Last week, I had the pleasure of joining with my buddy, Derek for some night photography in Downtown Atlanta. One of my favorite pastimes is photography, and more specifically I love long-expose photography. There is just something about it that is fun and entertaining for me. Night photography is not something everyone is good at, and to be honest, it is quite easy to do.


Don't get scared when I say this, but photography in any form is like a mathematical equation. It is all about compensation. With digital photography, you can easily change the ISO (or ASA) of each image you take. In the digital world, ISO is the CCD's sensitivity to light...it is mimicking the "film speed" in the classic film world. The higher the number, the more sensitive your film is to light. From there, you have the different settings with the lens, such as focal length (measured in mm) and focal distance (the distance you want in focus). What makes this easy for me, is I have captured images on film and compensating the lens just comes second nature to me. I often find myself looking at something and asking "If I were taking a picture of this, how would I shoot it?" That is the eyes of the photographer in me looking observing.


Long exposures are what makes night photography the best it can be. During daytime photography, you strive for the shortest exposure time...but in night photography, you want the longest exposure time. This is how I am able to capture the lights of the vehicles passing by. Doing a long exposure image is what tests your compensation skills the most. You have to be able to manipulate the ISO and f-stop (iris) of the camera to let in the amount of light that you need to "burn in" the image to film or CCD.

Have you ever tackled a night photography image? How did they turn out? What could you have done differently?

-Ken

Labels: compensation, digital, film, focal distance, focal length, long esposure, night, photography

One of the most controversial topics in film making today is digital projection. Some film makers are completely for the conversion from film to digital...others are against it. I have realized through film school and in comparing video to film the many differences of using the film medium. You can do some beautiful stuff on either medium, it is all in the way that you light it and capture it.

I will always love film as a photography medium, but I would have to say... it is an old technology. Digital film making is quickly taking the lead over the original film medium. In fact, I would have to say I love the way digital projection looks on the big screen. I am a firm believer that it looks cleaner than film. In the big picture, I believe that it is more economically friendly to shoot and project on a digital medium keeping in account that film does not age very well. Many older films have to be cleaned up or remastered in order for them to be played time and time again. In the digital world, the film is shipped out on a hard disk to be played back into a digital projection system. That therefore eliminates the tech work of maintaining and exchanging very large spools of film. Keep in mind though, Digital is not a flawless medium. The projectors still have to be cleaned and maintained in order for the most pristine image to be displayed on the big screen.

This afternoon, I have the joy of going with my class to the Regal movie theater on Alafaia, here in Orlando and we went up to the projection booth to see many different kinds of projection systems...This includes a SONY 4k digital projector, 35mm film projectors and IMAX. All are a beautiful sight to see.

What are your thoughts on this?

-Ken

Labels: 35mm, digital, digital projection, DLP, film, IMAX, progression, Sony

Today, we are often faced with many challenges that inhibit us from attending a church on Sundays. Many churches that I am in communication with are now having a worship service on Sunday evening, that have two main goals. One of those being to allow members/attenders to worship because they are not able to make it on Sunday mornings. Two...to give room for more people to attend on Sundays.

Another option I have noticed here more recently is the advent of streaming the services online. This seems to be a more cost efficient method with the popularity of the Flash video encoding. This allows the video/audio image to be crisp and clean, yet not too bandwidth consuming. Even so, the turnout seems to be good for the services.

Many people have family situations or have to work in this day and age on Sunday. They can still connect with the church via a video stream while also allowing them to worship and be fed spiritually at the same time. This is hopefully another reason that churches allow streaming of their services.

Back in the 80's and 90's, many churches had to pay a lot of money to have their services broadcast on television stations. This was a lot of work and expense. Trust me, I worked at a church doing this. I think with the advent of the internet, it is more feasible for churches to send a live video and audio feed to the online community. This would require about the same amount of money up front to purchase and maintain the systems, but at the same time, internet broadcasting is a much cheaper medium of sharing God's message. Plus, you are not limited to a specific time block. You can stream the entire service because the ministry controls what goes out there.

I "attended" a church stream about a month ago. I was fascinated with how it worked, mainly because this church had a chat room contained within. Viewers could chat with pastors and seek prayer for specific needs that the person had. I thought this was a great asset to add to the streaming service. That way, it makes the viewer feel more connected with the church's broadcast ministry.

I want to hear from you guys. What do you think about online worship services? Do you have any experiences that you would like to share?

Thanks for taking the time to read.
-Ken

Labels: 316 networks, Buckhead Church, Chapel Hill, church, digital, FIrst Orlando, Flash, God, gospel, informative, internet, internet growth, Media, North Point, Orlando, Scott Link, simulcast

Last night, I had the opportunity to go to my instructors church. I
was under the assumption that he was going to simply show us around
the reinforcement systems they had on campus. It turned out that was
just a little bit of what we were able to do there.

In fact, they have an entire system and staging they have to setup for
the Sunday overflow and childrens services they have on Sunday! I was
able to assist in this process. I must say, it was a great experience!
Vince is using a DigiDesign FOH console in that venue. I must say,
looking at that control surface for the first time may throw a person
into a confused state, but once you take a minute or two to sit down
and play with the control surface, it really makes sense.

This experience made me think of the first time I did a show on a
Yamaha digital console at my previous church. It was just
installed...the installtion was the finest part! I knew how to use the
system, and made it through the dress rehearsals just fine. I was
scared to death though...I was scar3d that somethingwpuld happen
during the service that I could not correct, but could if the same
thing happened on an analog console! The show turned out fine, and by
the end of it I was fairly confident with my abilities with that desk.

Digital consoles are wonderful. In some scenarios, I prefer them over
analog systems. Many people tend to be scared of them, but in reality
you can do exactly the same thing on a digital system that you can on
an analog. Most of the time it is even easier. There is criteria that
make up a good or bad digital console, and that is a factor you have
to figure when going out to make the purchase.

Ken Miller, Jr.
Sent from my iPhone.
Web: www.kintmiller.com
Moblog: www.kintmiller.mobi

Labels: analog, audio, church, control surface, digidesign, digital, foh, future, upgrade