Do You Need That in HD?
The below are two home videos. Aside from their obviously amateur style, can you can tell which one was filmed with a $2900 over-the-shoulder digital camera and which with a $300 hand-held? Or which was edited using Final Cut and Soundtrack Pro and which with only in-camera editing and a simple (legal) iTunes import?
I know, right?
Hence this post. Employment is generally an exchange between human capital — experience, education, aptitude — and physical capital — work space, computer, office supplies, etc. In the traditional employer-employee contract, you apply your knowledge to the employer’s tools to synthesize a product that ultimately supports everyone’s pocketbook.
But with the growth of small (startup) firms, especially those propelled by the Great Recession and those in the technical and “creative” industries, it is increasingly necessary to possess your own equipment (or have access to it, though that too is not free), and know how to use it before applying. For example, software engineers and web developers needed to have had, at the very least, access to modern computer equipment prior to the job (likely throughout their youth or young adulthood). Aspiring creative directors of advertising agencies need a polished “book,” graphic designers need a portfolio, filmmakers need a film. This cannot be achieved by using the public library. All of these require pricey hardware and software that is a) not easy to purchase oneself and b) barely accessible unless you’re paying tuition at a university or vocational school.
Clearly, purchasing and accessing the tools necessary to develop these technical and creative skills has serious implications socially, since those with the means and access to capital consequently get the job and perpetuate the cycle. Fortunately, tools once available only to large firms and professionals can now be found under the blue light at Walmart. On the hardware side, digital media equipment ranges from thousands of dollars to less than a hundred. Thankfully, software is now frequently bundled into differently priced packages- I can purchase Adobe’s Photoshop Elements 8 for $80 instead of its Master Suite Collection for $2500. Everyone can now be a filmmaker, to the loosest sense, with the most recent iPod nano (priced at less than $180), or with a right smartphone (which can be obtained very inexpensively with savvy finagling).
My musing stems from an indecision about whether to invest roughly $3,000 into my own 15″ Macbook Pro with Adobe Creative Suite and Final Cut Studio. I want to excel at using production software to develop attractive digital media, but this cannot be achieved from ordering a textbook alone. I need my own equipment. I need to play with different tools, creating and re-creating, building a language of modern technical jargon and skills.
Or do I? The question I’m now considering is whether I can do this with equipment that is “good enough” but not necessarily intended for professionals. Can I keep my 4 year-old HP laptop or do I need to buy a modern Mac? Will using the $79 Adobe Premiere Elements be as effective as the $179 Final Cut Express for generating quality YouTube videos? Can I achieve great videos with the $179 Final Cut Express instead of the $1000 Final Cut Pro or is that equivalent to asking for a Zima at an upscale bar? Will a 2.8 GHz processor be noticeably faster than its 2.66 GHz counterpart?
The same questions contribute to my indecision over a video camera. Should I get the $200 Flip or spend twice as much on a Canon FS20 for its 2000x digital zoom and in-camera editing? If both offer High Definition image quality, what additional quality am I paying for? And will purchasing an additional $50 microphone plug-in produce much better sound quality than simply holding the video camera closer to someone’s face?
Essentially, what is the additional benefit to my development as a digital artist per additional dollar spent? Is marginal reward directly and reliably proportional to the marginal cost? Will I be comfortable with the resulting equilibrium?
The projected consequences of making the “cheap” decision in the face of hyper-competition and a deep recession is daunting. Forget being the best, or even the best of the best; you have to be awe-inspiring to land a job in the creative industry right now. The ramifications on social equity of this are daunting, as mentioned. Are those privileged enough to own the best equipment more marketable? Are those who don’t even in the running?
The question comes down to:
1.Will my potential employer be just as impressed with a good YouTube video as he or she is with a stylishly-printed DVD with original music mixes?
2. Is my employer (and/or myself) interested more in content or pretty packaging?
The answer, I believe, is that it depends. Don’t you hate that? Just another ambiguous, flexible variable to plug into the formula for success. But it does depend on what your goal is. Are you competing with indie filmmakers to get into Sundance? Or are you advertising a product on Facebook? What kind of product? Who are your customers? The Flip would probably be perfect under one scenario and infuriatingly too limiting in another. And as I’ve learned the hard way, without a good storyline and footage, no amount of post production will turn nothing into something.
