youtube cinematography

[Ace]

An example of work produced solely for internet delivery in mind.. Youtube at that. Just proves that lower res, bad compression doesn't equate to lower production techniques. Brilliant plot lines!

I also think that the cinematography in these pieces play a pivotal role in the interpretation..a semiotic device if you will. i.e, had these been shot amateur video style, the juxtaposition of concept, context and the formal aesthetic of what audiences are used to seeing would be lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH6EZE9OAzU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RFz_rwyrgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Y-9M6E0QE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbHEzTSor0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOAaRJ5NQOc

[pat@hpnc.com]

Video on the interent is going to get interesting very quickly but I dont think the future is youtube size video. Just look at http://stage6.divx.com. They already have SD and HD video.

[Priyesh P.]

yeah. stage6 is what I'm dreaming to become the standard, big image, neat compression and a thousand times as comfortable - you can save by rightclick there.

ok. sometimes it crashes. but that a price i'm willing to pay.

[Eugene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luX7QR4zbXA&NR=1

Sick, very sick. That is viral video. I like www.blip.tv which focuses on episodic content. I am not on there yet. When I edit enough material from the hundreds of tapes I have, then I will post some clips.

[Manfred Lopez]

I don't get these "wtf" clips... are they trying to sell something?

[Michael Schrengohst]

Where the internet is going (or should be going)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/superfast.net.ap/index.html

Download a 2 hr film in 2 sec? This is what the large networks
and large theatre chains fear.

[Richard Andrewski]

Uploading at 40Gbit would be nice too.

It's hard to tell where its going right now but you could look at television's beginnings for some clues. I think we're just in the "fragmented" beginning for the television of the future. I'm sure that when television first started appearing around 1947 it was probably pretty rough experience too with production values all over the place. When the networks first started out they just had converted radio and film studios for the most part to work with. Then they started building buildings expressly designed for television in the fifties. At the same time, more actors, writers and producers started coming on board and then it built up to a really great and watchable experience by the end of the fifties. They really figured out in these new television "factories" how to apply mass production techniques to tv programming and make it slick and polished. Advertisers came on board and that added the needed revenue stream and capital to keep it going.

Bandwidth really will help, but right now people are watching anything as Youtube proves. Regular television just isn't as compelling as it was once. You've got 100s of channels and nothing really great to watch. When the Internet channel's content actually becomes interesting then the current mainstream form of television, with its lack of interactivity may start fading into the background and whatever this new form that's building right now will be the compelling one. We've got to find a good revenue stream too to make it pay to produce programs there, otherwise it'll just continue to be amateurish. Like the original television that lacked great production facilities, capital, polished production techniques, actors and writers (and advertiser's money!) the new television will eventually attract all that and add interactivity and other features that make it an entirely new experience.

Just like the mass production society has been dying and so is the concept of the centrally produced television which does seem to be running out of gas. We may very likely be the program producers of the future. With all the low cost equipment available and the Internet (as the mostly unregulated transmission medium), people could be producing programs in their homes and some might actually be watchable at some point when they figure out how to make it a consistent, entertaining and/or informing experience and on a regular basis--which will also be a heck of a lot of work unless they have a staff to help them. And the biggest thing missing (right now) is the revenue stream to make it worthwhile for an internet program producer! Will advertising continue like it has or will it morph into a new configuration that's also interactive and that's mostly driven by auctioned keywords?

[Charles Angus]

Don't forget that the interactivity of the Internet is an asset and a drawback - you can't "veg out" in front of the web like you can in front of the TV.

Maybe that will be the next Internet revolution...


Charles

[Richard Andrewski]

True, but you'll always be able to veg out in front of a DVD or whatever the current and best distribution medium for movies and other kinds of archived programming will be.

[pat@hpnc.com]

The most interesting thing to me is that someone could make a film and have millions of people watch it without ever having to deal with a studio etc. Now granted 99% will be terrible but I just have to think that it will let peoples work be seen thats worth while but would have never been widely seen with the old system.

[Michael Schrengohst]

The RED Channel?

[Manfred Lopez]

So does anyone want to tell me what those "wtf" clips are about?

[Richard Andrewski]

The RED Channel?

Probably not but there will be some high quality efforts eventually as people get more sophisticated and get the good equipment. But they'll have to remember its not all about cameras and technical stuff. Some worthwhile stories would be great as well so I hope they pair up with people that can write.

[Richard Andrewski]

The most interesting thing to me is that someone could make a film and have millions of people watch it without ever having to deal with a studio etc. Now granted 99% will be terrible but I just have to think that it will let peoples work be seen thats worth while but would have never been widely seen with the old system.

Hopefully, some form of sponsorship will recognize good talent and invest in it to make it more visible and out front so you don't have to do so much sifting. I can definitely see networks of the future as being much smaller, loosely organized groups of people and most of the programming coming from private sources maybe even produced in people's garages or backyard studios.