Sony U-Matic VCR[/caption]
The image quality of television pictures has constantly changed for the past 75 years. Back in the early 1970s, television engineers told us the U-Matic tape format was not good enough for broadcast. Within a few years the 3/4-inch cassette transformed TV, creating the ENG revolution.
In the early 1980s, Betacam was introduced by Sony as a news-only format. The engineers told us then we had to keep using those backbreaking portable one-inch field recorders — the ones that closely resembled a large concrete block — if we wanted true broadcast-quality video.
The engineers, of course, were wrong again! Almost overnight, Betacam changed the video world, ushering in the era of the camcorder. Then came standard definition digital video, the 4K iPhone and now 8K. Video quality is always on the move. Today, iPhones are even being used on feature films.
Sony Betacam[/caption]
These days engineers are still warning us about what will and will not work and they often define “broadcast quality,” whatever that means anymore. As a result of the barrage of conflicting information about a wide range of formats, many video producers are confused and apprehensive about making sure they use an acceptable format for a given project.
With all due respect to the engineers, I suggest the creators and makers of video programming should start thinking for themselves. Look at the pictures and make your own judgements about what’s acceptable for your audience. Video images are now so good, most people won’t even think about the image quality.
The 75 year-plus journey through video history tells us that while the engineering arguments should be considered, it’s the pictures — and the story — that really matter at the end of the day. A great story always trumps video quality. It always has.
Sony One-Inch Recorder[/caption]
How many engineers would have approved of the compelling 1994 documentary, Hoop Dreams, much of which was originally shot with primitive home video equipment? In all of its graininess and with its severe technical flaws magnified in 35mm film on the big theatrical screen, Hoop Dreams is one of the most powerful sports films ever made.
It was included in the annual selection of 25 motion pictures added to the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, being deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” and recommended for preservation. It was a captivating story that gripped audiences all over the world. No one gave a hoot about its technical flaws.
Despite what many engineers say, there’s ample evidence that small format DV and even analog component video, in standard definition with a 4:3 aspect ratio, can look quite good when up-converted to modern high-definition standards and a 16:9 aspect ratio. Again, the content matters far more than the video technology.
Julius Barnathan, ABC Head of Engineering[/caption]
One of the wisest men I ever worked with was the late Julius Barnathan, the great engineering dynamo at ABC. He was one of the real pioneers in the ENG revolution in the 70s and 80s. As head of ABC’s engineering department, Barnathan had a fierce tenacity at forcing the engineering community to make video technology relevant to the needs of real people.
Interestingly, Barnathan was not an engineer by training. “I began in the radio and TV research departments,” he told me before his death. “I could see the forest for the trees. I didn’t let the fact that something hasn’t been done before bother me. I didn’t know how electrons work and could care less.”
Barnathan had a reputation for forcing engineers to put their arguments into plain language that could be understood by non-engineers. He cut through the fog and called a few bluffs. Because of that, he was responsible for many technical developments in the television industry, including the use of handheld and miniature cameras at sports events and closed captioned programs for the deaf.
He also pushed the adaption of slow-motion technology to color cameras, developed long-lens cameras to capture sports events that take place over great distances and introduced the use of small square inset pictures behind news anchors. When an engineer told him something was impossible, he pushed for it anyway.
Might it be that “failures” in engineering terms are not “failures” in creative terms? Maybe — just maybe — it’s not necessary to mortgage the house in order to upgrade to the latest and greatest digital production gear when the audience may not notice the difference.
Perhaps, as producers of video, when an equipment manufacturer shows us their most expensive, high-end cameras, we should demand to see a comparison with the gear we currently own. Only then can we non-engineers see whether the technical innovations in this new technology are serious enough to warrant a major investment in new equipment.
Video today is about far more than old school broadcasting. Anyone that captures content now can self-distribute it around the globe. Equipment is so good, engineers are not needed in most cases. However, there is a craft today that everyone must learn to do professional quality work.
No question about it, keeping an open mind to engineering limitations is a good thing to do. But it is not the be all and end all. Truly creative videographers must trust their own judgement — and the pictures, which is all that matters at the end of the day.