[via Charlie Rubenstein, the guy whose video finds (see: California is a place) always make me wish I had the $s for gear and the training for cinematographic excellence]
I agree that the video is excellent. The equipment necessary for a production like this is not expensive. All of the images are stills. Digital cameras of that quality are quite reasonable. And the compilation of the images with a sound track could easily be done in in programs like Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Express, which can be obtained quite economically, especially if you know someone who can get an academic discount. One could obtain the necessary camera and software for $500 – and even cheaper if you got used stuff. It’s amazing how the technology for this sort of thing is now so obtainable. So if that sort of thing interests you, go for it. Perhaps you have hidden talents. Molly clarifies: Actually, the artist notes that his production is all video, no stills. I’m not sure about this one, but a lot of these amazing videos seem to be shot with digital slr’s that can capture hd video, like this one. Lovely, but also rather cost prohibitive for me for the time being. Sigh…..meanwhile, I’ll keep trying to improve my final cut/adobe suite skills. Thanks for the encouragement!
I notice that even many of the small, fist-sized video cameras now capture HD video and have price-ranges around four to five hundred, but I’ve never used one. Another option is a used Sony VX-2000 which costs about $1300 from reputable firms. I have one, and the quality is excellent even in low light. (The sound is not great but external mics solve that.) See: http://www.onequality.com/sony-dcr-vx2000-handycam-camcorder-3ccd-minidv-camera-p-185.html?gclid=CPeTwqjr36ICFQqwsgodIiR9wQ
Of course, if you have three to six thousand, this would be the buy: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/canon_xh/
My view is that creative editing and subject matter (not camera quality) set apart the best, small independent videos. So there’s hope if you are inspired.
William Osborne says
I agree that the video is excellent. The equipment necessary for a production like this is not expensive. All of the images are stills. Digital cameras of that quality are quite reasonable. And the compilation of the images with a sound track could easily be done in in programs like Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Express, which can be obtained quite economically, especially if you know someone who can get an academic discount. One could obtain the necessary camera and software for $500 – and even cheaper if you got used stuff. It’s amazing how the technology for this sort of thing is now so obtainable. So if that sort of thing interests you, go for it. Perhaps you have hidden talents.
Molly clarifies: Actually, the artist notes that his production is all video, no stills. I’m not sure about this one, but a lot of these amazing videos seem to be shot with digital slr’s that can capture hd video, like this one. Lovely, but also rather cost prohibitive for me for the time being. Sigh…..meanwhile, I’ll keep trying to improve my final cut/adobe suite skills. Thanks for the encouragement!
William Osborne says
I notice that even many of the small, fist-sized video cameras now capture HD video and have price-ranges around four to five hundred, but I’ve never used one. Another option is a used Sony VX-2000 which costs about $1300 from reputable firms. I have one, and the quality is excellent even in low light. (The sound is not great but external mics solve that.) See:
http://www.onequality.com/sony-dcr-vx2000-handycam-camcorder-3ccd-minidv-camera-p-185.html?gclid=CPeTwqjr36ICFQqwsgodIiR9wQ
Of course, if you have three to six thousand, this would be the buy:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/canon_xh/
My view is that creative editing and subject matter (not camera quality) set apart the best, small independent videos. So there’s hope if you are inspired.
S. Aldridge says
A miniature 21th century film noire….well done!