Videography is not visual: A philosophical insight

[kamerakiri]

I write this from personal experience and insight. It is in context of latest releases - OM-1 and GH-6, particularly AF and DFD debate surrounding the latter.

In my experience, video(particularly that which includes music/dialogue etc) is processed quite differently from photos in our brain/mind. Photography is a truly visual experience, while videography is not primarily visual experience at all. Note emphasis on 'primarily'. Let me explain this through a few examples that make my insight close to our everyday experience. We might like a static photograph, but often we'll rarely like that same photograph in a dynamic, animated, video form. Do we like street photos? Perhaps yeah! How about a video of the same bustling street? Booooring! Even though subject matter is exactly same! Consider, as an example, a monochrome shot of a person in a train.

I Rode Trains In Japan With My Camera In Hand To Capture Its Fascinating Train Culture (36 Pics)

As a Street Photographer, riding trains allows me to observe people in their daily lives and capture something that’s uniquely Japanese as well as get creative composing each frame to show a little slice of the intriguing culture of Japan.

www.boredpanda.com

This is a fairly common shot these days, and it is easy to create an artistic click if you capture the right person with a dramatic pose and expression. Now consider a camera recording a black and white video of people travelling, moving around, getting down the railway car etc. Is it as interesting? Even though you might record a minute long video of the exact same person you clicked photo of, the video may turn out to be much more boring. I have seen many minute long videos of static "nature scenes" on YouTube. Even though location is really beautiful, say a river through forest showing autumn colours, I cannot sit though the video, even though I might stare at a photo of the exact same scene for much longer. Why? Worth pondering.

Let us say I have to convey a photograph to someone. How to I do it? I have to describe it. Somewhat like this:

"There's a trailer surrounded by fog, parked next to a large oak. There are haze covered blue mountains in background. Dew covered grass spreads from trailer to bottom edge of frame. It looks like early morning, with sunrise somewhere in upper right edge of frame"

You have a photograph in your mind! Bingo! See, my descriptive clues are visual - objects, distance, colour, light etc.

How do I convey a video? Here's the crux - I can't describe it. Instead, I'll have to tell a story:

"Early morning I woke up and walked out of my trailer. I could see a hint of sunlight from east. Haze covered blue mountains stretching far off into the distance were beginning to turn golden. I had moved only a few steps ahead when I heard a rustle, followed by a deep bellow, right behind the oak tree where the trailer stood. I was startled. I could hear it coming a few feet down the path that started at the tree and led into the valley below. I could see my footsteps glistening on fresh dew spread on grass everywhere, going back to the trailer. Then, I noticed, there were more footsteps, a few feet right besides mine, going around the trailer and behind it ....."

You have a video in your mind! See clues - a step by step narrative that reveals details, sound(deep bellow) and activity(getting up, walking).

In short, video is processed as a story, while photograph is processed as a visual entity. This isn't exactly a new thing - everyone who creates both understands this distinction. But I think it is a very important distinction. That's why we can enjoy a good story with video consisting of just animated line drawing with colour filled in (like a low budget anime), but even small change in photograph, such a hue shifts, or an extra object, can ruin it.

Since the advent of affordable photography, the controls in our cameras have been designed to produce certain effects that make sense for a photograph. Like aperture - I can produce "bokeh" at wider apertures. Or shutter speed - I can freeze motion at faster speeds. Similarly flash has specific known use cases. Modern smart AI modes for autofocus help to capture various fast moving subjects. Computational modes in Olympus/Lumix like Live Composite, HHHR etc tell the consumer when to use it and what final result they expect. In modern MILCs, their controls, lingo and UI are all designed to produce photographs.

Lately, MILCs have begun to offer fantastic video specs(look at GH6, A7SIII). But are they, philosophically speaking, designed for video? This might be a bold statement but I think we don't have a "video camera" for amateurs at all. All we have are video specs hammered into various devices(including GH6). What makes a video? A narrative. Not bit rates, not wave forms, not DR, not AI - video is an experience in storytelling. Let me clarify that I'm not criticising these fantastic cameras. But let me introduce you to the point of view of an amateur in video and short film making - I'm one for example. The problem I often see is - a guy who buys MILC and tries to do video often uses elements from photography, without any rationale behind it. This is a huge issue that is prevalent throughout YouTube - a good platform to see struggles of amateurs and beginners. I see people using bokeh, slo-mo, different LUT color after each transition, overuse of software transitions(there are numerous ways to do natural transitions in classical film making without using computers) etc etc. The problem? Camera tries to be a technical tool and not a storytelling device.

The source of problem is obvious. Most of these MILC companies - Sony, Canon, Panasonic - have developed video features based on what is available in their cine oriented lineup. And in professional video, the camera guy is just that - a highly skilled operator/technician. Handling a camera does not make one a director/storyteller. Though the latter may(or may not) be good with cameras. There are directors who don't know very much about latest cameras - sometimes they know nothing at all.

In contrast, for photography, cameras offer many helpful "scene modes" and guides, and very helpful AI tools for beginner photographers who can rely on camera for everything.

I think a true all in one video camera for amateurs should offer tools that help build a narrative. Like tools that help in taking shots and movements - such as arrows that tell you how much to move, when to zoom to create a specific "look". The folder structure should reflect logical flow for a narrative - scene number, number of takes per scene etc. The ability to tag and classify shots using standard terms such as "long shot", "medium shot", "close up", "dialogue" etc. The camera should guide you on how to build a story - kinda like a video journaling system. Like we have author's tools that help in gathering and organising haphazard ideas into a story. I'm trying to convey that making videos is a fundamentally different kind of creative activity compared to creating photos.

In context of DFD AF on GH6, I don't understand why everyone is saying - bro, if only GH6 got PDAF, it will be the best video camera in existence. Z9 and A1 already have excellent AF - are they good video cameras? Yeah, they have good video specs. You can probably shoot dull stuff like corporate events, school theatre performance, maybe marriage events and get excellent quality. But then, what are you? A mere operator/technician? Are you building your own creative potential through any of this? Is that where you want to be pushed at by Gerald Undone or similar spec chasing YouTubers?

It seems people want to have PDAF equipped GH6 to shoot 2Gbps ProResRaw for recording - YouTube videos!!! While YouTube compresses everything into 60mpbs 4K footage. Might as well choose OM-1 with 230mbps recording to save on data. Anybody who is delivering content on YouTube or just streaming - what will they do with such high specs, other than boast about having the latest Mac to crunch and edit everything. I don't understand. I really don't get it. What if GH7 gives 40Mp sensor, 8K recording, 4Gbps RAW recording, PDAF, etc etc in 2026? Does that make a good video camera? Who'll guarantee that usual FF shills on YouTube will not whine and complain about 1 and a third stop less DR, or the inability to get clean, banding free footage at ISO 256000 and 400fps? What do people demand then? GH6/any other APS-C camera can't shoot marriage couple at twilight and make it look like noon, because the couple are obstinate, refuse to use extra light, and are incapable of understanding that Hollywood uses ton of artificial warm light and reflectors to achieve "sunset twilight" look. Hence, these cameras are DOA. Apparently if a camera does not have sufficient DR to make moonlight look like its noon, it is DOA and useless.

My argument is simple - we have sufficient good specs. The next natural evolution should be to build a true "video camera" that has an interface geared towards creating a narrative, creating a logical file structure hierarchy for various shots per scene, and managing photo/video assets in not just chronological timeline, but also within narrative timeline. Like you actually shoot as Scn 1 Shot 1 Take 1 etc.

I'm not defending DFD on GH6, nor criticizing it harshly. I just think a film making camera UI is yet to be properly built for amateurs and consumers should think about this. Panasonic seems to be ahead of the game in providing assist tools for video. They might be able to create a storytelling tool, provided consumers start this discussion first. For those who want to just cover an event, record an interview, record family birthdays, school functions, YouTube reviews and other straightforward things - none of which need crazy high bit rates - they should get the latest Sony/Canon which works. Maybe an APS-C version will come from both brands with new AF functions by year end. None of these are demanding activities and I don't think GH6's advanced functions are meant for regular purposes(cause these are the people who seem to be complaining endlessly).

Semi-Professional video interface such as on BlackMagicPocket or Canon C70, is pretty straightforward. Even manuals are comparatively short compared to those on photography MILCs, with actual content being under 100 pages. There's still scope for adding many useful tools. Opinions?

 

[larsbc]

Since the advent of affordable photography, the controls in our cameras have been designed to produce certain effects that make sense for a photograph. Like aperture - I can produce "bokeh" at wider apertures. Or shutter speed - I can freeze motion at faster speeds. Similarly flash has specific known use cases. Modern smart AI modes for autofocus help to capture various fast moving subjects. Computational modes in Olympus/Lumix like Live Composite, HHHR etc tell the consumer when to use it and what final result they expect. In modern MILCs, their controls, lingo and UI are all designed to produce photographs.

I haven't owned an Olympus since my EM5.2...what cameras are telling the user when to use a particular computational mode?

Lately, MILCs have begun to offer fantastic video specs(look at GH6, A7SIII). But are they, philosophically speaking, designed for video? This might be a bold statement but I think we don't have a "video camera" for amateurs at all. All we have are video specs hammered into various devices(including GH6). What makes a video? A narrative. Not bit rates, not wave forms, not DR, not AI - video is an experience in storytelling.

Photographers on this forum and others have, seemingly forever, gone on and on about how a photo should "tell a story." I'm actually quite tired of hearing it. But due to the frequency of that recommendation, I'm going to have to suggest that a lot photographers also believe that a photo is about story telling.

Let me clarify that I'm not criticising these fantastic cameras. But let me introduce you to the point of view of an amateur in video and short film making - I'm one for example. The problem I often see is - a guy who buys MILC and tries to do video often uses elements from photography, without any rationale behind it.

This is a huge issue that is prevalent throughout YouTube - a good platform to see struggles of amateurs and beginners. I see people using bokeh, slo-mo, different LUT color after each transition, overuse of software transitions(there are numerous ways to do natural transitions in classical film making without using computers) etc etc. The problem? Camera tries to be a technical tool and not a storytelling device.

I've seen this happen with stills as well: super high contrast b&w because their camera offers that as a style setting; completely blowing out the background and losing environmental context, when traveling, solely because they have a portrait lens with a fast aperture; using a superwide lens simply to fit more of the view into the frame without any regard for filling the foreground; converting an image to b&w but leaving one element in colour because they don't realize that it's been done to death; unnatural sky replacements because it's easy to do and, hey, nobody will notice.

The source of problem is obvious. Most of these MILC companies - Sony, Canon, Panasonic - have developed video features based on what is available in their cine oriented lineup. And in professional video, the camera guy is just that - a highly skilled operator/technician.

IMO the source of the problem is the videographer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of free how-to videos on Youtube, teaching you how to construct an enjoyable video. If someone wants to learn to create videos, the resources are there and in overwhelming abundance.

Handling a camera does not make one a director/storyteller. Though the latter may(or may not) be good with cameras. There are directors who don't know very much about latest cameras - sometimes they know nothing at all.

In contrast, for photography, cameras offer many helpful "scene modes" and guides, and very helpful AI tools for beginner photographers who can rely on camera for everything.

I would argue that scene modes don't make someone a better photographer. At least not based on viewing the photos taken by people I know. Composition and timing are key, and that's where I see photos fail time and time again. As far as I know, there are no in-camera aids to improve that situation. I agree that they fix some technical problems though. Now someone who doesn't have a sense of composition can create a poorly framed photo of their dog running that doesn't suffer from blur. Mundane photos of a kid's birthday party no longer suffer from red-eye.

I think a true all in one video camera for amateurs should offer tools that help build a narrative. Like tools that help in taking shots and movements - such as arrows that tell you how much to move, when to zoom to create a specific "look". The folder structure should reflect logical flow for a narrative - scene number, number of takes per scene etc. The ability to tag and classify shots using standard terms such as "long shot", "medium shot", "close up", "dialogue" etc. The camera should guide you on how to build a story - kinda like a video journaling system. Like we have author's tools that help in gathering and organising haphazard ideas into a story. I'm trying to convey that making videos is a fundamentally different kind of creative activity compared to creating photos.

In context of DFD AF on GH6, I don't understand why everyone is saying - bro, if only GH6 got PDAF, it will be the best video camera in existence. Z9 and A1 already have excellent AF - are they good video cameras? Yeah, they have good video specs. You can probably shoot dull stuff like corporate events, school theatre performance, maybe marriage events and get excellent quality. But then, what are you? A mere operator/technician?

If you have a camera that tells you want to do, as you mentioned above, wouldn't that still make you a "mere operator/technician?"

GH6/any other APS-C camera can't shoot marriage couple at twilight and make it look like noon, because the couple are obstinate, refuse to use extra light, and are incapable of understanding that Hollywood uses ton of artificial warm light and reflectors to achieve "sunset twilight" look. Hence, these cameras are DOA. Apparently if a camera does not have sufficient DR to make moonlight look like its noon, it is DOA and useless.

It's a matter of competition. If one videographer can offer the no-lights option and the other can't, and assuming they're equal in every other way, then the first videographer is going to have the advantage. So yes, camera makers who produce pro products will cater to their pro customers and that means offering them tools to provide a competitive advantage.

My argument is simple - we have sufficient good specs. The next natural evolution should be to build a true "video camera" that has an interface geared towards creating a narrative, creating a logical file structure hierarchy for various shots per scene, and managing photo/video assets in not just chronological timeline, but also within narrative timeline. Like you actually shoot as Scn 1 Shot 1 Take 1 etc.

I agree that structure and planning is important, I don't know if trying to shoe horn a project management system into the camera is the best approach. A paper planner or digital equivalent (on a desktop computer, tablet, or even a phone) would be a better medium, I think.

BTW I would also point out that similar planning should be done when embarking on a photo project as well. Yes, a single photo can stand on its own but if you're trying to capture something more than that, such as a wedding or a trip, it really helps to come up with a shot list ahead of time.

While I'm a happy Panasonic user (I shoot both stills and video) and the use of DFD hasn't bothered me much, I do understand why some people want better continuous AF. I think videographers are justified in being disappointed in the ongoing lag in AF performance compared to competing products.

 

[Michael_too]

I like to think I can often tell when a "content-creator" has it's origins in photography and at some point decided to do video aswell. They can make great shots when viewed individually but the movie as a whole is poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve etc. Just visual glitz without an underlying motive to tie it together. There are exceptions ofcourse, people who learned and grew into it.

I think that's why photography will always be more popular as a hobby then videography. You can walk around all day with a photocamera, take a 1000 photo's that are mediocre at best and get that one golden shot that makes the entire day worth it. But with video, with one good shot, you still have nothing. Shots only get their value from the shots that surround it. And when you come home with a series of shots from which you suspect you can make something, you still have to edit the whole thing together, and you have to do build a soundtrack. That either has to come from the sound recordings you made which require additional effort, or from some background music, which implies you must somehow make the images and music "rhyme" with each other. I'm not sure to what extent a camera and the tools it offers can really help with all that.

In my experience, it is all about preparation and anticipation. You've got to have a view of why you are recording the things you are recording in the first place and what you want to do with it. You've got to think ahead and constantly ask yourself what will happen next, what is interesting about it, and how can I convey that specific aspect best through my images.

And the real magic happens during the editing. That's where the movie is created in my opinion. And the edit gets a lot easier if the person recording had an idea of what the end result should look like.

Scripts aren't just written for fiction pieces. Documentary makers also write scripts. They never pick up a camera before they know what it is they want to convey and having thought about how to do that best.

 

[dave rogers]

Thanks for taking the time to write an interesting and thoughtful post.

I think you're right about the fundamental differences. I think the absurdity of specs applies to both media, but they're important to some creators for some purposes. My 20MP E-M1Mk3 pics just get posted to Flickr or Twitter or a shared album in iCloud. Occasionally I print a postcard. But I like many of the features, overkill though they may be, just because it's a quirk or personality defect of mine.

Enjoyed the post. Thanks again.

 

[kamerakiri]

Since the advent of affordable photography, the controls in our cameras have been designed to produce certain effects that make sense for a photograph. Like aperture - I can produce "bokeh" at wider apertures. Or shutter speed - I can freeze motion at faster speeds. Similarly flash has specific known use cases. Modern smart AI modes for autofocus help to capture various fast moving subjects. Computational modes in Olympus/Lumix like Live Composite, HHHR etc tell the consumer when to use it and what final result they expect. In modern MILCs, their controls, lingo and UI are all designed to produce photographs.

I haven't owned an Olympus since my EM5.2...what cameras are telling the user when to use a particular computational mode?

All of them...I think. Not when to use, but when one can or may use. A subtle but important distinction. We also know the final effect such a mode may produce.

Lately, MILCs have begun to offer fantastic video specs(look at GH6, A7SIII). But are they, philosophically speaking, designed for video? This might be a bold statement but I think we don't have a "video camera" for amateurs at all. All we have are video specs hammered into various devices(including GH6). What makes a video? A narrative. Not bit rates, not wave forms, not DR, not AI - video is an experience in storytelling.

Photographers on this forum and others have, seemingly forever, gone on and on about how a photo should "tell a story." I'm actually quite tired of hearing it. But due to the frequency of that recommendation, I'm going to have to suggest that a lot photographers also believe that a photo is about story telling.

Yes sure. I'm only talking of immediate psychological effect. The brain processes photo visually, not as a story. Video is proceed as a narrative first, details in visuals are picked up later. For a person taking photo - yeah, he might be trying to tell a story. But immediate first response to static images is derived mainly from their visual quality.

Let me clarify that I'm not criticising these fantastic cameras. But let me introduce you to the point of view of an amateur in video and short film making - I'm one for example. The problem I often see is - a guy who buys MILC and tries to do video often uses elements from photography, without any rationale behind it.

This is a huge issue that is prevalent throughout YouTube - a good platform to see struggles of amateurs and beginners. I see people using bokeh, slo-mo, different LUT color after each transition, overuse of software transitions(there are numerous ways to do natural transitions in classical film making without using computers) etc etc. The problem? Camera tries to be a technical tool and not a storytelling device.

I've seen this happen with stills as well: super high contrast b&w because their camera offers that as a style setting; completely blowing out the background and losing environmental context, when traveling, solely because they have a portrait lens with a fast aperture; using a superwide lens simply to fit more of the view into the frame without any regard for filling the foreground; converting an image to b&w but leaving one element in colour because they don't realize that it's been done to death; unnatural sky replacements because it's easy to do and, hey, nobody will notice.

Yeah, each genre has its own cases of cliche.

The source of problem is obvious. Most of these MILC companies - Sony, Canon, Panasonic - have developed video features based on what is available in their cine oriented lineup. And in professional video, the camera guy is just that - a highly skilled operator/technician.

IMO the source of the problem is the videographer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of free how-to videos on Youtube, teaching you how to construct an enjoyable video. If someone wants to learn to create videos, the resources are there and in overwhelming abundance.

Handling a camera does not make one a director/storyteller. Though the latter may(or may not) be good with cameras. There are directors who don't know very much about latest cameras - sometimes they know nothing at all.

In contrast, for photography, cameras offer many helpful "scene modes" and guides, and very helpful AI tools for beginner photographers who can rely on camera for everything.

I would argue that scene modes don't make someone a better photographer. At least not based on viewing the photos taken by people I know. Composition and timing are key, and that's where I see photos fail time and time again. As far as I know, there are no in-camera aids to improve that situation. I agree that they fix some technical problems though. Now someone who doesn't have a sense of composition can create a poorly framed photo of their dog running that doesn't suffer from blur. Mundane photos of a kid's birthday party no longer suffer from red-eye.

Yep, precisely my point. Photography oriented software prevents a ton of amateur errors. I think a person starting in photography today can grow very rapidly as a lot of technical issues have already been fixed.

I think a true all in one video camera for amateurs should offer tools that help build a narrative. Like tools that help in taking shots and movements - such as arrows that tell you how much to move, when to zoom to create a specific "look". The folder structure should reflect logical flow for a narrative - scene number, number of takes per scene etc. The ability to tag and classify shots using standard terms such as "long shot", "medium shot", "close up", "dialogue" etc. The camera should guide you on how to build a story - kinda like a video journaling system. Like we have author's tools that help in gathering and organising haphazard ideas into a story. I'm trying to convey that making videos is a fundamentally different kind of creative activity compared to creating photos.

In context of DFD AF on GH6, I don't understand why everyone is saying - bro, if only GH6 got PDAF, it will be the best video camera in existence. Z9 and A1 already have excellent AF - are they good video cameras? Yeah, they have good video specs. You can probably shoot dull stuff like corporate events, school theatre performance, maybe marriage events and get excellent quality. But then, what are you? A mere operator/technician?

If you have a camera that tells you want to do, as you mentioned above, wouldn't that still make you a "mere operator/technician?"

I'm only talking of software that gives more management and guide tools. Using an advanced word processor does not mean the user is a typist. Tools that help in creative process helps the person become an author.

GH6/any other APS-C camera can't shoot marriage couple at twilight and make it look like noon, because the couple are obstinate, refuse to use extra light, and are incapable of understanding that Hollywood uses ton of artificial warm light and reflectors to achieve "sunset twilight" look. Hence, these cameras are DOA. Apparently if a camera does not have sufficient DR to make moonlight look like its noon, it is DOA and useless.

It's a matter of competition. If one videographer can offer the no-lights option and the other can't, and assuming they're equal in every other way, then the first videographer is going to have the advantage. So yes, camera makers who produce pro products will cater to their pro customers and that means offering them tools to provide a competitive advantage.

"assuming they're equal in every other way" creative storytellers are never equal. Cameramen for hire - they may be. It is akin to arguing that better paper creates a better novel - it can improve reading pleasure, but not the content. Camera should have tools to improve content, not just picture quality.

Besides, I assume pro customers of video implies film/television etc. People usually use multiple expensive cameras and a crew for such projects. Look, I'm only talking about single person operated MILC without a large crew, trying to shoot something creative, with a narrative to tell. Today, the only distribution platform available to such users are online video services such as YouTube which, due to compression are not very demanding. Here, MFT, APS-C or FF, all perform similarly.

My argument is simple - we have sufficient good specs. The next natural evolution should be to build a true "video camera" that has an interface geared towards creating a narrative, creating a logical file structure hierarchy for various shots per scene, and managing photo/video assets in not just chronological timeline, but also within narrative timeline. Like you actually shoot as Scn 1 Shot 1 Take 1 etc.

I agree that structure and planning is important, I don't know if trying to shoe horn a project management system into the camera is the best approach. A paper planner or digital equivalent (on a desktop computer, tablet, or even a phone) would be a better medium, I think.

I agree with the latter. Good planning is essential. However, project management is essential feature of most software these days, even humble text editors.

At least saving video clips into a narrative format with a structured timeline has a legitimate use case. Imagine you initiate a "scene", create a "shot", make several versions of the same shot with slight variation, create a new simultaneous angle for same "shot", again make several versions as you like, finish the shot, go back and create the next "shot" (which chronologically falls next in narrative), everything saved with proper names and hierarchy. Editing becomes a breeze with such a feature.

BTW I would also point out that similar planning should be done when embarking on a photo project as well. Yes, a single photo can stand on its own but if you're trying to capture something more than that, such as a wedding or a trip, it really helps to come up with a shot list ahead of time.

Agree here as well.

While I'm a happy Panasonic user (I shoot both stills and video) and the use of DFD hasn't bothered me much, I do understand why some people want better continuous AF. I think videographers are justified in being disappointed in the ongoing lag in AF performance compared to competing products.

I don't want to create a debate on DFD at all. Or any other AF system. My point is - there are far more useful software features that may be added to make a comprehensive "video" camera. At present video features are a list of target resolution and frame rates, bit rates, tools for exposure, aspect ratio, and a bit more. That's about it.

 

[kamerakiri]

I like to think I can often tell when a "content-creator" has it's origins in photography and at some point decided to do video aswell. They can make great shots when viewed individually but the movie as a whole is poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve etc. Just visual glitz without an underlying motive to tie it together. There are exceptions ofcourse, people who learned and grew into it.

I think that's why photography will always be more popular as a hobby then videography.

True. Photography is a very pleasant solitary hobby. You can produce work that you can be instantly happy about. Video/Film making is quite complex and a different genre altogether. At best a casual user may make what is called a travel/holiday/event/party video.

You can walk around all day with a photocamera, take a 1000 photo's that are mediocre at best and get that one golden shot that makes the entire day worth it. But with video, with one good shot, you still have nothing. Shots only get their value from the shots that surround it. And when you come home with a series of shots from which you suspect you can make something, you still have to edit the whole thing together, and you have to do build a soundtrack. That either has to come from the sound recordings you made which require additional effort, or from some background music, which implies you must somehow make the images and music "rhyme" with each other. I'm not sure to what extent a camera and the tools it offers can really help with all that.

In my experience, it is all about preparation and anticipation. You've got to have a view of why you are recording the things you are recording in the first place and what you want to do with it. You've got to think ahead and constantly ask yourself what will happen next, what is interesting about it, and how can I convey that specific aspect best through my images.

And the real magic happens during the editing. That's where the movie is created in my opinion. And the edit gets a lot easier if the person recording had an idea of what the end result should look like.

Yeah, edits, the intent behind the narrative, music and sound effects - video making is a really complicated enterprise.

I think that is why I can't really call video making a generic hobby - even vlogs require a bit of script to be successful.

Scripts aren't just written for fiction pieces. Documentary makers also write scripts. They never pick up a camera before they know what it is they want to convey and having thought about how to do that best.

 

[David5833]

There is a whole world of non-narrative films. Try Wikipedia or Google.

 

[larsbc]

Since the advent of affordable photography, the controls in our cameras have been designed to produce certain effects that make sense for a photograph. Like aperture - I can produce "bokeh" at wider apertures. Or shutter speed - I can freeze motion at faster speeds. Similarly flash has specific known use cases. Modern smart AI modes for autofocus help to capture various fast moving subjects. Computational modes in Olympus/Lumix like Live Composite, HHHR etc tell the consumer when to use it and what final result they expect. In modern MILCs, their controls, lingo and UI are all designed to produce photographs.

I haven't owned an Olympus since my EM5.2...what cameras are telling the user when to use a particular computational mode?

All of them...I think. Not when to use, but when one can or may use. A subtle but important distinction. We also know the final effect such a mode may produce.

I'm still puzzled by this. Which camera(s) tells you what computational modes are available for use while you're using the camera? For instance, neither my EM5.2 nor my G9 ever told me when hi-res mode was available, or when exposure stacking was available. I had to come up with the idea to use it and then turn it on.

Lately, MILCs have begun to offer fantastic video specs(look at GH6, A7SIII). But are they, philosophically speaking, designed for video? This might be a bold statement but I think we don't have a "video camera" for amateurs at all. All we have are video specs hammered into various devices(including GH6). What makes a video? A narrative. Not bit rates, not wave forms, not DR, not AI - video is an experience in storytelling.

Photographers on this forum and others have, seemingly forever, gone on and on about how a photo should "tell a story." I'm actually quite tired of hearing it. But due to the frequency of that recommendation, I'm going to have to suggest that a lot photographers also believe that a photo is about story telling.

Yes sure. I'm only talking of immediate psychological effect. The brain processes photo visually, not as a story. Video is proceed as a narrative first, details in visuals are picked up later. For a person taking photo - yeah, he might be trying to tell a story. But immediate first response to static images is derived mainly from their visual quality.

Ok, I can agree with that. For photographers who are out to create some photos with no particular theme or sequence in mind, then yes, they will not have a narrative in mind. Some videographers shoot the same way but I would guess they're either very good or very bad. ;-) I think most videographers who can make good videos have a narrative in mind.

[snip]

The source of problem is obvious. Most of these MILC companies - Sony, Canon, Panasonic - have developed video features based on what is available in their cine oriented lineup. And in professional video, the camera guy is just that - a highly skilled operator/technician.

IMO the source of the problem is the videographer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of free how-to videos on Youtube, teaching you how to construct an enjoyable video. If someone wants to learn to create videos, the resources are there and in overwhelming abundance.

Handling a camera does not make one a director/storyteller. Though the latter may(or may not) be good with cameras. There are directors who don't know very much about latest cameras - sometimes they know nothing at all.

In contrast, for photography, cameras offer many helpful "scene modes" and guides, and very helpful AI tools for beginner photographers who can rely on camera for everything.

I would argue that scene modes don't make someone a better photographer. At least not based on viewing the photos taken by people I know. Composition and timing are key, and that's where I see photos fail time and time again. As far as I know, there are no in-camera aids to improve that situation. I agree that they fix some technical problems though. Now someone who doesn't have a sense of composition can create a poorly framed photo of their dog running that doesn't suffer from blur. Mundane photos of a kid's birthday party no longer suffer from red-eye.

Yep, precisely my point. Photography oriented software prevents a ton of amateur errors. I think a person starting in photography today can grow very rapidly as a lot of technical issues have already been fixed.

Videographers benefit from improved technology as well: stabilization, AF, auto exposure, automated selection of shutter speeds vs frame rate, etc. And perhaps the biggest benefit to rapid development as a videographer: non-linear digital editors and affordable computers.

GH6/any other APS-C camera can't shoot marriage couple at twilight and make it look like noon, because the couple are obstinate, refuse to use extra light, and are incapable of understanding that Hollywood uses ton of artificial warm light and reflectors to achieve "sunset twilight" look. Hence, these cameras are DOA. Apparently if a camera does not have sufficient DR to make moonlight look like its noon, it is DOA and useless.

It's a matter of competition. If one videographer can offer the no-lights option and the other can't, and assuming they're equal in every other way, then the first videographer is going to have the advantage. So yes, camera makers who produce pro products will cater to their pro customers and that means offering them tools to provide a competitive advantage.

"assuming they're equal in every other way" creative storytellers are never equal.

In the eyes of customers, there are certainly going to be cases where videographers will be either equal, or close enough to make the selection of one over the other to be the difference between using a light vs no light.

Cameramen for hire - they may be. It is akin to arguing that better paper creates a better novel - it can improve reading pleasure, but not the content. Camera should have tools to improve content, not just picture quality.

We disagree on that point. The areas of composition and narrative are precisely where humans excel and where cameras are virtually useless. Each should focus on their strengths. It's the same reason why countless photographers here and elsewhere, when answering queries about how to improve one's images, always suggest taking classes and learning from books and other resources. I don't recall anyone suggesting that they buy a camera with better scene modes.

Besides, I assume pro customers of video implies film/television etc.

I don't agree with that assumption. Pros include event and wedding videographers as well.

People usually use multiple expensive cameras and a crew for such projects. Look, I'm only talking about single person operated MILC without a large crew, trying to shoot something creative, with a narrative to tell.

That fits the description of many small business videographers, including wedding shooters.

Today, the only distribution platform available to such users are online video services such as YouTube which, due to compression are not very demanding. Here, MFT, APS-C or FF, all perform similarly.

Continuous AF, stabilization, low light performance and colour accuracy all matter and are easily discernable on Youtube and today's 1080 and 4k displays.

My argument is simple - we have sufficient good specs. The next natural evolution should be to build a true "video camera" that has an interface geared towards creating a narrative, creating a logical file structure hierarchy for various shots per scene, and managing photo/video assets in not just chronological timeline, but also within narrative timeline. Like you actually shoot as Scn 1 Shot 1 Take 1 etc.

I agree that structure and planning is important, I don't know if trying to shoe horn a project management system into the camera is the best approach. A paper planner or digital equivalent (on a desktop computer, tablet, or even a phone) would be a better medium, I think.

I agree with the latter. Good planning is essential. However, project management is essential feature of most software these days, even humble text editors.

I'm not saying that project management can't be done with software, of course it can. But I think running that software on a camera is a terrible choice: tiny display, no keyboard, plus if its on a tripod or gimbal or slider, accessing it could be difficult as well. At a bare minimum, I think such a system should be run on a phone or tablet that communicates with the cameras. But, quite honestly, if a user is going to go to that effort, they're not the demographic that requires a built-in guide anyways. They're the type of user who already understands the value of learning and planning before they ever handle the camera.

At least saving video clips into a narrative format with a structured timeline has a legitimate use case. Imagine you initiate a "scene", create a "shot", make several versions of the same shot with slight variation, create a new simultaneous angle for same "shot", again make several versions as you like, finish the shot, go back and create the next "shot" (which chronologically falls next in narrative), everything saved with proper names and hierarchy. Editing becomes a breeze with such a feature.

I suppose in a perfect world that would make sense. But I would be loathe to make decisions about which shot to keep based on reviewing it on my camera's screen. I won't even do that with stills, let alone video clips. I have to see it on my desktop's screen to know for sure. So, speaking only for myself, I find that the files sorted by date is easy enough for me to sort through. I use FastStone to quickly pick out the files I want to use and throw them into folders to keep associated files together. I work with multiple video sources (2 MFT bodies, 2 action cameras, a 360 cam, other people's phone footage) so I need a system that doesn't rely on a single camera's file structure.

While I'm a happy Panasonic user (I shoot both stills and video) and the use of DFD hasn't bothered me much, I do understand why some people want better continuous AF. I think videographers are justified in being disappointed in the ongoing lag in AF performance compared to competing products.

I don't want to create a debate on DFD at all. Or any other AF system. My point is - there are far more useful software features that may be added to make a comprehensive "video" camera. At present video features are a list of target resolution and frame rates, bit rates, tools for exposure, aspect ratio, and a bit more. That's about it.

I understand what you mean but, as I said before, I think the camera is not the most practical platform for implementing the features you envision. By the way, you should have a look at Insta360's Shot Labs. They're kind of similar to what you're suggesting but rather than a "serious" narrative tool, they're more for showing how to do various effects (similar to scene modes for stills) that involve both camera settings and what shots you need to take to build the complete effect. This is all done on a phone, though, not in-camera.

I think a system running on a tablet and linked to various devices would be a great way to handle a project although beyond the use case of your average, casual hobbyist.

 

[larsbc]

Totally agree.

 

[Boss of Sony]

Thanks for the essay. I mostly agree with you.

In fact, you don't even need a camera to make a good video:

Another thing: DFD is only slightly unreliable for continuous autofocus during video. And it's much improved on the GH6. But how many professional/semiprofessional videographers really rely on continuous autofocus? Surely they know exactly where they want to focus/pre-focus, and do that by selecting or preselecting the focal point with the touchscreen or shutter button. In my opinion continuous AF during video is mostly useful for vloggers who film their daily life, or amateurs filming their family gatherings/travel destinations.

 

[Danielvr]

I like to think I can often tell when a "content-creator" has it's origins in photography and at some point decided to do video aswell. They can make great shots when viewed individually but the movie as a whole is poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve etc. Just visual glitz without an underlying motive to tie it together.

That makes it sound like photographers are inept at video, but there may be another way to look at it.

Ed van der Elsken was an influential Dutch photographer whose gritty and sensual street and reportage work from 1950-1990 still inspires photographers and cinematographers today.

He enjoyed experimenting and at some point, picked up a film camera. He then began to film people in the streets of Amsterdam much the same way that he would photograph them.

The result is exactly like you say: poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve. He doesn't tell any story in particular. There is very little editing and there's no soundtrack to speak of, other than the sounds that he recorded while filming. There's no commentary, except for some of his own observations.

But he was a seasoned photographer, he had 'the eye' and he knew how to interact with people. The simple documentary that resulted, in 1982, was called "My Amsterdam - a photographer films Amsterdam". It was a powerful and effective documentary back then, but it is becoming even more so as time progresses.

You can see a (low resolution) copy of it here: Ed van der Elsken - Een fotograaf filmt Amsterdam - My Amsterdam (1982)

I was fourteen in 1982 and I spent a lot of time in Amsterdam back then. His footage shows exactly the kind of things and people that I would see. One scene was shot from my favorite shop in Dam Straat. I recognize many of the more colorful people.

In the comments section on Youtube, people are saying how beautiful they found it, they call it a master piece, a time capsule, they express their love of Amsterdam, and young viewers marvel at the looks, the mood and the spirit of those days.

I think what you say about video in general is all true -- how a good script, a story line, good editing, 'rhyme', a fitting soundtrack, et cetera, all contribute to a good result.

But another way to look at it, is that all those elements are just ways of romanticising and dramatizing reality; of hiding truth and manipulating the viewer. And in a world where everything that we read and see is increasingly scripted and designed to affect or even manipulate us, and to sell us stories rather than tell them, I think photography 's most redeeming value -that it simply shows reality- will find ever greater appreciation among the public, and so, among videographers, too. Of course, aesthetics and effective storytelling will always be important, but I think that increasingly, an accurate portrayal of reality will be found more important than all the eye- and ear candy that only tend to obfuscate it.

 

[kamerakiri]

I like to think I can often tell when a "content-creator" has it's origins in photography and at some point decided to do video aswell. They can make great shots when viewed individually but the movie as a whole is poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve etc. Just visual glitz without an underlying motive to tie it together.

That makes it sound like photographers are inept at video, but there may be another way to look at it.

Ed van der Elsken was an influential Dutch photographer whose gritty and sensual street and reportage work from 1950-1990 still inspires photographers and cinematographers today.

He enjoyed experimenting and at some point, picked up a film camera. He then began to film people in the streets of Amsterdam much the same way that he would photograph them.

The result is exactly like you say: poorly structured, poorly timed, lacking a tension curve. He doesn't tell any story in particular. There is very little editing and there's no soundtrack to speak of, other than the sounds that he recorded while filming. There's no commentary, except for some of his own observations.

But he was a seasoned photographer, he had 'the eye' and he knew how to interact with people. The simple documentary that resulted, in 1982, was called "My Amsterdam - a photographer films Amsterdam". It was a powerful and effective documentary back then, but it is becoming even more so as time progresses.

You can see a (low resolution) copy of it here: Ed van der Elsken - Een fotograaf filmt Amsterdam - My Amsterdam (1982)

I was fourteen in 1982 and I spent a lot of time in Amsterdam back then. His footage shows exactly the kind of things and people that I would see. One scene was shot from my favorite shop in Dam Straat. I recognize many of the more colorful people.

In the comments section on Youtube, people are saying how beautiful they found it, they call it a master piece, a time capsule, they express their love of Amsterdam, and young viewers marvel at the looks, the mood and the spirit of those days.

I think what you say about video in general is all true -- how a good script, a story line, good editing, 'rhyme', a fitting soundtrack, et cetera, all contribute to a good result.

But another way to look at it, is that all those elements are just ways of romanticising and dramatizing reality; of hiding truth and manipulating the viewer. And in a world where everything that we read and see is increasingly scripted and designed to affect or even manipulate us, and to sell us stories rather than tell them, I think photography 's most redeeming value -that it simply shows reality- will find ever greater appreciation among the public, and so, among videographers, too. Of course, aesthetics and effective storytelling will always be important, but I think that increasingly, an accurate portrayal of reality will be found more important than all the eye- and ear candy that only tend to obfuscate it.

Thanks for this different perspective - an unassuming, candid style of storytelling without presuppositions.

 

[kamerakiri]

There is a whole world of non-narrative films. Try Wikipedia or Google.