which way to go?

for my father-in-law; brother-in-law; nephew

Video or no video? In many respects, it's a bunch of horse shit. Why bother record hours of material that is either a lot of blathering, or in many instances can be shown with a series of single images?

After many hours of looking at video camera specs - perfectly good time wasted, never to be recovered - it's obvious that this capability does not come cheaply. Again and again I have to remind myself that mostly I prefer to work alone, or at least have gotten used to such methodology as a still photographer. What can I do alone as a videographer?

And yet... My recent travels - 2300 miles to the center of the country and back in the new, completely safe Prius - with JVC HD video cam in tow - have revealed some of the unattainable qualities of still photography. Movement within the image is the obvious additional factor. Even within a mostly static image, the merest whisper of a breeze animates the world in a manner unlike anything still photography can achieve. It's an incredibly seductive capability which inevitably is harnessed for the creation or depiction of the real world.* Nearly nothing mainstream in the cinema or television aspires to be anything but profoundly realistic. "It isn't realistic" being our primary gauge for the value of programming.

Sound, the second part of motion capture, is the much maligned second cousin to images. During production it's a nuisance and a profound complication. But it's reality enhancing abilities - something still photography isn't necessarily in search of - are generally considered to be worth the trouble. With enough manipulation sound too becomes as abstract - and perhaps even more provocative - as images.

The confusion is palpable. Even though I went all those miles across country and back, carrying the standard 4 x 5 kit as well as the rented video cam, it wasn't until I was once again within two hours of home that I was willing to stop and get out this seemly outmoded device: a still camera. Perhaps it was the newness of the video device which seemed to make still photography superfluous. Amongst the thousands of images that provided themselves to my sliding eyes, it was only one, that has been mentally manipulated previously, that motivated me to stop. This is the problem with travel: it's always easier to keep going, stay in the rolling cocoon, than to stop and set up a recording device.

The dilemmas of audience, funding, storytelling, technology, convention and more still swirl. All I know is that I've got several hours of HD video to edit, a prospect that appears challenging and even fun.

*The cynic in me can't help but recognize that the ultimate goal to which motion picture capture aspires is Reality TeeVee, which has become ubiquitous and is ever expanding. It manages, somehow, to combine the dual impulses of photography: to document the real world, and create a spectacle of it. David Foster Wallace has written tellingly, especially in Infinite Jest, of the dominance of entertainment programming in our lives. 

Comments

[Joe]

Maybe split the difference and do time-lapse? Video just seems so different to me. Complicated. Tedious.
Seems like work. I'm sticking with the fun stuff.

[KMW]

Joe,

Hmmm... time lapse... That's a thought. Don't have a camera that could do it, and waiting around for long periods of time to have things "happen," seems tedious too. But I am still very intrigued by the method that was used for La Jetee.

You're right that video can be complicated. It's certainly different. But I'm looking forward to doing some editing.

Have you used your D5 for any video Joe? I've been watching a number of very slick looking shorts on Vimeo shot w/ the Canon cameras. I may be headed in that direction, albeit something less highly produced. I still like the one man show that is possible with a still camera.

[Joe]

Haven't done anything beyond a few little experiments with the 5D Mark II. I use a point and shoot to make occasional videos, but nothing I plan to show anyone.