I mentioned in Part 4 that gear wasn’t the most important thing when producing video and it’s not, but there are things that can make your video production easier and more importantly interesting, as I’ve been slowly finding out. Video production is all about conveying a story through visual impact; movement, light and manipulation of scenes, movement being one important aspect, and not forgetting sound and editing, as I mentioned in Part 5. This is how video provides the story that words provide in a book; you can’t leave it to the reader’s imagination, you have to create the imagination and that’s what I’ve been discovering. To that end, there are tools or accessories available that help you to create that imagination, as opposed to simply pointing a bare camera at things. You could achieve reasonable results with nothing more than a hand held camera, and movies have been done that way, but the results may not be as good unless that’s the effect that you want.
While the story, as discussed in Part 4, is still the most important aspect of video, there are two technical aspects that are pretty much vital to video post-production (compiling the story), software and hardware (a decent computer). As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been using Cyberlink PowerDirector for a while now because it’s not too bad a video editing suite. It’s well priced and, more importantly, it will run on my nearly 10 year old PC. So with PowerDirector and my old PC I’ve been able to produce all of my YouTube videos, but that old PC (Dell Studio XPS) has really been starting to show its age. It’s frequently rather slow, even when running moderate tasks and often running out of memory when doing several things at once. I knew that it was on its last legs as far as any photographic or video editing was concerned and my fears became more immediate when one of my monitors started to play up, which I confirmed was the graphics card starting to flounder. Getting parts for this PC was becoming difficult, so I was now more or less forced into looking at something new and more capable earlier than I anticipated.
Following on from Part 3, one of the most important things when it comes to producing good video is not the gear, it’s the story you’re telling and the planning that you do beforehand, which may include screenplays, scripts and storyboards. When I once mentioned this on a photography forum, I was immediately ridiculed for suggesting that anyone needs to do these things to make a video. It was the usual knee jerk reaction, without any thought being given to the general concept behind these words. I wasn’t suggesting that you needed formal planning, screenplays/scripts and storyboards to make a video, but having even a rudimentary story and plan will help in producing something meaningful. It’s like taking a holiday where most people don’t simply jump in a car or plane and travel to some place without any though as to where they want to go and what they want to do. In this context, planning is vital. Even millennials sometimes plan their photography/video trips.
Continuing on from Part 2 and as a prelude to Part 4, which will be about planning, I thought I’d cover how I intend to get all the video footage I will need for what will hopefully become a short movie. I’ve already discussed one aspect of how I intend to achieve this in my story about my new ‘action cam‘ and in this part I’ll cover the additional tools that I’ve put together so that I can get as diverse and as comprehensive a coverage of the things that we do on our Cruises. Since our Cruises involve a wide variety of environments including highways, dirt roads, rough tracks, river crossings, and then camping in varied bush settings including High Country huts, I have to consider the numerous ways in which I can cover those potential scenes, especially while on the move. It’s all part of the planning and, to do that, I’ve come up with various solutions.
Continuing on from Part 1, even though many cameras can produce say 1080p video, they don’t always provide great results because they haven’t been supplied with the proper Codecs and other features. However, modern cameras are getting much better and most new digital cameras, as well as action cams and even dash cams, will produce excellent 1080p and good to excellent 4K. The more expensive the camera, usually the better the results. Even smart phones are now producing some amazing 4K video and getting better all the time. Cheap video cameras, like many action cams, can promise a lot but deliver little, so quality is always going to come at a price. That said, there are now very high quality video cameras available that are quite compact and at exceptionally good prices, Blackmagic is one brand worth considering.
I’ve noted previously that there’s barely a camera that can’t take decent photographs or video and much the same applies even to mobile phones nowadays. So I was really keen to find out how the TG-5 performed, especially in the role for which I’d bought it and that was video in place of my earlier action cams. But I won’t ignore still photography, as this camera has some features that are quite surprising and, if they work well enough, potentially quite rewarding. I also wanted to get away from the typical action cam, fisheye lens, look and the modest wide to telephoto zoom of the TG-5 is perfect for what I want. So continuing on from Part 1, I want to produce video that is along the lines of traditional movies, not more examples of some extreme sports fanatic’s YOLO world view. The latter is one reason, amongst several, why I wasn’t interested in the Olympus TG-Tracker action cam.
In my quest to find an action cam that will suit the sort of video that I want to produce, I’ve gone through several camera iterations and have been disappointed every time. So once again I went in search of another action cam and this time took a completely different approach. This story is about the Olympus Tough TG-5, a versatile compact camera, and why I think it may well be the ideal camera for use as both an action cam, all round video camera (as well as a regular stills camera) and a great addition to any DSLR or mirrorless camera kit. I’ve come to the conclusion that with certain products you simply won’t be happy buying at the bottom end of the market and It’s not that cheap is always bad, but with things like action cams, cheap usually means bad. And then there are other things to consider.
I’d like to note from the outset that I’m not a professional videographer, but I can and do take video and do so for many events and activities. To me, a professional or serious amateur videographer is an individual that does more than just own a capable video camera and who goes about pointing that camera at all and sundry and doing little more than minor editing (if that), like some happy snappers with high quality still cameras are known to do. I’ve had several discussions on photography forums about video, from a stills photographer’s perspective, and it never ceases to amaze me how many seem to think that video is easy and the higher the quality available (such as 4K), the easier it is to produce. It often sounds just like the old/new megapixel wars that wax and wane year after year.
One of the most discussed, debated and often heated arguments on photography websites and forums revolves around the use, or not, of protective filters on lenses. On one side of the camp are those that believe filters are useful and beneficial additions to expensive lenses and do not affect image quality and, on the other side are those that believe any filter degrades the quality of any lens. To be up front, I have always used high quality filters on all of my lenses from day one and believe that the benefits far outweigh any minor issues that they may cause. There’s a reason for that and I’m going to explain why. While at the end of the day you might not agree with me, I will at least have provided my side of the argument for the use of filters.
An old axiom goes along the lines of: ‘A picture is worth a thousand words‘. That axiom has some history behind it but I don’t fully subscribe to it in the way that it’s often interpreted. However, I feel much more comfortable with a related one that says ‘Every picture tells a story‘ (not the Rod Stewart one). While the two may sound similar, I think there are some fundamental differences between what they mean or how they can be interpreted. The former suggests, to me, that a picture is proof or evidence of something, while the latter suggests that a picture evokes questions, emotions or one’s imagination. So what is my story all about? Well, it’s a bit of navel gazing as I’ve been giving thought to the things that I write and photograph for this blog, why I do so and where it might lead or what else I might do to keep it relevant (for me anyway).