#Future of DTV?
17 messages in this thread
Mike:
>OPPS!!!! Hold on I got all cornfused :-))) I was thinking Leased Access. For
some reason I just can't get the thought of making money with all my toys out
of my head :-))<
Know what you mean–as for leased access, talk to Matt York. He does a monthly,
I think, newsletter on the subject…
>>Naw–just when we've gotten the hang of things, they'll come up w/something
*new* and expensive so we'll feel inferior! :-/ (See my comment on "sacred
mysteries" above…)<<
>Well your probably right on that one, but it's nice to dream once in a while.
:-)<
Sure is–and there's no reason we can't do decent productions w/what's
available, provided you're less concerned w/what's glitzy than what's basically
good.
Tim
Hi Tim,
>> Sure is–and there's no reason we can't do decent productions w/what's
available, provided you're less concerned w/what's glitzy than what's basically
good. <<
Buddy, you hit the nail on the head with that remark!!! I don't know how
many people I have talked to that figure if a editing system won't do 3D page
turns it ain't worth buying. The way I look at it is this. Even if your system
can make the viewers TV explode, bounce off all four walls and come back
together in the center off the room, it still won't save your fanny if the
content sucks!!!. One of the biggest problems I see with programs cut on one of
the new wizbang DTV systems is the over use of DVE's. I think the Toaster guys
had a great term for it, they called it BURNT TOAST :-)))
Regards,
Michael W. Towe
Falcon Video Productions
Santee Ca.
Mike:
>Even if your system can make the viewers TV explode, bounce off all four walls
and come back together in the center off the room, it still won't save your
fanny if the content sucks!!!<
That's *always* been the case, I'm afraid–tho the waters have been muddied
thanks to things like MTV, where often style *is* content. (Jeez, I sound like
my old photography teacher!)
I just flashed on all the froofrah that surrounded LOGAN'S RUN w/SF fans when
it came out–folks were SOOOO impressed w/the amount of special effects in it,
and got so annoyed when it was pointed out that the story stank! (Of course, so
did the special effects–but that's another story…) OTOH, one of the reasons
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is a classic of the genre is because it has a
strong story and well-written characters–even though the special effects are
pretty minimal.
>One of the biggest problems I see with programs cut on one of the new wizbang
DTV systems is the over use of DVE's. I think the Toaster guys had a great term
for it, they called it BURNT TOAST :-)))<
ROFL! I LIKE it!!! I recently saw a tape my boss had done for him by an outside
director/editor, where EVERY transition was done w/some fancy Toaster wipe. I
guess it's the 90s answer to "slo-mo mania"–remember in the 70s, where
EVERYBODY was using slow-motion for any action shot (cf., James Glickenhaus)?
It got to the point where I swore I'd never use slow motion in anything I
did…
<<the waters have been muddied thanks to things like MTV, where often style
*is* content.>>
But fortunately, harmless. There's worse mud in the broadcast biz. Stuff
we've all become immune to. Like those 2 camera simulations of 1 camera
stories. Cut aways to reporters nodding foolishly and holding a mic for
someone we all know isn't really there. A little white lie we all take for
granted.
<<it has a strong story and well-written characters–even though the special
effects are pretty minimal.>>
I've seen great stories turned into lousy films and vice versa. What makes my
video weak is that the way a story is told is just as important as the story
itself. That learning process is painful. I've made some seriously ugly stuff
out of otherwise great material — so bad that you didn't even notice the funky
iris wipes.
What's weird tho, is that the video industry has so many 'videographers'.
Technicians who are quite skilled at getting and editing the shot. And make
terrible video. I volunteered once at a local cable station. It was quite
enlightening. I was surprised to see so much technically perfect footage that
'told' viewers everything and 'showed' them nothing.
Paul:
>What's weird tho, is that the video industry has so many 'videographers'.
Technicians who are quite skilled at getting and editing the shot. And make
terrible video. I volunteered once at a local cable station. It was quite
enlightening. I was surprised to see so much technically perfect footage that
'told' viewers everything and 'showed' them nothing.<
Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes here, Paul–I gather you're referring to
"show" and "tell" as in "show, don't tell" (a tenet of good storytelling, from
travelling minstrels to videomakers), whereas I mean something on the order of
"telling the story" as opposed to "showing off" <g>.
And, again–it all relates to "telling the story" (at least, IMO). A good
story's very important–but so's a video/filmmaker who's willing to just *tell*
it, rather than show off. It's like so many dance films/videos or martial arts
sequences–the director's so busy w/the fancy cuts or slow motion to "add
excitement" that the dancer/fighter has NO chance to do their job (cf, TIMECOP,
or *anything* James Glickenhaus directs).
Tim
<<TIMECOP, or *anything* James Glickenhaus directs).>>
Which is proof that no matter how you push the film's pace in post you cannot
salvage an actor who delivers his lines with sizzling prozac passion.
Regardless of how he looks in underwear doing the splits between the washer and
dryer. <laugh>
<<I mean something on the order of "telling the story" as opposed to "showing
off">>
I've been searching for the ellusive place on CIS and AOL where fora deal with
content. I can't find it. Where is the DTV 'form culture'? Those who take
DTV gizmonics completely for granted? Maybe 'showing off' amazing digitals is
what it's really about. Doesn't DTV have an impact on production beyond post?
I think so.
I've found tons of clips in CIS libs lifted from broadcast media, Nasa, and
Hollywood (previews). These are just conventional works translated for
computer novelty. I've seen exploding heads and morphs and decloaking warbirds
and interesting demonstrations of 3-D animation skills. These things certainly
showcase the technology of DTV, but they are demonstrative (and worshipful) of
a mechanical process — not a story.
For example, where are the actors in DTV movies one downloads from CIS? Aside
from the obvious 'beginning, middle, and end' components which are seldom
present, I'm suprised at the dearth of characters. There are few stories here.
Yet, the DTV phenomena are major entertainment influences.
I'm not being critical; I'm simply observing. I don't think you were very far
from the mark when you noted that perhaps style =is= the content. And that may
not be bad; just different.
Paul:
>Which is proof that no matter how you push the film's pace in post you cannot
salvage an actor who delivers his lines with sizzling prozac passion.
Regardless of how he looks in underwear doing the splits between the washer and
dryer. <laugh><
ROFL! Hey, look, Paul–they didn't hire Jean-Claude for his *acting*, they
hired him for his high kicks! (Sez the man who groans through his wife's
watching of WALKER, TEXAS RANGER every week, "Honey, Chuck Norris can't
ACT!!!")
>I've been searching for the ellusive place on CIS and AOL where fora deal with
content. I can't find it. Where is the DTV 'form culture'? Those who take DTV
gizmonics completely for granted? Maybe 'showing off' amazing digitals is what
it's really about. Doesn't DTV have an impact on production beyond post? I
think so.<
Well, Paul… y'see, it's like this: "content" is kinda like religion–it's
between you and your muse. While it's easy to discuss what piece of equipment
or what trick will give you what effect, it's a LOT harder to objectively
discuss what content is valid (& LOTSA censorship issues arise from that!), or
how to *make* content valid (f'instance, as a creative artist I prostrate
myself at James Cameron's feet and cry, "I'm not worthy! I'm not
worthy!"<g>–even though there are a LOT of people who think all he's about is
slick violence and 50s science-fiction novels). I don't think "style" is all
it's about, nor do I think most other videomakers do, really–it's more a case
of how do you determine *which* content works, and what style best serves the
content, unless you see the completed project? (I guess it's like the Joker
said–"It may not be art, but I like it!" <g>)
>These things certainly showcase the technology of DTV, but they are
demonstrative (and worshipful) of a mechanical process — not a story.
>For example, where are the actors in DTV movies one downloads from CIS? Aside
from the obvious 'beginning, middle, and end' components which are seldom
present, I'm suprised at the dearth of characters. There are few stories here.
Yet, the DTV phenomena are major entertainment influences.<
Part of the reason for this is because the first people who get into new
technology are those who've been looking for "a better mousetrap", not people
who want to reinvent the very notion of rodent control. Those who *do*–the
genuine artists–have a hard time understanding at first just what the new
technology can do for them, until they see what the "better mousetrap" crowd
(us, I guess) does w/it, which starts them thinking… I've had this experience
repeatedly w/an artist friend of me–I'll explain a concept to him and he just
won't get it, until I show him something that utilizes that concept. THEN, he's
off to the races, imagining all the things he can do w/it!
>I don't think you were very far from the mark when you noted that perhaps
style =is= the content. And that may not be bad; just different.<
Actually, Paul, what I think I meant was that you need a *marriage* of style
and content (and a marriage where the style *serves* the content) to do
effective work. Style w/out content is simply an empty bag of flashy effects,
content w/the wrong style is disorienting, and content w/no style is BBC
filmmaking <g>! (I hope there isn't anyone from the BBC here, or I've just let
myself in for a MAJOR flaming…)
Just a few thoughts,
Tim
<<it's a LOT harder to objectively discuss what content is valid (& LOTSA
censorship issues arise from that!)>>
<blush> Whatever it is they're talking about; it's always sex or money. I've
been in love too many times to have any money left. And the temptations I used
to labor so hard to avoid when I was young — are all avoiding *me* today. So,
I guess I'm left with the non-topical <g>.
<<artists–have a hard time understanding at first just what the new technology
can do for them>>
My mileage varies (undergrad degree in fine arts). The computer technoids
explain gizmonics to us as, "… the processor communicates information as a
series of ones and zeroes, and imagine this brick with a cord is a paint
brush." Right. All the while the creative is thinking, "… who cares how it
works; let's drive!" Execution is everything.
Tim, DTV has introduced so many challenges to the rules everyone learned. For
example, (preaching to the choir) shots are jump cut into scenes, 'transitions'
(dissolves, fades, etc) are employed to convey the passage of time, characters,
or venue between scenes. But the modern MTV producer places a transition
between every shot! Neutering its effect on the viewer. Just like the term
'system'. Tossed about so cavalier; the falling-sheep wipe is meaningless
today. Or did the visual arts just fantasize transitions as meaningful to the
viewer?
There are horizons here. DTV is destined to push video into the realm of
personal correspondence. Reaching in here, the old rules are doo-doo!
"Viewer, I know thy name"; something no one in the big post production houses
has ever encountered. Audience of one. "How does one produce for that", you
ask Avid, Data Translations, Radius, RasterOps, et. al ? Reply? "The
processor communicates information as a series of ones and zeroes… 60 fields,
640X480…" When shall we say, "… who cares how it works; let's drive?"
Hi Tim,
>> and content w/no style is BBC filmmaking <g>! <<
HAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHE OH GOD I LOVE IT!!!!!!!
Actualy you could also subtitute BBC with PBS, since it seem like more amd
more if it's produced by the BBC PBS has to have it. But if it's produced by
ME-N-U then PBS will say NFG :-))))
Regards,
Michael W. Towe
Falcon Video Productions
Santee Ca.
<<it still won't save your fanny if the content sucks!!!.>>
I think you've hit on a much more subtle problem, Michael. As the rank amateur
get's more and more sophisticated power and talent; the ability to stretch
professional looks over absolute garbage will run rampant. Our (amateur)
new-found ways of telling an ill-researched and non-factual yet very compelling
story will startle you.
I'm in the cartography biz. The advent of desktop mapping and publishing tools
has created the same problem. Oh, at first the junk amateurs made was easy to
spot — laughable even to the untrained eye. But these amateurs, studied.
They learned to knock-off the looks of the work pros did. They learned desktop
publishing, but learned little about how maps are made. They learned to make
products that look so much better than the actually are. Products that make
statements in forms that decry truth; and in reality are accidental lies. Lies
of ignorance.
There is a mystic ethic that media professionals subscribe to (tho, it's
getting less and less evident these days). With the tools comes a
responsibility. Now the tools are available to everyone; but we don't share in
your responsibility. We don't subscribe to your standards. We say whatever we
want. We just make it look like it came from you.
Hi Paul,
>> There is a mystic ethic that media professionals subscribe to (tho, it's
getting less and less evident these days). With the tools comes a
responsibility. Now the tools are available to everyone; but we don't share in
your responsibility. We don't subscribe to your standards. We say whatever we
want. We just make it look like it came from you. <<
No Paul don't get me wrong. I want you to say whatever you want, heck thats
the biggest advantage to putting this stuff in the hands of the masses. I want
to hear your oppinions as well as others. By hearing them it makes me take a
closer look at mine at rethink the validity of them. All I was trying to say to
new producers ( which to tell the truth I am one of them. I have only been in
the industry for 3 years, and I don't hold any degree) was to make shure that
you gather my interest with the content of your story, not with the over use of
DVE's and effects. After all you want me to remember the information not the
effects.
Trust me when I say I am not one of those folks who love to say that your
oppinion is not worth anything because you don't have the thecnical background
to say it in video. Hell I have been told that to many times in the past, and I
truly hate that type of condedinding attitude.
I guess in short I would say…….Go forth and produce my friend. Prove to me
that all of my opinions are garbage. You will make me a better person by doing
so. Heck thats what democracy is all about.
OK thats the end of Mikes philosophy lesson for today :-)))) And BTW Paul I
sincerely like the way you challenge the norm. Keep up the good work it's a
great trait to posses.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Towe
Falcon Video Productions
Santee Ca.
Mike:
>Trust me when I say I am not one of those folks who love to say that your
oppinion is not worth anything because you don't have the thecnical background
to say it in video. Hell I have been told that to many times in the past, and I
truly hate that type of condedinding attitude.<
And Lord knows we hear it enough, don't we? (At least, *I* sure do…)
>was to make shure that you gather my interest with the content of your story,
not with the over use of DVE's and effects. After all you want me to remember
the information not the effects.<
An excellent point, Mike. I'm not trying to tell lower-end producers (of which,
when I get the chance <g>, I'm one as well) NOT to use the latest equipment,
either. Just don't think you NEED the most up-to-date whizdang to tell your
story–if it's strong, simplicity is actually better…
A few thoughts,
Tim
Michael, please don't think I'm offended. I sensed an apologetic tone about
your message.
Since I've become involved with DTV over the past 12 months, I've noticed that
there is a huge interest in novelty. To me, this technology is conveyed for
mass consumption as 'a string of stunning DVE's'. That's it. Music is even
canned. Video content is often stock, or appropriated from the airwaves. This
stuff seems increasingly there to simply prop up digital novelty (a la
MaxHeadroom).
<<you want me to remember the information not the effects.>>
I'm not sure. <g> Look at some of the primary work (from Hollywood) done with
DTV. That school definately wants you to remember awesome effects (but perhaps
you meant that in terms of transitions only).
I've been doing some experiments on the density of information I can convey
with DTV. Oddly, the first thing I had to sacrifice were those gorgeous
dissolves! I discovered that when I'm trying to tell a story in 6 seconds; a
one second dissolve is very, very expensive in terms of plot. If I'm going to
use such a transition, I'd better be conveying the major change in time or
venue; not just a shot! (And Tarantino thought he was straining to meet the
120 minute form. Ha!)
My point is, the rules changed from silents, to talkies, to television, and I
think they've changed to DTV. Where eye candy is the stuff. The cake is now
just a canvas for the frosting.
Hi Paul,
>> My point is, the rules changed from silents, to talkies, to television, and
I think they've changed to DTV. Where eye candy is the stuff. The cake is now
just a canvas for the frosting. <<
Hmmmmm……You made some good points, and I would agree with you to the
extent that new technology can change the way that information is presented.
But the information is at the heart of the production. To use the cake and
frosting analogy, the frosting taste great but the real nutritional value is in
the cake itself. To take it a little further the cake realy dosen't have that
much nutritional vale anymore what with the pre packeged Twinkies and such. And
maybe thats the problem with video nowadays too. Nothing but a bunch of
Twinkeis, Dong Dongs and Cupcakes being pumed through the airways……" GOT
MILK " :-)))))
Oh this is starting to get to stange so I will clam up now.
Thanks for the debate, keep up the good work
Michael W. Towe
Falcon Video Productions
Santee Ca.
Mike:
>To take it a little further the cake realy dosen't have that much nutritional
vale anymore what with the pre packeged Twinkies and such. And maybe thats the
problem with video nowadays too. Nothing but a bunch of Twinkeis, Dong Dongs
and Cupcakes being pumed through the airways……" GOT MILK " :-)))))<
A very good point! See my response today to Paul…
Best,
Tim
<<information is at the heart of the production.>>
Michael, I couldn't agree more. I'm just observing how things appear to be.
<<Nothing but a bunch of Twinkeis, Dong Dongs and Cupcakes being pumed through
the airways.>>
Well, video junk food does abound. But maybe that's because people rely on
post too much. It's the glamourous and hi-tec part. By the time the project
reaches the DTV professional; most of the work should've already been done.
Every year this 10 billion dollar company assembles the management from all
their divisions in a week-long conference at a resort. Now this company has a
sports marketing division that produces sports broadcasts of nearly everything
from show jumping, to baseball, to boat racing. They own a studio that posts
most of their stuff 'in house'. Production is contracted to event media.
A coupla years ago at this conference, each division was given a video camera
on Sunday and told that by the following Friday they were to have produced a
music video. All divisions would be judged, and the best ones aired for the
conference. I got a call from a buddy; a manager in creative services, from
his resort hotel room… "Paul, it's Wednesday and we haven't shot a single
frame; any ideas?"
I laughed out loud. "You guys eat Quantel PB's for lunch, and you can't whip
up a little clip with a home camcorder?" Concept and production is everything.
You can't post-produce what isn't there to begin with. Yet stock music and
footage houses are booming in the DTV biz, as if to imply that any old material
will do.
And if I see ONE MORE chrome sphere floating above a tile floor… Well, to
use your own words, "Oh this is starting to get to stange so I will clam up
now." <laugh>
Paul
Hi Paul,
>> And if I see ONE MORE chrome sphere floating above a tile floor… <<
Now thats funny :-)))))) I feel the same way about the old chrome ball
trick. What ever happened to the old exploding Tea Pots :-)))
>>A coupla years ago at this conference, each division was given a video
camera on Sunday and told that by the following Friday they were to have
produced a music video.<<
With this type of venu I would agree with you about all the effects taking
the front seat.
Regards,
Michael W. Towe
Falcon Video Productions
Santee Ca.