'd be as silly as saying that printed books are a dead medium because I read a bad one, and these new-fangled electric screens are so much better in every way. Or flatly stating that all videos are worthless because I prefer stills. *ahem*
Art doesn't have to tell a story or mean anything, but it can help the audience appreciate the work more. I gave an example of how the video in question might be improved, but it's entirely possible that I simply missed the creator's point of using the two minute moonrise. Likewise, photos don't have to tell a story to be deemed "good", but it can help.
This is all subjective, and there is no correct answer.
Well said.When I spotted the title of this thread, I wondered whether it was chosen as "Click bait" in order to attract attention and garner replies.I just wish they had the quality 50 years ago that they have today! To look back at family movies and see parents long dead, and see myself as a kid is precious!
Your reply captured my sentiments. Our family used an early video film camera to capture special moments such as my grandfather (born in 1880) getting on his first plane, a TWA dual prop...or my long deceased father, a WWII veteran opening a large Christmas package in which my mother had placed his discharge papers...so many family moments captured. So what if the viewing was somewhat jumpy and grainy or the projector occasionally ate some footage and required some slicing/repair! My three remaining grandparents died in the 60's and many of the film subjects had passed by the 80s, but I can still enjoy those special memories.
It's such a gift to appreciate what we have now!
But not an excuse to promote the design of what is basically a still-image machine into a more easy-use video one.
That camera can do these family videos is a wonderful thing. But the realisation must be that good video is quite hard and very labour intensive in post production. As most users of cameras are still "amateurs" with no high level of photographic skills and no real ambition to take them beyond auto-everything then how can high video capacity suddenly turn them into quality video makers?
This is the real problem. Family video made by amateurs is family memories and the lack of production skills is easily excused because these are very valuable family memoirs.
The real argument is why should potentially great stills cameras be so modified to make video a speciality to the detrement of their principle purpose as a stills camera simply to record the (quite laudable) average quality family memories in motion?
Every so often we get suggestions that those who "do" video should buy a video camera. But then even video fans must take some still images.
Where I come from I think that many cameras can be usefu over a great range of still shot production from rank amateur to professional level and are ued widely for this. But on the other hand (say) 90% of video on these cameras must be family video of happy memory but low standards. So must still shot users put up with cameras being made more suitable for video where it reduces their comfort as a stills-only camera body?
Video is a useful sideline that should not be allowed to take over the camera body concept.
I agree, there is mechanical technique and art in any productive discipline - art tends to be seen by the eye of the beholder. Mechanical technique can be brilliant but it is not going to move the beholder unless they are a mechanic.I wouldn't, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I'm fine with critiquing an individual bit of art, but I wouldn't condemn an entire art form because of one boring video or photo. That'd be as silly as saying that printed books are a dead medium because I read a bad one, and these new-fangled electric screens are so much better in every way. Or flatly stating that all videos are worthless because I prefer stills. *ahem*
Art doesn't have to tell a story or mean anything, but it can help the audience appreciate the work more. I gave an example of how the video in question might be improved, but it's entirely possible that I simply missed the creator's point of using the two minute moonrise. Likewise, photos don't have to tell a story to be deemed "good", but it can help.
This is all subjective, and there is no correct answer.
In a throway line. The renowned and undeniably great Ansel Adams was undoubtedly a great mechanic. I bought a book on his work and have no doubt on this. But as an artist I must say that my personal eye was less moved. There is more to great art than perfect rendition.
Boss of Sony
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 2,286
Video that doesn't tell a story, or that has mediocre music is boring. But people love stories, and videos tells stories better than photos. Some would argue that photos are boring. In fact, I think for most people, photos are more boring than videos.
Of course. Has that become a real issue, or just an ever present concern? I've seen that fear voiced many times over the years, but I don't know that it has come to pass.[...]When I spotted the title of this thread, I wondered whether it was chosen as "Click bait" in order to attract attention and garner replies.I just wish they had the quality 50 years ago that they have today! To look back at family movies and see parents long dead, and see myself as a kid is precious!
Your reply captured my sentiments. Our family used an early video film camera to capture special moments such as my grandfather (born in 1880) getting on his first plane, a TWA dual prop...or my long deceased father, a WWII veteran opening a large Christmas package in which my mother had placed his discharge papers...so many family moments captured. So what if the viewing was somewhat jumpy and grainy or the projector occasionally ate some footage and required some slicing/repair! My three remaining grandparents died in the 60's and many of the film subjects had passed by the 80s, but I can still enjoy those special memories.
It's such a gift to appreciate what we have now!
Video is a useful sideline that should not be allowed to take over the camera body concept.
I'm unsure of how closely it's linked, but I've always suspected that many technical advances apply to both still photography and video, from light sensitivity and stabilization to faster write speeds. This dual track progress will hopefully lead to the development of the global shutter, which I believe even the grumpiest photographer would welcome. The duality that allows hybrid cameras also broadens their appeal, which I believe leads to more sales, and that keeps the manufacturers busy producing good stuffs for us.
Those all seem like good things to me, even if I didn't care for the two minute moonrise.
Yep. No better example than listening to technically perfect music that's produced by music theory students. It's commonly said that knowing the rules helps later on, when you know how to break them, when to do it, and why you did it.I agree, there is mechanical technique and art in any productive discipline - art tends to be seen by the eye of the beholder. Mechanical technique can be brilliant but it is not going to move the beholder unless they are a mechanic.I wouldn't, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I'm fine with critiquing an individual bit of art, but I wouldn't condemn an entire art form because of one boring video or photo. That'd be as silly as saying that printed books are a dead medium because I read a bad one, and these new-fangled electric screens are so much better in every way. Or flatly stating that all videos are worthless because I prefer stills. *ahem*
Art doesn't have to tell a story or mean anything, but it can help the audience appreciate the work more. I gave an example of how the video in question might be improved, but it's entirely possible that I simply missed the creator's point of using the two minute moonrise. Likewise, photos don't have to tell a story to be deemed "good", but it can help.
This is all subjective, and there is no correct answer.
In a throway line. The renowned and undeniably great Ansel Adams was undoubtedly a great mechanic. I bought a book on his work and have no doubt on this. But as an artist I must say that my personal eye was less moved. There is more to great art than perfect rendition.
OTOH, there are a rare few with the inherent gift to just do what they want, rules be damned, and the results are spectacular. Being able to repeatedly go their own way and replicate that level of "perfection" is what makes them great, no matter the medium.
Good points.Of course. Has that become a real issue, or just an ever present concern? I've seen that fear voiced many times over the years, but I don't know that it has come to pass.[...]When I spotted the title of this thread, I wondered whether it was chosen as "Click bait" in order to attract attention and garner replies.I just wish they had the quality 50 years ago that they have today! To look back at family movies and see parents long dead, and see myself as a kid is precious!
Your reply captured my sentiments. Our family used an early video film camera to capture special moments such as my grandfather (born in 1880) getting on his first plane, a TWA dual prop...or my long deceased father, a WWII veteran opening a large Christmas package in which my mother had placed his discharge papers...so many family moments captured. So what if the viewing was somewhat jumpy and grainy or the projector occasionally ate some footage and required some slicing/repair! My three remaining grandparents died in the 60's and many of the film subjects had passed by the 80s, but I can still enjoy those special memories.
It's such a gift to appreciate what we have now!
Video is a useful sideline that should not be allowed to take over the camera body concept.
I'm unsure of how closely it's linked, but I've always suspected that many technical advances apply to both still photography and video, from light sensitivity and stabilization to faster write speeds. This dual track progress will hopefully lead to the development of the global shutter, which I believe even the grumpiest photographer would welcome. The duality that allows hybrid cameras also broadens their appeal, which I believe leads to more sales, and that keeps the manufacturers busy producing good stuffs for us.
Those all seem like good things to me, even if I didn't care for the two minute moonrise.
As a non video user the biggest problem is the re-design of the camera body to better suit the use of video. A case in point was the provision of a larger than life big red video button right under the users thumb that of course has to be red and could only do video. I think that the camera manufacturers got the message in time and video buttons have become more discreet, less prominently placed, and reduced in size. Accidental video must be less common and the button is far less annoying. But video fans tend to complain from time to time about a less accessible video button, just as I complain when the "useless" video button cannot be re-assigned to another duty and we are now lucky that it can usually be switched off. Progress made, if not an entire solution.
The other thing is still contentious. The fully articulated screen is an invention beloved of video cameras. It has migrated to the digital camera body where it can, in truth be used for other things besides video. But despite suggestions by those that like video that it can do these other things non-video people see that the tilt screen can not only do all the things that they need more simply there is a propensity towards increasing provision of fully articulated screens despite a significant section of users who prefer fixed or tilt. As fixed is common to both it ends up being a direct conflict between articulated and tilt. To which the articulaters respond well the articulated can be a fixed screen as well - which is hardly the point when you like the ability for a simple tilt as against the gymnastics of articulation.
Therefore the video-oriented part of the articulated lcd type design is an area where I see video being preferenced to stills capture. Even then a choice of lcd hinge types would be useful and I have lamented the apparent move by Olympus to standardise on articulated mount lcd screens.
Considering that Olympus has been more famed for its stills camera bodies I think that their move towards a more video oriented camera body style is sad. At least Olympus does allow the video button to repurposed to do something useful for non-videographers.
I see no sense in Olympus - the great eyefinder use camera company now advocating tilt- any direction use of lcd screens - obviously to foster greater use of the lcd as a shooting and composition guide - whether it be for stills or video. This is the redesign of a traditional camera unit into something quite different.
Furthermore I quite accept that there are many camera companies doing much the same thing. But I point out that the great big under the thumb red video button was also ubiquitous for a while until the camera companies woke up to the fact that stills shooters still make up the vast bulk of what are called "camera" users.
Oh for some "natural" talent - it would save so much time. My father was sent home by a piano teacher because he was "unteachable" but went on to teach himself to play by ear and became an accomplished musician who could play many instruments. As a result I wanted to be able to play without practice and was also a bad pupil. But I did not have my father's natural talent unfortunately.Yep. No better example than listening to technically perfect music that's produced by music theory students. It's commonly said that knowing the rules helps later on, when you know how to break them, when to do it, and why you did it.I agree, there is mechanical technique and art in any productive discipline - art tends to be seen by the eye of the beholder. Mechanical technique can be brilliant but it is not going to move the beholder unless they are a mechanic.I wouldn't, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I'm fine with critiquing an individual bit of art, but I wouldn't condemn an entire art form because of one boring video or photo. That'd be as silly as saying that printed books are a dead medium because I read a bad one, and these new-fangled electric screens are so much better in every way. Or flatly stating that all videos are worthless because I prefer stills. *ahem*
Art doesn't have to tell a story or mean anything, but it can help the audience appreciate the work more. I gave an example of how the video in question might be improved, but it's entirely possible that I simply missed the creator's point of using the two minute moonrise. Likewise, photos don't have to tell a story to be deemed "good", but it can help.
This is all subjective, and there is no correct answer.
In a throway line. The renowned and undeniably great Ansel Adams was undoubtedly a great mechanic. I bought a book on his work and have no doubt on this. But as an artist I must say that my personal eye was less moved. There is more to great art than perfect rendition.
OTOH, there are a rare few with the inherent gift to just do what they want, rules be damned, and the results are spectacular. Being able to repeatedly go their own way and replicate that level of "perfection" is what makes them great, no matter the medium.
With my two Olympus bodies, I've never had BigRedButtonitis. I see your point, though. I'm quite happy with the tilt screen on my E-M1, but a bigger concern might be added cost , bulk, and risk of failure with more acrobatic screens. A global shutter may allow more flexibility in button assignment, but twisty screens are probably here to stay in a world of selfie mugging muggles.Good points.Of course. Has that become a real issue, or just an ever present concern? I've seen that fear voiced many times over the years, but I don't know that it has come to pass.[...]When I spotted the title of this thread, I wondered whether it was chosen as "Click bait" in order to attract attention and garner replies.I just wish they had the quality 50 years ago that they have today! To look back at family movies and see parents long dead, and see myself as a kid is precious!
Your reply captured my sentiments. Our family used an early video film camera to capture special moments such as my grandfather (born in 1880) getting on his first plane, a TWA dual prop...or my long deceased father, a WWII veteran opening a large Christmas package in which my mother had placed his discharge papers...so many family moments captured. So what if the viewing was somewhat jumpy and grainy or the projector occasionally ate some footage and required some slicing/repair! My three remaining grandparents died in the 60's and many of the film subjects had passed by the 80s, but I can still enjoy those special memories.
It's such a gift to appreciate what we have now!
Video is a useful sideline that should not be allowed to take over the camera body concept.
I'm unsure of how closely it's linked, but I've always suspected that many technical advances apply to both still photography and video, from light sensitivity and stabilization to faster write speeds. This dual track progress will hopefully lead to the development of the global shutter, which I believe even the grumpiest photographer would welcome. The duality that allows hybrid cameras also broadens their appeal, which I believe leads to more sales, and that keeps the manufacturers busy producing good stuffs for us.
Those all seem like good things to me, even if I didn't care for the two minute moonrise.
As a non video user the biggest problem is the re-design of the camera body to better suit the use of video. A case in point was the provision of a larger than life big red video button right under the users thumb that of course has to be red and could only do video. I think that the camera manufacturers got the message in time and video buttons have become more discreet, less prominently placed, and reduced in size. Accidental video must be less common and the button is far less annoying. But video fans tend to complain from time to time about a less accessible video button, just as I complain when the "useless" video button cannot be re-assigned to another duty and we are now lucky that it can usually be switched off. Progress made, if not an entire solution.
The other thing is still contentious. The fully articulated screen is an invention beloved of video cameras. It has migrated to the digital camera body where it can, in truth be used for other things besides video. But despite suggestions by those that like video that it can do these other things non-video people see that the tilt screen can not only do all the things that they need more simply there is a propensity towards increasing provision of fully articulated screens despite a significant section of users who prefer fixed or tilt. As fixed is common to both it ends up being a direct conflict between articulated and tilt. To which the articulaters respond well the articulated can be a fixed screen as well - which is hardly the point when you like the ability for a simple tilt as against the gymnastics of articulation.
Therefore the video-oriented part of the articulated lcd type design is an area where I see video being preferenced to stills capture. Even then a choice of lcd hinge types would be useful and I have lamented the apparent move by Olympus to standardise on articulated mount lcd screens.
Considering that Olympus has been more famed for its stills camera bodies I think that their move towards a more video oriented camera body style is sad. At least Olympus does allow the video button to repurposed to do something useful for non-videographers.
I see no sense in Olympus - the great eyefinder use camera company now advocating tilt- any direction use of lcd screens - obviously to foster greater use of the lcd as a shooting and composition guide - whether it be for stills or video. This is the redesign of a traditional camera unit into something quite different.
Furthermore I quite accept that there are many camera companies doing much the same thing. But I point out that the great big under the thumb red video button was also ubiquitous for a while until the camera companies woke up to the fact that stills shooters still make up the vast bulk of what are called "camera" users.
If every title had to reflect the content of the post, it wouldn't a title, or it would be far too long, or someone would still misinterpret the title. The world is full of people that 'want' to be offended, especially when it comes to certain individuals.
John Brawley
Leading Member
And yet....
YouTube is the far more visited site than Flickr or Smugmug or Imgur.
I think really what you're saying is you don't like timelapse videos of star fields.
I don't really find most shots of birds in flight very interesting either. I can appreciate the technical challenge. I can appreciate a certain moment if the photographer is able to get a certain moment that's more compelling than a simple bird flying.
But in the end mostly it's a picture of a bird flying.
I find a lot of videos like the one linked too pretty boring as well.
I've always prefered shooting people. And what's more, I prefer narrative drama mostly, both to shoot and to watch.
jb
--
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia
www.johnbrawley.com
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
YouTube has a far greater variety of stuff to look at that Flicker etc. I go to YouTube frequently to do such things as listen to Australian bands from the 60s/70s, or watch someone making or repairing something, and many other things. Even if these aren't well made, they are often entertaining and/or informative; they don't try to be anything else. Mind you, I do avoid Tony Northrup videos.
And I really don't know what the video in my link actually presented, as I switched it off after about a minute of moonrise. I've done much the same with every similar video that I've looked at, and I've tried to be patient, but they just aren't engaging. But that's me, someone else may be able to watch these videos for 24 hours straight and then feel they need more.
I've also said before that birds in flight don't do much for me, I prefer seeing them interacting with their environment, than just being in flight. That why I don't particularly like aircraft photos either (and that's kind of ironic for other reasons).
To me, video is a book turned into visual motion. Now a book turned into a video (or motion picture) is obviously going to be the vision of the director, and whoever else has a say in how it's interpreted, but if the video doesn't contain the elements of the book, it's going to be a failure.
An incredibly bad book (as far as the critics are concerned) can be turned into a successful video or movie, if adapted well. But a critically acclaimed book can be turned into a motion picture disaster if adapted poorly.
larsbc
Forum Pro
It is disingenuous to suggest that you couldn't use a reasonably short yet more accurate title. When you use clickbait titles then it is no surprise to see people who respond, at least in part, to the title. Even when you back pedal in your post, a reader is still left with some impression from your title.
John Brawley
Leading Member
I'm really not sure where you're going. It feels like you're on a fishing expedition ?
You're comparing what can only be described perhaps as a natural history film (the stars you linked too ) with narrative drama, perhaps even from adapted literature.
You want more engagement and story telling other than the visceral bare bones of a natural history film with no commentary. Really this genre of films has been around for a while. Are you familiar with films like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi.
These kinds of films invite you to lean into them and form your own narrative. A theme emerges after a while as you watch them and in effect you write your own story of connection between the disparate elements. Even the stoner surf, ski and skate films are not too far from this form of storytelling. Relevant to those that want to engage with that material.
It's like comparing commercial photography with BIF or reportage with with formal portraits.
I'm still unsure what your actual point is other than that video was boring to you ?
Narrative filmmaking is incredibly expensive. It's only natural that films get adapted from books, they're a much cheaper way to prototype a story before it gets made into the visual version, plus you already have a ready made market that will be familiar with the work. It's much cheaper to write lord of the rings than it is to make it.
For every adapted film from a novel there are a gazillion crappy novels that go nowhere.
Filmmaking is incredibly risky, much more so than photography in terms of commerciality. It's not really viable to make a "story" film to the level you're holding as a benchmark whereas a lone photographer is able to work for their own measure of success as a hobby shooter. It's a heck of a lot harder to be an enthusiast filmmaker and have any measure of success.
JB
--
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia
www.johnbrawley.com
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/
Last edited:
All that you are doing is picking for a fight. Does this crap add any value to the discussion, which most have taken on board as a genuine discussion, or are you just another one of those that likes to be perpetually offended and makes certain that everyone knows?
We now have two absolutely confused people. I don't have a flying fig as to what you are talking about.
I said that the likes of the video that I linked to, I find gobsmackingly boring; they are nothing more than a technical expose as far as I'm concerned. They simply show that someone can operate a camera and do effective post-processing of the video, nothing more.
Maybe the video did provide more, but as I said, after about a minute I moved on. All it would have taken to garner just a little more interest would have been to provide something to tell the viewer as to what it was about and what to expect.
I've watched the crappiest YouTube videos for longer than that 'bad moon rising' one, because they've held my interest and didn't try to be anything pretentious. But that's just me.
I said that the likes of the video that I linked to, I find gobsmackingly boring; they are nothing more than a technical expose as far as I'm concerned. They simply show that someone can operate a camera and do effective post-processing of the video, nothing more.
Maybe the video did provide more, but as I said, after about a minute I moved on. All it would have taken to garner just a little more interest would have been to provide something to tell the viewer as to what it was about and what to expect.
I've watched the crappiest YouTube videos for longer than that 'bad moon rising' one, because they've held my interest and didn't try to be anything pretentious. But that's just me.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum