There are probably a dozen of different ways to respond here, but I'll choose this one. For better or worse.
I re-read my set of examples regarding writing/acting/et al several times, and I can only conclude that you've made an inference here that lead to your response which is based on experiences on set (which, I've seen aplenty) where someone on tech crew dismissed your input on something tech related because of your position as an actor. That is unfortunate. I am sorry about both said experiences and the aforementioned inference, but I'll ask you not to project said experiences on to me, thank you very much. It is unnecessary to defend your experience because I disagree with you on a very specific and rather nerdy aspect of the Canon cameras. It is even less necessary to throw out the word "ignorant." Seriously, I'm far more open minded than that, thanks much. In fact, look at it from the other side - what would the look on your face be if you were on set and a grip suggested a line reading for you in the middle of your scene?
"Everyone wear as many hats as possible" projects aside, that's more about etiquette on set than it is about a presumption of a lack of experience.
Long story still very long; those were merely my rather poorly executed attempt to illustrate a couple of points The first being that I took umbrage to your use of the term snob simply because some of us feel that Canon should give their cameras a compression structure that does the sensor justice. I've said dozens of times that my beef with the cameras is incredibly specific, and that there are tons of applications for them. Essentially, what's the big deal if some of us happen to enjoy talking about the tools in that level of detail?
Secondly, I believe that those of us who create moving images for a living have a responsibility to lobby manufacturers like Canon when there is an aspect of their product which is technically hampering and visually yucky (for lack of a less divisive term). I believe that we should do this
on behalf of the audience who many not consciously be aware of the difference, but still deserve the difference all the same. Like I attempted to illustrate with CTO example; the audience may not be aware of the difference between 1/2 and 1/4; but the end result IS different, and DOES matter. I believe, specifically, that the same applies to compression schemes in a digital image. The point I was trying to make is that it seems that many people (present company excepted, of course - but think of our audience!
) have decided that because the masses cannot tell the difference, that the difference no longer matters. I just think the other way around, that it DOES matter. I saw House, for the record, I liked what they did with it but I still don't care for the same aspects of the image that I always found objectionable. Sorry man, it just is. Canon could do way better.
Fun fact:
If you have an external recorder that can take an HDMI signal, you can record full quality output from the 5D over HDMI by
not hitting record on the camera and only hitting record on the box (kipro or similar). I can try to dig up the rather elaborate example of this on Bloom's blog if folks want. This should tell you the lengths to which people are willing to go to get around the nasty compression and use what is admittedly a beautiful sensor and an interesting aesthetic.
This is a bit of a digression, but whatever- as a (admittedly fledgling) cinematographer, my primary responsibility is to the story and the director's vision for that story. There is no format that is automatically perfect for every story, or even every moment in a single story. Does a given story warrant the raw verisimilitude of s16 in a hand held style? Is this an incredibly intimate moment where the shallow field of a full frame sensor would best pump the emotion response? Is a crisp, clean, detailed, hyper-reality easily found on cameras like the RED warranted? These questions, I fear, are getting lost in the excitement to shoot on whatever the FoM (Format of the Month, borrowed from Flavor of the Month for you gamers) happens to be. The discussion shouldn't be about which format looks the best, but which
best suits the vision. Choosing a format should (especially these days with there being SO many choices) be just as much a part of the creative process as choosing a lens, or placing a key light, or selecting the blocking, or any other aspect of the craft. Will the indy always have the choice? No, but perhaps they do more often than they would have thought.
And for the record, I am a BIG fan of the low-fi image. Some of my favorite films barely involved a camera at all, and I'd probably do some rather illegal things to get my hands on a Pixelvision camera. Heck, my first several films were all 16mm found footage, bleach/nailpolish/toothpicks/sharpobjects/montage works. In fact the other day I stumbled upon a way to take pictures with my Android that look a LOT like Pixelvision images. Been wracking my brain on how I can recreate those conditions. I dig lo-fi images, but that's not what were talking about here. We're talking about the HD image, the polished crystalline clear (at least as a starting point for your chosen grade) image. The image that should, by it's very definition, not be gimped by an algorithm which cuts the effective resolution of the sensor in half.
Finally, if you have read any of my posts, you'll already know I am a big advocate of three things: craft, going for it with whatever you've got in terms of resources, and craft. Just because I like to nerd out on the details of the tools and because I am an 'ignorant snob' (j/k couldn't resist one last jab in jest.
) when it comes to my own personal opinion about Canon's choice of compression doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be used. It also doesn't mean I am judging the work based on Canon's mistake. The work stands for itself, or doesn't. I don't care if it was hand scratched on expired 8mm film, or if it was shot on 65mm celluloid; I don't see the point in judging work based on technology. I am judging the cameras based on the technology. I think they are not using the full potential of the sensor, and that anyone considering purchasing or using one should be aware of that as one of the down-sides. Just like there are down-sides to any other format. For example, I've been getting more and more into the idea of m4/3, but on the down side the sensor is a bit smallish and AVCHD is no picnic in post either, but at least it has the benefit of downsampling versus lineskipping, which is, in my aesthetic opinion, a vastly less yucky image.
@CF: I disagree that a dedication to quality has to be proportional to your budget or the size of your crew. As someone who plays in both worlds (big crews as well as smaller, unpaid, for the love of it, let's all wear as many hats as we can crews) I can understand the need to prioritize and that things fall by the wayside - but I stand by my belief that format choice is not only creatively important, but often more flexible than people imagine. Not always, but often. I'd never tell someone not to shoot a Canon, but I'll ALWAYS give my honest opinion about the current implementation. Kinda like the Apple that the witch gave Sleeping Beauty. Pretty and Shiny and Appealing on the outside, but with a bitter, evil concoction within that turns diagonal lines into staircases and causes widespread panic and baby eating among the unwashed masses.
@My Fellow Drinkers: This is getting more and more dangerous. And yes Michael, you are invited.
