[fuent104]

here in Hollywood, the terms have very different meanings. I think of a videographerr as someone who not only shoots, but is responsible for delivering the final product to the clint. a cinematographer, on the other hand, has a much more limited specialization, but should be an epert on the visual side of things, and for different tours of pre production. cinematography as a term also implies the use of cinematic techniques and "language," whereas vidrography does not specifically imply those things. my roommate is a videogrspherr and I am a cinematographer. we are both good with those labels. they are very useful.

please forgive the errors, my phone is terrible for this.

---

Last edited by fuent104; 07-23-2014 at 11:25 PM.

[TomGarn]

I am a lover of "progressive music" (Yes, early Genesis, King Crimson, Camel, ... and also groups today like Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, Porcupine tree.
When I search for progressive and prog in web-radio.stations I do find only f u c k ing techno music - and I wonder why the name of good music has been
almost completely forgotten .... but old names take new meanings ... that's progress ;-)

I nowadays do say to people that I am a former professional news-cameraman, now doing video-clips and web-camera-stuff with a DSLR ...
Videographers are also those one-man-bands that gather news and stories - but mostly rather document - with more or less art - what is there to see.
Some may learn what the journalist usually does - some may train b2b - ways ... to get new customers ...

Where did it all come from ? Those News And Stories ... Watch this and enjoy:

You Tube

You Tube

[kadajawi]

Search for progressive rock, prog rock, or perhaps progressive metal (though it tends to be harder). Do try Opeth and Amorphis, but skip their first few albums).

To me videographers are more of a one man band, doing smaller jobs. A cinematographer is more towards film making, working in a team, doing very planned shoots. They may also aim for a different look/put more effort in getting a certain look.

[osv]

cinema = motion picture which is a video (though its commonly thought of a motion picture as a major movie but the basic definition of it applies to any video) and has no real phonetic connection or restriction to film

"1) a : motion picture —usually used attributively
b : a motion-picture theater
2) a : movies; especially : the film industry
b : the art or technique of making motion pictures"
Cinema - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

for decades, those things were only done on film, so cinema traditionally infers something that was shot on film.

but since language evolves constantly, along with technology, we now have cinema houses that aren't capable of projecting film, they can only display hi-def video, that is typically shot in film-style mode.

videography typically infers the use of video cameras using zoom lenses; video that was not shot in film-style mode.

as in, videographers use prosumer cameras with zoom lenses; they don't shoot video that's intended for distribution on cinema screens.

but with the advent of dslr form factors, even the semi-traditional definition of "videographer" is now in jeopardy, because you now have people using dslr form factors to shoot prosumer jobs like weddings and recitals.

they typically don't have a clue what shooting in "film-style mode" really means, and they use continuous autofocus with non-parfocal slr lenses, because they don't know what "parfocal" means.

it just keeps getting worse... somehow the word "filmer" has crept into modern lexicon, essentially replacing "videographer"... since practically no one uses film anymore, why call someone shooting with a video camera a "filmer"?

[Steve.Ledger]

It irks me no end when I hear a certain British professional call his YouTube tutorials 'Films'...

[PiDicus Rex]

videography typically infers the use of video cameras using zoom lenses; video that was not shot in film-style mode.

Implies that 'cinema' is only shot on Primes, not Zooms. Perhaps could do with a better phrasing - zooms are used in Cinema, as is zooming, but it's not common.

It irks me no end when I hear a certain British professional call his YouTube tutorials 'Films'...

<sarcasm mode> Gee, I wonder who that could be,...? </sarcasm mode>
Perhaps the same guy who said in one years Zacuto Shoot-Out that you always had to conform a video to ProRes for the best editing quality, and the next year said there was advantages in being able to use the original files without having to conform.... around the same time that FCP caught up with Edius and Premiere for file handling.

Or who recently described SpeedBoosters as being able to make a lens wider,... instead of less cropped.
( I have an idea of how to prove him wrong )

[Steve.Ledger]

No, not him I'm thinking of another guy.

[Imageman]

There is a ton of crossover and confusion in this world.


People who grew up taking snaps, video clips and selfies on phones, migrated to cameras to do the same finding better video quality on digital cameras.


I see people using phones to take still photographs, I see people using still cameras to take videos, all we need now is video cameras to have phones installed then we can see a Panasonic or canon or sony video camera glued to someones ear as they chat their mates about clubbing tonight.


It looks comical and just plain wrong to me when I see a videographer dicking around with what amounts to 12,000 dollars worth of medium format dSLR and a bunch of lenses trying to make a professional looking video when professional studio quality video equipment exists and would only have cost only 3000 dollars or less, it would have looked better, operated better, and produced a far better result.


When you use a digital slr to make a video it changes from its native high resolution mode to a pathetic low resolution video mode and you throw away the reason for choosing that camera in the first place, that's because it was never intended for that use, and you don't get the other benefits you would have got from a high end and much cheaper video camera, so why dick around doing it.


Try being professional and using a focus puller to focus and zoom sweetly with dslr, it aint ever gonna happen, all you will get is obvious and amateurish looking focus changes.


Looking on the internet when someone is attempting to show a video of something important to them, they use a digital camera to video it. I have watched thousands of videos made in this manner from digital cameras, they all have autofocus, and I have yet to see one that's actually in focus for more than one nanosecond if at all, some of them are an amorphous blob and nothing is identifiable. The camera hunting for focus all the time and achieving nothing and the whole thing is a complete joke.


A single lens for a dslr costs as much as a competent video camera. Most cheap video cameras offer 1080 interlaced and many offer 1080 non interlaced. So why not invest in a decent video camera and save all the pain.


I don't watch tv on my computer, I don't use my washing machine to wash dishes, I don't travel to work on my bed. Ive got no problem with occasional video clips made on a dslr that's what called convenience and it makes the world go round, but you have to draw the line somewhere.


If I saw a film crew trying to produce a documentary using a dslr whether medium format or whatever, I would just laugh at them.


Use the right gear for the task, a phone to make phone calls, a still camera to take still pictures, a video camera to make videos.


Am I asking too much.


Reply please using your fireplace I will receive it just as soon as I plug my shoe in.

[Giklab]

Reply please using your fireplace I will receive it just as soon as I plug my shoe in.

While it's funny ATM, in a few years you will look like an idiot for saying this. There are fridges and stoves, available today, that can connect to and browse the internet easily.
Replied using a glorified chalkboard slab.

[Steve.Ledger]

While your post almost amounts to trolling, it's a fun rant which I can't let go unchallenged

I see people using phones to take still photographs, I see people using still cameras to take videos

Because phones have cameras built-in and still cameras are not just still cameras any more.. Catch up

It looks comical and just plain wrong to me when I see a videographer dicking around with what amounts to 12,000 dollars worth of medium format dSLR and a bunch of lenses trying to make a professional looking video when professional studio quality video equipment exists and would only have cost only 3000 dollars or less, it would have looked better, operated better, and produced a far better result.

You're completely missing the point. The Pro' already has the lenses etc, all he needs is the modern body that shoots 4K video.

When you use a digital slr to make a video it changes from its native high resolution mode to a pathetic low resolution video mode and you throw away the reason for choosing that camera in the first place, that's because it was never intended for that use, and you don't get the other benefits you would have got from a high end and much cheaper video camera, so why dick around doing it.

1080p isn't pathetic low resolution it is HD, 4K certainly isn't either (GH4) and the reasons for buying a modern DSLR/DSLM generally now includes how well it also captures video.
Modern DLSRs are intended for video capture as well as stills. Check the manuals.

Try being professional and using a focus puller to focus and zoom sweetly with dslr, it aint ever gonna happen, all you will get is obvious and amateurish looking focus changes.

Complete cod's wallop.

Looking on the internet when someone is attempting to show a video of something important to them, they use a digital camera to video it. I have watched thousands of videos made in this manner from digital cameras, they all have autofocus, and I have yet to see one that's actually in focus for more than one nanosecond if at all, some of them are an amorphous blob and nothing is identifiable. The camera hunting for focus all the time and achieving nothing and the whole thing is a complete joke.

Perhaps you are selectively choosing your videos to watch then because there are many pros who use DSLRs/DSLMs to create their tutorials and product review videos on YouTube.
AF is not necessarily considered 'professional', mostly it is not.

A single lens for a dslr costs as much as a competent video camera. Most cheap video cameras offer 1080 interlaced and many offer 1080 non interlaced. So why not invest in a decent video camera and save all the pain.

Because those camcorders you speak of deliver massive DoF amateurish results.

I don't watch tv on my computer, I don't use my washing machine to wash dishes, I don't travel to work on my bed. Ive got no problem with occasional video clips made on a dslr that's what called convenience and it makes the world go round, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Lines are drawn by those without imagination and motivation. Pioneers cross lines all the time.

If I saw a film crew trying to produce a documentary using a dslr whether medium format or whatever, I would just laugh at them.

Then expect the big chap to walk up to you and ask what the joke is?

Use the right gear for the task, a phone to make phone calls, a still camera to take still pictures, a video camera to make videos.

For many, it comes down to what you have with you at the time, or are everyone fools except for you - is this right?

Am I asking too much.

No, you are asserting too much.

Reply please using your fireplace I will receive it just as soon as I plug my shoe in.

So after all of the above you have at last accepted that there is such a thing as 'multi-function' ?

[grispie]

There is a ton of crossover and confusion in this world.

this is true, especially in your world it seems...

[Imageman]

videography typically infers the use of video cameras using zoom lenses; video that was not shot in film-style mode. as in, videographers use prosumer cameras with zoom lenses; they don't shoot video that's intended for distribution on cinema screens. but with the advent of dslr form factors, even the semi-traditional definition of "videographer" is now in jeopardy, because you now have people using dslr form factors to shoot prosumer jobs like weddings and recitals.

Trolling? I am speaking on topic, the issue of videographers using a dslr for video output is raised here, am I not allowed to speak on this topic, a topic raised in a former post.


I don't think that using inferior equipment to produce an inferior result is pushing boundaries and you infer I have no imagination. That is almost insulting considering you don't know me or what im capable of.


Pushing boundaries is not doing what has been done before many times. I have used a dslr to make video myself the result was poor, as I expected. I wasn't pushing boundaries then and guys who use dslrs to make video don't push boundaries now. I have however truly pushed boundaries in other areas than photography, I know what it is to truly innovate, to conceive of things nobody else has conceived of.


My points still stand. A dslr is not in any conceivable way as competent a video device for production of video footage if I can use such a cinematic term, as a pro or studio video camera is.


You also seem to suggest I don't recognise that its a convenient way of producing video, of course it is and I said that in my post.


My point always was, a digital camera is developed to create a still image, and its video output is inferior to a video camera. Do you deny this.


Personally I am opposed to dslr manufacturers improving video output in their products. Think about it, spending money making a dslr more video capable pushes up the price of the base product.


Photographers who want a camera to take pictures have to buy a video camera as well. Why would I want to spend more on a dslr if the extra money makes video capture better when video cameras already exist.


As for a convergence device which you are suggesting is desirable, it isn't. The more features you put in a device, the more things can go wrong.


I don't want a device that can take still pictures and take video and make a phone call and show tv programs and have the radio on, and project images on the wall and print out hard copy as well.


When one part breaks it all breaks. So its not a step forward at all. discrete devices are pretty reliable. When one fails you replace it cheaply.

[stevebrot]

Modern DLSRs are intended for video capture as well as stills. Check the manuals.

Unless, of course, they are not. For many (not just Pentax), the video capabilities are an add-on feature and performance/utility is a compromise at best. On other (mostly high-end) cameras, video is not even offered. Yes, you can spend over $2000 and not get video and yes, you can spend over $2000 and not get good video and no, I am not thinking Pentax.

What's more, the target market for those cameras is not bothered by the lack of or deficiencies with the video feature.


Steve

[clackers]

I don't think that using inferior equipment to produce an inferior result is pushing boundaries.

I'm not sure where the 'inferior result' comes into play, Imageman.


Phantom Menace was a bit of a groundbreaker by being shot entirely on video rather than 35mm film, and it yielded superior results for the many FX guys who were doing all their stuff digitally.


As far as DSLRs go, they're getting more and more capable. You may as well buy a bunch of them outright for some kinds of movie rather than rent several conventional 35mm film cameras for three months.


The S6 finale of House was shot on Canon 5dMkII by an Emmy award winning director, who commented on its "ease of use in tight spaces," as he indicated that the episode had many hand-held shots or scenes that were shot using a small tripod. He also explained how the results were different from using a traditional camera, with the images being "richer", while "the shallow focus pulls the actors faces to the foreground," and admitted, "I was blown away by the depth-of-field."


Black Swan, The Avengers and 127 Hours all apparently used DSLRs in their making, so I think you're pushing a false dichotomy here, to be honest.

[Steve.Ledger]

Unless, of course, they are not. For many (not just Pentax), the video capabilities are an add-on feature and performance/utility is a compromise at best. On other (mostly high-end) cameras, video is not even offered. Yes, you can spend over $2000 and not get video and yes, you can spend over $2000 and not get good video and no, I am not thinking Pentax.

What's more, the target market for those cameras is not bothered by the lack of or deficiencies with the video feature.


Steve

Nonsense I say. If the manufacturer includes video recording capabilities then the camera is intended to record video as well as it's primary role as a stills camera. Video is simply a series of still images so there's no logical reason why it should not be equipped to do so now that improvements to hardware and codecs make it possible..
The target market is anyone who will buy the camera. Clearly all camera manufacturers [and I include Pentax] see the importance of including video recording capability as a way to broaden their market. Whether the quality of the recorded footage is satisfactory or not is a matter of opinion, in time we'll have something else to discuss because video IQ will improve to the point that we'll all be satisfied with it