Not like the below thread is just germaine to video…

[Gary Huff]

But it is in line with a lot of what you have posted here previously.

[Richard Herd]

[Clint Wardlow] “crappy old”

Can you make my film look more digital? The aesthetics of the contemporary era are trippy.

[Nikolas Bäurle]

But isn’t it true that on all levels cameras are becomming more more intuitive to use, and are also easier to handle. instead of changing a film role and watching out that no light ruins the footage you can simply stick a memory card in your cam. Even on the well trained professional level it is more relaxing, isn’t it?

I remember the time back at UT Austin in 1996 when we had to learn with Bolex 16mm cameras. Of course it was fun handling the filmroles, and editing on a Steenbeck was a trip, but when you spend 3000$ of roles and developing the footage and get a call from the lab telling you that your negative got scratched and that you have a thick black line on all your footage because that Bolex we were handed wasn’t repaired correctly, then you really hope that someone invents a cam that makes it easier.

I see young professionals still interested in making high end products and wanting to do things manually, I don’t think that will ever change. But now its possible to get very good results with a very small budget, and as a pro, if I know how to use that iPhone correctly it becomes another tool in my arsenal I can use for a certain look, or another perspective.

“Always look on the bright side of life” – Monty Python

[Bill Davis]

[Gary Huff] “But it is in line with a lot of what you have posted here previously.”

Well of course. I’m interested in the changes in all the creative arts and enjoy discussing that.

But I purposely did NOT offer any opinion on this particular story. I just let the authors opinions stand on their own.

The articale’s primary thesis – that older practitioners working in the creative fields have a vastly different perspective than the young people coming into it today is pretty hard to argue with.

So too the “greying” of the professional class of our industry. When I thought about that specific point – and remembered what I saw first hand on the NAB floor – I realized what he was describing – is something I’ve also seen first hand.

It’s actually kind of funny. At NAB this past year, I met a young lady in one of the seminars I reported on during the first day who worked for a digital agency in NYC. We kinda hit it off and spent a significant part of the show hanging out together. To the extent I could, i tried to show her the ropes, describing how the show operates, helping her get into some of the evening events, introducing her to some of my long time industry contacts, and lunching with her most days. Basically, trying to give a hand to the new generation coming along – what used to be an industry time honored tradition.

What sticks in my mind, is walking with her past booth after booth of the large industry stalwarts that have been the dominant forces of the show for decades, and watching as she had hardly even a passing interest in what any of them were offering. I don’t want to mention names, but most of us have spent thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars with these big companies over our careers – and she walked by ALL of them with a shrug – in search of companies relevant to how she worked – which were few and far between.

So all I’m arguing is that it’s dangerous to believe that the way we see things is always the best way to see them.

It’s interesting to see that discussed. That’s all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Patrick Murphy]

Interesting post Bill. He does bring up some good points.

Granted we live in a time where there’s been significant, even revolutionary developments in photography and motion pictures. There has been a tremendous broadening of the availability of powerful image making tools. With new tools come new approaches, techniques, and interpretations of how images are made and used in our society. Hurrah.

But there’s a downside too I think. If you look at some of the traditional visual media forms, such as drawing, painting, sculpture you can see how a stable palette of tools allowed approaches to become richer and deeper as one generation after another built upon the successes and innovations of those who preceded them. Young artists and craftspersons had a rich source existing work and values to use as a base to accept, modify, rebel against. It brought young and old into a continuing dialog.

Technological change tends to sever these connections and make the hardware a far more significant variable. Maybe the GoPro is a good example of what I’m driving at. That and many other similar tools open new doors but they also tend to isolate adopters from a larger context and tradition of image making. Their primary context is a contemporary one. Yes there are new opportunities for image making but the vast majority of it is derivative and fairly shallow. Moreover because everyone knows that the GoPro (or whatever) will be obsolete in a few years, the impulse to really delve into it’s possibilities is muted.

Changes in our technologies aren’t bad, and they will keep happening, maybe at an even faster pace, for the foreseeable future. But I think there’s definitely the argument to be made it’s a double edge sword.