I am quite eager to read Jesse’s piece on boxing coverage. I don’t know if he decided to only focus on filming boxing for film or whether he also investigated live coverage. I think the latter would provide a very interesting basis for research. Reflecting on my own exposure to live sport coverage I can think of a few changes which have occurred but they seem mostly based around technology advancements. I suppose advancements in camera technologies have changed the cinema as well, allowing for different coverage and the overuse of the drone shot over a city establishing shot. But what I think Jesse touched on at least in his presentation is a question of what could you gain from looking at sports coverage in terms of our subject? I suppose the overall découpage of any sports match is just to cover the main action of any game but is there any other thought process that goes into this? Do they choose when to cut between camera to camera in some sort of order in a cricket match? Or do they just follow the ball as best they can?
I hope Jesse’s piece may touch on this, id is interested to see what the overall changes have been and if there is much correlation between that and films. This may only come in the form of analysing boxing but following that it may be something I chose to look into in the future.
How does how you capture something change what you capture?
Reflections
Work-in-progress #1 – Initial ideas
How does how you capture something change what you capture?
In initial discussion of our assignment 4 concept we discussed a lot of different options, however, we were most drawn to the concept of how different technology altered the way we captured video. Specifically focusing on what differences we could notice visually through the varying devices used and the influences this had on our perception of environments.
Whilst we discussed forms this could take we arrived on the realisation that we had 9 different cameras between us, some varying in specifications and quality more than others but no cameras the same. We intend to play these videos at the same time in some form, most likely a grid layout, to draw attention to the specific differences captured in our piece.
At the end of the discussion, we had arrived on the question, “How does how we capture something change what we capture?”.
We intend to develop this further through test observations to ensure the piece will be interesting as well as entertaining.
Work-in-progress #2 –Test observations
From out test footage captured on two cameras, we had both some elements of success and some obstacles to overcome. The footage showed a vast difference in quality, with the beaten up Oppo producing a very unclear result whilst the iPhone gave a much clearer and focused shot. This debunked a concern we had regarding the variation in the footage we took. Initially, we had concerns the different cameras would produce images to similar to each other to notice any difference in what we captured.
The negative we all agreed on whilst looking at raw footage was the different positions of the two cameras. Whilst this was partly due to our lack of tripods at the time making it hard to replicate camera positioning. In class we discussed avoiding this through using one tripod and filming a subject one at a time however, this diminished our ability to display the differences captured in the 9 different shots we would take. We remedied the test footage with a shaped layover to best line up the shots however we will most likely avoid this in our final piece.
This idea will hopefully be replicated in our final product as we intend to sink the videos to capture a set period of time. In the weeks reading, ‘Fieldwork’ researcher E is attempting to replicate the exact sound heard by the human ear. Whilst he admits this is impossible he questions the differences in a camera or microphones result (Fieldwork, 2018). This similarly embodies what our test and production want to examine, but rather than the difference in camera and eye, the differences in what different cameras allow us to see.
Initial research produced two articles which piqued my interest in relation to our initial ideas. A film by Emand Burnat and Guy Davidi titled ‘5 Broken Cameras’ (2011), and Pierre Sorlin’s Article ‘Deceptive images The social sciences and the puzzle of moving pictures’.
The film especially resonated with me and then the group as it reflected this concept of what different films were able to capture. Whilst the cameras in this project capture different points of time and has a far stronger political theme, the use of different cameras reflect what we want to achieve.
The Sorlin article as well as the weeks reading shared two opposing ideas which I thought related heavily to our piece. In reference to the use of film as documentation, Sorlin suggests we must use editing and other solutions that allow us to comment on moving images (p.14). This is something we would like to avoid as much as the project allows us.
We would like to present a piece that does not have a story as discussed by researcher E in, Critical Distance in Documentary Media (2018) the weekly reading. We discussed these articles in class and the theme of avoiding presenting some sort of story which doesn’t exist in our environment. This is intended to draw attention in the different rhythms in our environment and present a display of how different cameras allow us to notice these.
Miles, A., Weidle, F., Brasier, H., Lessard, B., 2018. From Critical Distance to Critical Intimacy: Interactive Documentary and Relational Media, in: Cammaer, G., Fitzpatrick, B., Lessard, B. (Eds.), Critical Distance in Documentary Media. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 301–319
Work-in-progress #4 – Rough cut
Our rough cut was presented as our raw footage in a meeting with Hannah. We were particularly pleased with the footage however were unsure of how to edit it. The basics of the plan included a grid which showed a 2×3 layout playing all videos simultaneously.
In initial discussions of the edit, we threw a lot of ideas around. This included the concepts of fading some shots in and out over continuous shots, we also played with the idea of deliberately excluding one shot from playing at any given time to create a real focus on the differences presented in the final piece. Discussion amongst us and Hannah confirmed this as a worthwhile idea and we will endeavour to experiment with the edit to see how this comes across.
I do however feel this may take away from the project as we would like to reflect an idea from this week’s reading. Stephanie Lam’s piece ‘It’s about time: slow aesthetics in experimental ecocinema and nature cam videos” (2015)’ presented the idea of experimental slow ecocinema and nature cam videos allowing for a “more immediate and extended visual contact with nature”(2015, p217). We would similarly like to reflect this improved visual connection through extended, unedited shots, allowing our audience to feel more immersed in the scene.
Lam, S, 2015. It’s About Time: Slow Aesthetics in Experimental Ecocinema and Nature Cam Videos, in: Luca, T., Slow Cinema. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 207–218.
Recent Comments