First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K aren’t cheap, and projectors that show videos in 4K are typically the size of a small refrigerator.

Dettifoss & F864 from Jernej Burkeljca on Vimeo.

I took it on a recent trip to Iceland and it sort of represents a condensed impression of Iceland in general… waterfalls and gravel roads through the desert (obviously there’s much more to it). Featured here are Detifoss and the drive there on F864 (Hólsfjallavegur). Wikipedia says it’s the largest waterfall in terms of volume in Europe. And it is impressive. Although once you make your way around from Reykjavik you’re wondering if seeing yet another waterfall is worth any extra effort. We took that chance. It was a miserable rainy, freezing and windy day but I’m not sorry.

Shot on Canon HF200 on a tripod that was shaking like a leaf in the wind and treated with proDAD Mercalli (highly recommended piece of software) to stabilise the in-car shots a little bit (it’s a very light camera and I wanted some weight to its movements).

Interview with Touretski from Jernej Burkeljca on Vimeo.

There’s every chance my views on computer generated movies and stills will change sometime in the future but for now I firmly stand by the opinion that you can’t beat reality. It is, more often than not, stranger than fiction. And not just in the development of the story, documentary vs fiction, but purely in the technical perspective. Sometimes things just happen in front of the lens that you couldn’t engineer on the computer. Not because it would be technically impossible now or far in the future, but because it’s unexpected.

The Third & The Seventh from Alex Roman on Vimeo.

Ever since seeing the movie above I was convinced CG reality is or will be very soon, identical to the real thing. And accessible on a very limited budget. This short movie has done more than any blockbuster Hollywood production to bring CG into the realm of reality. I honestly didn’t know untill the second half that it wasn’t made on a HD DSLR camera. I was shocked.

If I get back to that discussion I mentioned in the beginning… what it did for me was a just as big as The Third & The Seventh. It brought into focus a realisation that from now on cinema will be developing into two directions and you won’t be able to tell the difference. Let’s call it the new and old way.

The old way was film production as a collaborative process. You had the writers, the producers, the director, the actors and the editor. Each of them is arguably as important as the rest of them in the entire process. Each of them brings something to the project that changes, if only slightly, what the original author had in mind. Either it’s because the actor improvised or simply interpreted the script differently or because the editor cut a few scenes or… you get the idea. The end product is a collaboration that evolved through subjective and objective filters and because of it can be either better, worse or simply different.

The new way on the other hand can be a product of one author only. There is only one filter involved in the process and the result will always be what that author wanted (provided certain conditions). It’s a way of making films that will be particularly suited to strong egocentric authors that absolutely need everything under their control. That do not allow for outside input. Which I guess is OK as well.

Obviously the old and the new way will eventually look and feel identical but if for some reason the new way prevails entirely it will kill an entire industry and in the process largely prevent happy accidents from happening. I’m always reminded of Burgess Meredith aka Grandpa Gustafson in the end credits of Grumpy(er) Old Men. You just can’t script them like that…

PS I highly recommend watching the making-of The Third & The Seventh vids as well.

Dawn on an Island from Jernej Burkeljca on Vimeo.

The result of relying on the camera having amazing brains is more noise than I would have liked. Image quality strongly reminds me of compact cameras set on ISO 400 and above. And essentially this camera is just that… a small camera with some pro features. In photo world it would find its equivalent in the Canon G series. Fine, indeed quite nice, in a lot of situations but quite horrible when you push it towards what it hasn’t been designed to do. Bottom line is that at high gain the image is ugly. It’s not that there’s a huge amount of noise, it’s just ugly in the same way it’s ugly on nearly all small sensor cameras and mobile phones. So now I know to avoid flipping the gain switch if I don’t have to.

The other problem I have with nearly all video cameras is the depth of field. The infinity of it. I’ve gotten so used to shallow DOF that it really annoys me when I use anything other than an SLR and a fast lens. Obviously this is only relevant if the project you’re doing requires shallow DOF, in most cases cameras such as GY-HM100 end up doing one man band documentaries shot handheld where focusing is something you just don’t bother with, indeed don’t want to bother with. And for that kind of work I believe this camera is near perfect. It does a good job on full auto, it’s small and featherweight. So light that I kept checking if there’s anything at all in the bag where Canon 20D with 70-200/2.8 attached usually resides. The little JVC also comes with 2 XLR ports for more serious audio work and offers a decent post workflow. Manual controls on such a small camera are of course a slight issue for clumsy people with big fingers but they’re not such a problem so as to become unusable.

There is an issue with post though and I’ve written more about it when I first encountered it. I’ve yet to find a long term solution to the audio being mangled up in Premiere but the simple fact of the matter is that transwrapping the files is fast and easy and everything works great from there on. Premiere CS4 handles it beautifully and the result is above.

The question is… would I buy it for myself? No. But I’d love to use it whenever there’s a need for such a camera. Handheld, mobile, efficient style of filming. But for me personally I’m much more inclined towards a one for all solution. Since my 20D still works as it should I’m not contemplating a switch but when that day comes I’d like a 7D please. That would suit my own taste in photo and video much more and I would avoid carrying more stuff than I’d like. I tend to leave the 70-200 behind often enough as it is.

Recently I’ve been testing a JVC GY-HM100 HD video camera (or GY-HM100E to be precise, since it’s a European variant) and I’ve uncovered an issue with audio imported in Adobe Premiere CS4 that appears to be badly documented. Note this is not a review of the camera. I’ll have to do much more work with it to pass any judgement, so for now I direct you elsewhere for opinions on how the camera behaves.

I first noticed the sound issue when I imported MP4 files into Premiere CS4 (GY-HM100 can also record MOV files which I have not tested). The problem is that on some parts of a clip the waveform goes crazy and there’s nothing but very loud noise (maxed out) on both or just one of the channels for a few seconds but then it goes back to normal. You can imagine my shock when I first played back a very silent clip of a pre dawn nature shoot with speakers near maximum only to receive a proper wake up “hum”.

same clip, two very different waveforms (original left, converted version on the right)

The files are otherwise fine when played through other software such as VLC player. Other people report the same thing is happening in Soundbooth CS4. Yes, I tried it out and the same thing is there as well but I never used it before so for me it hasn’t been an issue. Why or how this is triggered is still a mystery to me. It seems to be independent of mode/resolution (I was shooting in 1080p and 720p), type of sound recording (external or internal mic) or (based on forum discussion) operating system. I’m not sure how exactly but it would appear to be a codec problem in Adobe CS4 rather than anything being wrong with the camera.

The DVinfo forum thread does provide a temporary bypass though. And it is to be found through a conversion tool MP4toMPG by MIK Digital that converts audio (mp2 @ 320kbps) and copies the video 1:1 into an MPG2 container file. In short, it does the job. The app is written in German, however it is very simple to use and does everything in 3 steps:

1. select source folder
2. select target folder
3. execute

Obviously converting files is not a long-term solution and I’ll keep searching for an answer. But for now this hack/bypass will have to do so we can keep shooting and editing the footage.

Featured comment (segment) by Fredrik Lindau

I have found that if you copie the whole map-structure from the memmorycard to your harddrive the clip works fine. But if you only copie the MP4-file you get this sound issue.

The above mentioned solution has now been confirmed. Simply copy the entire directory structure (not just the clips or clip folders) from the card and audio will play just fine in Premiere CS4 and CS5. It’s a bit of a mess to find specific clips but ultimately it avoids transcoding so there you go.

I am, infinitely more than I already was, in awe of Terrence Malick who managed to read through this battlefield of a book (though he did take 20 years off) to create a visually stunning adaptation into a movie that, if the world was in any way fair, would have won a great many Oscars. But then Saving Private Ryan happened and you know the rest…

Reviewers of the novel on Amazon obviously don´t agree with my conclusions, claiming the movie is underdeveloped. Among other things. Well…the film is monstrously long as it is and if it followed the book any closer (and it stays pretty true) people could order lunch and dinner during a screening and still have a siesta before anything of substance happened. Because that´s how the book feels like. You read and you read and… nothing. He´s still stuck on a pointless little detail.

The narrative is long-winded, sentences stuffed with filler apparently designed to draw you into the scene visually but achieving what I´d say is an undesired effect of losing track of the main development. On the other hand the style might be ideally suited to people with no or little of their own imagination, who require every twig, sound, leaf, wave, smell, thought and gunshot described in detail to paint the atmosphere and fill in the blanks. For everyone else it gets in the way of the more important thing – story or action development. To put it in perspective, what takes 15 seconds on film takes about 15 pages in the book.

I can see why Jones writes the way he does, after all he wants people to understand the reality of combat, the mindset of a soldier. But describing the mindset and perspective of each and every soldier in a company is a bit over the top. Bloated. When you´re seeing Guadalcanal campaign through the eyes of 10 or 20 different people it´s a bit hard to keep track of who´s who and what happened to him earlier.

Guess I prefer the more film like approach to books where you pick it up and it doesn´t let go until the end.

I might return to The Thin Red Line someday, purely because I think I owe it to the movie, however for the time being I can´t bring myself to read another page. Until then I think I´ll watch the beautifully shot Mallicks film version a few more times.

Even with Google Reader hovering around the 200 subscriptions mark, a day just doesn’t feel right without having something to read on paper. It’s not just that it doesn’t feel right. I’ve been noticing that the electronic and paper ways don’t really overlap that much. So in essence what I’m saying is that I don’t want a paperless future. I need newspapers. I need magazines.

Kottke pointed out a feature in The Morning News where readers and writers profess their love for the print.

Viva Print indeed.

But it also got me thinking… what would I miss most if print periodicals folded? In a way the scenario happened to me during the months spent on Ikaria. There were no daily newspapers to spend a few minutes with. Even my Google Reader soon climbed up to 1000+ unread items (it gives up counting beyond a 1000) as I didn’t get to use the computer in my spare time. I was totally out of it.

My salvation were old issues of The Ecologist. I read all of them… even though they were a year old (at a minimum) they at least kept me somewhat sane for those few minutes when a I got a chance to dive into them :)

And what did I start reading when I got back home?

In print it was the back issues of Polet, likely the best thing about Delo newspaper in its entire history. Very high on the evening reading list was also ŽIT, a local version of Science et Vie, Popular Science, New Scientist and whatever else is similar, with a long and proud history of over 50 years and going on strong (I hope). So when it comes down to it, these two are my must reads. If all else fails I need these so there’s at least something to hold on to.

Sure, there are several other magazines and newspapers I read. I’ll read, or browse, almost anything. Once at least. There are bottom lines somewhere… Among the desired reading is the local edition of Le Monde Diplomatique, Sobotna Priloga and The New York Times international weekly supplement (however I don’t read NYT online). I read a few other magazines but there’s nothing I would miss terribly.

When it comes to online reading I do most of it through Google Reader. Absolute must reads are a few comic strips (life without PHD Comics is not one worth living) :p and a few blogs/websites. Whenever I don’t have extra time and boredom I skip all those with serious content hyper production syndrome like BoingBoing or Coudal Partners no matter how much cool stuff may be hidden inside. I sometimes feel a sense of slight guilt but there are other things I can do than scan through 1000+ unread items…

I just hope the best newspapers and magazines with an opinion stick around for a while longer in their present paper form. For everything else I honestly don’t care which way they go. Instant, general news reporting is like fast food. Largely boring and worthless.

I loved reading the comments when Danielle Nagler, Head of HD @ BBC Vision called for reasons to broadcast Top Gear in HD:

What it is about Top Gear that means you really want to watch it in HD?
What are the qualities which you identify as particularly suitable for HD?

Unless you live in a rain forest far away from any TV set you’ve likely heard of Top Gear at least in passing. It is by far the best show currently being played on television anywhere. Stunning visuals, funny hosts and amusing challenges, oh and some cars you’re likely never going to drive (or see). But that’s a bonus that doesn’t really matter. The thing is… people really want to watch it in HD.

However I just don’t see why?!

I’ve been looking at many, many screens at work, day in and day out with that specific idea in mind. From uncompressed camera output, to broadcast 720p on various LCDs and huge plasma screens and all the way to standard 55cm CRT screen at home. And really, the only difference I see is in saccadic eye motion of the presenter reading off teleprompter. That and perhaps some other minor details (hair & dust on jackets) get partially lost on the way to my old cathode ray tube TV. And that’s the difference between the uncompressed stream and SD!! The compressed HD broadcast on LCD control screens doesn’t show those details either!

So really… what have we lost?

Now to get back to Top Gear. Cars are big, the landscape around them is a stage zooming past, you’re unlikely to have a particular wish to see how poorly shaved the presenters are or how many paint scratches are on the cars. So which details exactly would you like to see in HD???

HD on room sized TV sets, for the majority of content, is largely a pointless exercise. Period.

Addendum: Aug. 3rd 2009

Apparently I stepped on a few toes with this one. Which is nice :) However it quickly becomes obvious people assign more meaning to HD than it deserves. But really, the name says it all – high definition. That’s all there is to it. It’s not magical picture transformation, just more detail. It’s hilarious to read the high speed movement would look less jagged and such. Well… even straight out of the camera there wouldn’t be much of a difference since movement has little to do with detail. Much more with frame rates, shutter speed and such things. And after all that comes compression. Which destroys all that lovely detail, especially in high speed movement, especially at bandwidths currently used in broadcast.

I’m pretty sure BBC is aware of that and that it is probably the reason they’re asking for (good) reasons why Top Gear should be in HD. They just don’t see the point. The HD decision would be pure marketing and little substance.

Addendum: Aug. 5th 2009

I see we got around to the age old audiophile paradox. For some people a CD or god forbid an MP3, is simply not good enough. Nothing short of top quality vinyls and associated hardware in a purpose built acoustically perfect room would do (slightly exaggerating of course). This sort of phenomena is widespread in every hobby really. Which is fine. I don’t care what other people spend money on.

What started this post were ridiculous claims by people who only want the best, but quite honestly have no idea what that is. Repeating marketing hype is easy. Justifying ones expensive purchase by any means necessary is something Mike Johnston wrote about quite a few times (browse the archives if you wish) and is quite natural. Everyone does it. He also wrote about the difference between worthiness and value. Two wildly different concepts.

I guess what I tried to say from the beginning is that sometimes you need the ability to step back and evaluate something in an uninvolved manner. BBC is doing that (I hope so) by trying to figure out if HD would bring enough added value to Top Gear. On the quality scale it probably wouldn’t, on marketing it probably would.

Fifty People, One Question: London from Fifty People, One Question on Vimeo.

It’s Your Ride from Cinecycle on Vimeo.

CHALK & CHOCOLATE – movie trailer from Jure Breceljnik on Vimeo.

Evolution – 1. slovenian freeski movie from Action Mama on Vimeo.