KyleKlissMedia
Member
I saw this thread last year and just want to see what people think currently.
Are ski filmers "over-rated"
- Thread starter KyleKlissMedia
- Start date
homestar
Active member
A lot are. Some are technically well done like Sherpa and Sweetgrass but seem to miss something important to skiing. They cut out landings or choose angles that put the emphasis on the scenery rather than the skier. Other companies like TGR use nice cameras but end up with some shots unstable or out of focus. This is understandable to an extent because they only have one take to get many of the shots.
Field Productions really nailed the cinematography in Supervention and they edited it together really well too. I think they are at the top right now.
Field Productions really nailed the cinematography in Supervention and they edited it together really well too. I think they are at the top right now.
dispatchQ_main
Active member
i would say the cinematographers in general are really good at what they do. I mean they're able to make movies with no plot and a tiny budget watchable.
j-cal
Member
Yes i would say they are. I feel that there is very few "popular" ski filmers that actually are doing super new and unique stuff. But i also feel that there is not alot of push for exceptional filming. Alot of people i know prefer simple editing and filming allowing the skiing to really shine. It all comes down to preference... but i would say majority of the ski media audience dose not care about exceptional filming. They just want a clean edit allowing the skiing to shine. Thus resulting in over rated filmers. Its all about who you film not how you film... At least it seems that way.
Forcillo
Active member
13158315:KellyK said:
No, I'm not. I don't want to call anyone out in specific but it's really easy to see if you take a look at the video section. What I'm saying is that there are a good amount of people here on NS that are very good videographers, but they would not have gotten the attention that they have without having exceptional athletes to work with. There are very few producers who get high views and ratings with bad skiing.
It's similar to narratives, in that nobody likes a film that has good cinematography and sound design but shitty acting. It's the first thing people notice, and the main reason people watch edits/films. You would have astronomically more success with a gopro on a pole mount and a filthy skier than an FS700/glidecam and an average skier. Don't get your panties in a wad, buddy.
Skiing is so heavily content-based that it overshadows the cinematography. I have seen some amazing ski footage, but since it isn't some kid flat-basing dub 12s in slow motion, nobody gives it a second glance. There are some amazing videographers who challenge the status quo with their subtlety and composition skills (Andreas Olofsson and Kalum Ko), but for the most part kids are too afraid to experiment and make something weird and new so instead they settle for mediocrity by falling back on the tried-and-true wide angle + glidecam and blend into the crowd with the rest of them. Quit pandering for likes from teenagers on Newschoolers and make something interesting for fucks sake.
Ski videography has become animals up close with a wide angle lens.
Ski videography has become animals up close with a wide angle lens.
KellyK
Active member
13158679:Forcillo said:
I'm not arguing the importance of having a good subject. I agree 100% that content is more important than technique and execution. Not the point here.
The point of this thread is "Are Ski Filmers Over-Rated." Maybe you believe that ski filmers are irrelevant and un-important. The only thing that matters is the skier. Fair enough. I've watched Candide's POV GoPro edit A LOT. Perfect example of skier vs. filmer.
On the flip-side. Arguably the most successful series last season was the Faction Collective. Great skiing. Great filming. I've probably watched each of those edits a dozen times and could watch them a hundred times more. Do you think that filmer is over-rated? Do you think he could have been as successful with a gopro on a stick? No.
You're right, there's a lot of successful edits on here with mediocre filming and great riding. I would not consider the people that produce those edits "ski-filmers." The majority of us that take it seriously to produce quality content with good riders are the filmers in question. Are they all over-rated? I guess that's a matter of opinion.
Fricken NS. I just took way too much time to argue a stupid point.
SIMPLE.
Active member
Although I agree with the fact that the subject is generally the focus of ski edits and not the filming or cinematography, I believe that when the two meet up nothing is more beautiful. There's always edits that will give me Goosebumps due to the combination of great skiing, great filming, great editing and great music. I would rather watch a Gavin Rudy or Brody Jones edit over a hoodcrew edit any day even though generally the level of skiing is pretty similar. I believe Ski filmers are just as much a part of our culture as the skiers they capture and they help to make newschoolers what it is today. I wouldn't say they are overrated as great filming is always enjoyed and appreciated by everyone.
Honest answer? Yes. When it comes to doing follow cams, there are some cool different things you can do, but mostly its all pretty basic and as soon as you learn how to use a glide cam, its easy peasy.
As for tripod shots, definitely "more" difficult but as soon as you learn how to keep a skier in frame while zoomed in, figure out the 6 different angles you can shoot something, its pretty easy.
It took me a good 2 years to really nail down these two aspects but after that its been cruise control.
Same thing goes for ski video/edit editing as well. Unless you're doing something crazy, its quite simple and really better edits are about the skiing and the flow which is set by the natural tempo of the editor and the skill of the skier, nothing that really can change its just how you do it.
Introducing sound design, color grading, new filming techniques etc is really the only way to break out of the basic ski edit/video mold. There is so much one can do but so many decide to go with the basics, which is why most ski filming/editing is "overrated".
As for tripod shots, definitely "more" difficult but as soon as you learn how to keep a skier in frame while zoomed in, figure out the 6 different angles you can shoot something, its pretty easy.
It took me a good 2 years to really nail down these two aspects but after that its been cruise control.
Same thing goes for ski video/edit editing as well. Unless you're doing something crazy, its quite simple and really better edits are about the skiing and the flow which is set by the natural tempo of the editor and the skill of the skier, nothing that really can change its just how you do it.
Introducing sound design, color grading, new filming techniques etc is really the only way to break out of the basic ski edit/video mold. There is so much one can do but so many decide to go with the basics, which is why most ski filming/editing is "overrated".
j-cal
Member
13164705:pussyfooter said:
Very well said. Could not agree more. Honestly i think the main thing that can set you apart is subtleties. For instance color sound design and so on. Also music. I think music choice is one of the biggest parts in putting together an edit. Not only music but matching the music to the feeling you are trying to portray. I feel alot of people in the ski industry to do not branch out much in music. Alot of it is pop music. I feel that people wait on the most popular artists at the time to release something new so they can be the first to use the new hot track on video before the 20 plus other videos use the sam song.
Skiing edits have become blan to me. And honestly i rarely watch them anymore. There are few ski filmers in my eyes that release truly enjoyable content. It happens in every sport. There is a specific style of filming that caches on and everyone mimics it to the t. Skiing is rap/pop songs and the trusty 11-16. Skating is the vx fisheye dirty raw vhs style fonts punk song/rap song edits. And snowboarding is the hvx fisheye weird 80s song/rap with raw super 8 look lifestyles and black and white lifstyles. They all are so bland and repetitive.
Please create unique things filmers of the ski world! Dont be scared off by lack of views on ns if you break the mold.
Hodor
Member
13159382:lIllI said:
Yes and no. Similar to film director's relationship with actors, a good ski videographer must work well with the athletes to get shots. Yes there should be more experimentation, but for our sport, the style of filming that allows skiers to perform fluidly is through using a follow cam with a stabilizer. setting up good shots takes a lot of time and that does not work well for athletes. even the best pros need to get in some type of rhythm to perform well. this goes for big productions companies too. Filmers and skiers have to strike a balance between letting the athletes do what they want and having the filmers set up how they want which is challenging. a lot of moving pieces have to come together to get a good shot in any action sport, so no i don't think they are overrated, i think they are working as best as they can to get shots
13164705:pussyfooter said:
It's easy to make something eye-catching. Subtlety takes true skill. When you over-illustrate something you kill its magic because you take away the viewer's freedom to use their imagination. Ever wonder why people find books more profound than films? Same reason.
One of the reasons I love Teddybear Crisis so much is because of how idiosyncratic and simple it was. Sure there were flashy parts (intro, timelapses), but for the most part the film was simple cuts and fades. Ostness has this ability to do more with a tripod than anybody else can with their crazy gizmos, and that takes an unbelievable amount of skill that cannot be bought with the next best gizmo, but is instead cultivated over years or decades of studying and practicing fine art.
So yes, it takes little to no skill to learn how to hold a glidecam or tripod - to physically operate the damn thing at its most basic level. But then I look at guys like like Tarsem, Aronofsky, and Kubrick shooting static shots on a tripod, and the result is a masterpiece. You could take a screenshot and hang it in a museum beside famous paintings. Suddenly every ski video ever shot looks vapid and gimmicky. It had appealed to the lowest common denominator with slow-motion and hyper resolution and glidecam movements that make it look like everything is being thrown into your face, but the second you stop and actually focus on the geometry, gesture, etc., you realize that there isn't much depth there; it's like a ocean that's only two inches deep. There's no gestalt - what's on the screen is all that exists, and to the "fine artist" (hate that term), that makes it horrendously boring.
Why is "the cut" king? Because it is so simple. It exists in its ability to be invisible when executed tastefully, or stark and jarring when used for effect. Gimmicks come and go, but people spend their entire lives learning how "master" a basic cut because the breadth of its gestalt effects is remarkable.
If you look at videography and editing purely in utilitarian terms ("once I figured it out," implying that you have served some ulterior purpose and therefore "completed" your craft), you are setting yourself up for mediocrity. You can get away with this in sports because they are so content oriented (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but in every form of self-motivated art (shooting video for video's sake, not just to capture content) this is essentially a cop out.
13164814:dub_step said:
I agree, which is why giving athletes creative control generally makes terrible videos. It also makes being an athlete shittier because being filmed is no fun unless you interfere and fuck everything up.
*exceptions being artistically-inclined athletes like JP, who oddly was one of the most gifted ski filmmakers to this day (in my opinion).