*Good stuff here. It would be good to see this kind of film-school acuity brought to machine-vision systems.
(...)
"Rather than one or two kinds of documentary technology, we are now faced with a multiplicity of technologies and corresponding visual effects:
"- the legacy cameras from the tape era which will always beat an SLR for long-range clarity but not rich colour, or bokeh
"- iPhone footage with its unchallengeable “truth”
"- SLR-shot footage, with or without a slower frame rate to make it look filmic
- live, static versions of the old TV cameras, with lighting etc in a studio or live satellite position.
"- You could add, for increasingly cash strapped programmes that can’t afford satellite feeds, Skype interviews.
"- And while I think about it, there is also the GoPro, an ultra-wide, ultra-sharp mini camera people use to film themselves, ski-ing, surfing and taking their dog in their kayak etc.
"For some viewers, this spells confusion and trouble. But Mason holds that most viewers are pretty much fine with it, and I think I’m inclined to agree. Changes in visual technology aren’t even new, after all; as Booker points out, “Our perception of eras seems chiefly dependent on the limitations of the technology that records them. (((What an interesting thing to say.))) The 20s are speeded up in our heads because the cameras were cranked by hand, creating an unnaturally hasty frame-rate.” People adjust; they learn how to “read” all over again...."
