Continuing the discussion from a recent Digital Production BuZZ show. Larry asked an excellent question
Larry Jordan: I was just reflecting on the difference between improvements and changes and I realized that the tools that we use influence the stories that we tell and I was thinking back, again to when I was directing live TV, I would have the opportunity every so often to do a three videotape edit in a very expensive CMX room and the stories that I could tell with that videotape was limited by how much money I had and how much time in the CMX room. I couldn’t do graphically intensive tasks, I’d have to go off to an animation stand. Are we actually being blinded by the tools we’re using in terms of the stories that we can tell?
If we were still cutting offline in three-quarter inch, I am confident there would not be reality TV shows that cut on 2-3 second shots. Very confident. Today’s multi camera world would have been simply impossible to manage in a tape-based offline world. Can you imagine trying to cut 16 cameras (let alone the number on some reality shows) with a 3/4″ offline system? It simply couldn’t happen.
The technology has changed so much that multi-camera shoots are normal. Even when I shoot the odd pieces I shoot – interviews, house fit outs, or even a cooking show shoot for a friend my default is to use two cameras wherever I can. The cost of cameras, and the complexity of editing multcam in my Media 100 or Final Cut Pro 1-7 days made multiple camera shoots out of my range. Now it’s normal.
So absolutely, the way we tell the stories and even, to some degree, the stories that we will tell are dictated by the type of technology that’s available. The plus side of that is, because there is a range of technology from very inexpensive DSLR level technology right through to your F65s etc.
This means that many more stories can be told because there is a budget level story for everyone. Every equipment choice dictates story compromise. My pair of NEX-7’s, while fine for what I do, are completely unsuitable for high end television or “film” production. Likewise, my available resources dictate I’m not likely be producing an effects heavy personal project. To tools we have (and skills) dictate the way we can tell stories.
Big budget space opera – of the tentpole type – generally only come from big studios, and yet the producers of Star Wreck used a skillful blend of green-screen and computer generated sets, to create a feel much bigger than their budget. It also took more than three years, and the support of hundreds of volunteers.
So there’s a budget where you can still get out there and tell your story, even if you can’t tell the story in the way that a $120 million studio movie might tell that story. The technology will affect the way you tell the story, but it has always been that way: we now have more types of equipment that will do the job.