Broomfield's intrusions - padded headphones around his neck, boom mike on a stick, handsome tanned face in profile - became such a visual signature that he was able to use them as a joke in an ad campaign he made for Volkswagen cars. But now, when it comes to putting the film-maker up front, Broomfield seems like a church mouse beside the King Rat of Moore, who has stretched the documentary-maker's presence to include shouting in front of the camera in a big hat. 

Traditional definitions that focus on either capturing real events or recreating real events, purporting to factual accuracy without the inclusion of any fictional elements may seem limiting today.

Filming a documentary may take moths and require hours upon hours of footage. In the case of analog technology (photography that is produced by chemical process on film stock or electronic signal via a video camera tube) this would include reels and reels of film stock which when including the cost of processing and printing could be incredibly expressive. The advent of high definition video cassettes addressed some of these problems but the arrival of fully digital production was of enormous importance to documentarists in terms both production and distribution. 

Digital technology does raise questions of documentary. In the past certainly in the case of Direct cinema’s belief that the camera could produce evidence there has been as assumption that photographic technology could guarantee objectivity. This is challenged by digital photography because it is so easily manipulated and so can cause us to question the legitimacy of the image and its evidential qualities.