You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Video’ tag.
UPDATE on 11.16.12
The posting below has some misconstrued facts. The fact that the WB went out at the same time I got a new polarizing filter is coincidence. It turns out that there is an internal issue in the camera. Further testing w/o the filter proved that, along with some extensive discussions with Panasonic’s help desk.
Polarizing filter, that is. I don’t use filters much…don’t like much to come between me and the reality of the world. I have always had a clear or skylight filter on my lens for protection though. Less expensive to replace a scratched filter than an entire lens (or camera, since those little prosumer camcorders are permanently affixed to the lens).
But recently I got a polarizing filter…neat little piece of glass that will help cut down on unwanted reflections while increasing saturation of colors. And it does a great job at both.
Actually it is a circular polarizing filter. The circular means there are two elements in the filter…one to polarize light and the other to make corrections so that your camera’s automatic iris reads light properly. Here’s a link to a pretty good explanation of how they work: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
But the issue that caught me off guard (which I haven’t been able to find an online explanation for yet) is loss of the ability to manually white balance. Talk about frustrating. Set the camera to manual…blue. Hit the white balance button. Still blue. Switched from manual to auto – wow, good color. Switched back to manual. Blue. Turned camera off and on again. Blue.
Looks like I have my work cut out for me over the weekend. Or, as I used to tell my students, working with digital video is a lifelong exploration of fixing problems.
Newsreel Man (Charles Peden in front with sound equipment)
In the beginning there was the Newsreel Cameraman. Hauling around more gear than a pack mule, he (no shes back then) covered the news and view of the nine-teens and twenties, joined by an Audio Man in 1927.
That was the original VJ. Rough and tumble, but always got the story.
These NR guys held on tenaciously through the birth of television, only getting phased out in the 1960s when the majority of the public chose the boob-tube over the big screen for their daily dose of what’s happening.
In the meantime a new term sprang up on the broadcast side of news: OMB. One man band. A reinvention of the NRC, they (once again) hauled around a camera, audio gear and enough love of news and what’s happening to gather the news in their markets for a hungry audience. I’m guesstimating maybe late 1950s with film and optical audio through…hmmm, today’s digital workflow.
And now we have divergence.
Sometime in the 1990s print photographers discovered an entirely new unheard of medium. They called it multimedia. It was all new – if you could actually believe editing sound with your still photos and then playing it back. Wow.
Then these brave pioneers moved on to an even greater discovery. Something they called video. Imagine, if you can, moving images with audio embedded! Why the world had never seen the likes of it before. But what were they going to call themselves if they no longer shot stills?
Well there were a number of options. Out of the nation’s capitol came the term Backpack Journalist. Made sense because (theoretically) you could fit camera, computer…your entire office into a backpack. Visual Storyteller was another one. Multimedia Journalist or Storyteller was another choice. But most of them went for Video Journalist. And so they laid claim to this new territory as original and new and totally theirs.
Um…but what about those broadcast folks? Weren’t they shooting video too?
Not they way we are, chimed the (print) VJs. Our style of storytelling is unique. We’re not TV.
Looking at it from afar (and for a while from the middle of it) I’d say the two are pretty much doing the same thing.
Similarities?
1) Both use cameras
2) Both gather sound
3) Both work alone to gather and disseminate visuals stories to their audiences
Differences?
1) Broadcast VJs tend to use cameras meant for “run and gun” shooting with easy to access exterior controls, professional audio connectors, and good zoom lenses.
Print VJs opt for hybrid DSLRs that shoot both stills and video. While they have more control over depth of field with a wide variety of interchangeable lenses, they must also add-on audio accessories and other gadgets.
2) BVJs generally run on a tighter schedule with more packed into a day and more expected of them. Anything from a single package to a few VOs and VOSOTS to a combination of all of the above.
PVJs may have to shoot multiple stories daily also, but often seem to use video for more long form stories or VO/VOSOTS.
3) A good BJV can turn an exquisite daily story using a variety of options from a NATS pkg to pkg complete with narration and stand-up. Day after day, week after week.
A good PVJ can turn an exquisite story in a few days (from what I hear and see on the professional boards) generally a NATS pkg using the voice of the interview subject rather than narration.
You may have guessed two things by now. I tend to favor the BVJ…but there are some equally damned good PVJs out there. The good ones have more in common than not. They live and breathe visual storytelling. They see the kernels of truth, the compelling images, and understand the flow of time and words well enough to go beyond the basics. And more importantly, they learn from everything…from each other, from their subjects…each story is an opportunity to get better.
Why this posting? Just had to get it out of my system. Don’t want history written up improperly with the lineage of VJs lost to the most vocal shooters. Those quiet guys behind behemoth hand-cranked cameras deserve their place in the books too. (And don’t forget…many of them were former still photogs.)
Every now and then something comes along and the reaction is, “COOL! Why didn’t I think of that?” (or…”I thought of that years ago and it’s FINALLY come out.)
Back in the early 2000s JVC had something called the GY-DV300u aka the Streamcorder. That little gem was way ahead of its time. I grabbed one because after some pretty heavy duty research I found it had all the gizmos I wanted and needed to have a life after a multi-decade career as a broadcast news cameraman. But it had that little extra “umph” in the background that intrigued me – the ability to stream live to the web. And for some reason it never really took off. And the camera and it’s revolutionary potential kind of faded away…
Until NAB this year when the 300u’s great granddaughter returned. And with a vengeance.
Meet the JVC ProHD Mobile News Camera! To me it’s an old friend gussied up and modernized. But it is a game changer and this time the time is ripe for it to reach the heights it missed last time around.
What’s new? Okay, so I admit I’m addicted to glass. A 23x zoom. Something that can reach out and pull you (and your audience) in close to situations you don’t even WANT to get close to. Most prosumer cameras in this price range only have a 10x or 14x zoom, leaving you miles short of the shot you really want.
Dual slot recording…the less expensive version of this camera, the JVC GY-HM600 ProHD Camera has two slots for continuous recording too, but lacks the ability to record in HD in one slot and SD in the other. That ability allows you to shoot HD for the main event but SD to stream back quickly to the station for on-air. Wow.
I don’t even need to get into real manual controls, XLR inputs, three chips (1/3 CMOS)…the usual suspects in a pro’s array of necessary tools.
What happened in the past ten years that makes this new again?
Well, this time news is READY for a camera like this. In 2002 (when I got my JVC 300u) going live on the web was something entertaining…fun. But nobody in real news considered it seriously. After all, it wasn’t really professional – was it? Tiny little camera, poor quality…and there were live trucks and microwave trucks to handle important stories.
Times change…and now cell phones and Skype can put out decent enough (okay, so even I debate that one) images for news. Plus, reality has set in – financial reality. With the competition out there, lean and fast may make the difference between survival and death to cost conscious news organizations.
And while I absolutely love those good ole days, I’m a realist. What I see is a camera that may mean survival.
…for this excellent advice on how to choose a (not quite broadcast) professional video camera. Begins with good glass (and why), chips, manual controls and more. And the best part? The information holds value through (most) changes in technology that I’ve seen over the past (OMG) forty years.
Addendum: VM is on a roll today. Or maybe they’re just publishing stuff I find useful. Here’s article #2 on copyrighting and Creative Commons. Good stuff to understand.
…well, not fingers. Work on The Basics of Videojournalism progresses. The focus this week is to get the chapter on shooting done, complete with illustrations. Those we take care of tomorrow with former McNair broadcasting student (and someday film cinematographer) Louis Martinez, who will be acting as our model for illustrations for the book. Author Larry Nance’s son Amani will be helping out too, being interviewed on camera.
All the while Larry is snapping the stills I will be shooting video. Yeah, this is gonna be one interactive book. We’ll not only show you with words and pictures how to do it, there will be a DVD (or two) with demonstration video and raw videos to show what you should be shooting (steady, well exposed, good light, etc).
Problem is…the more we write, the more we realize we need to write more.
Shooting was supposed to be a pretty basic chapter that has now expanded, is growing, and is taking on its own life. It seems to me that too many “how-to” books pretend to tell you “how-to”, but don’t really. So when Larry and I say, “This is how to…” we plan to show the basics and then some. Read, look at the photos, view the video showing HOW to, work with raw video files to see how it should look. Interact and learn. One thing I learned in years of teaching is that there are different learning styles…and I suspect a lot of folks who want to learn video are visual and kinetic learners – they learn by seeing and doing.
Of course all of the above is creating more and more work and research. But taking into account Larry’s personal knowledge base (which is expansive) and all of my musings and blogs, we’re off to a pretty solid start.
…to get back to blogging.
Did a (fairly basic) lighting workshop yesterday for Voices of the Earth, a Bay area non-profit. They’re a bit out of the ordinary…a small group of passionate folks who have taught themselves an awful lot about video production and who want to move on to what they call “the next level.” For them, this meant learning how to use light properly, plus a bit about audio and sundry other items.
I say they are out of the ordinary because they learned and gave themselves feedback properly…before we even met up they knew to use a tripod, frame properly, and (wow!!!) get good solid audio with shotgun and clip-on mikes. Made my job awfully easy.
The end result is that their inspiration has now re-inspired me to write the occasional blog posting. So this will become an on-again/off-again thought-of-the-moment series of postings with tips. Until I’m enticed away to the next bright and shiny vision.
Today’s tip is tripods.
I noticed that both of VotE’s shooters had tripods – a good thing. What they need to do now is move up to video tripods that can handle the weight of their gear and allow them to do smooth camera movements. “V” was using a Canon Vixia and his tripod was okay for the weight of the camera…but for shooting video it was too light and shaky. “J’s” tripod was definitely way too light to hold her Panasonic three-chipper. Great little camera, but we had one near-disaster when it tipped forward due to weight.
Lesson #1 – there are two main parts to all tripods. The legs/sticks and the head. The latter would be the part you attach your camera to. Most low end tripods come with the two attached as one unit. As you move up the food chain you can purchase the legs and head separately, allowing you to choose specific qualities you want. (see this old posting for more details)
Lesson #2 – make sure your camera is rated for what you plan to load on it. And that would be more than just the camera. If you ever plan to add an on-camera light, shotgun mike or other accessories, the tripod has to bear that weight too.
Lesson #3 – there IS a difference between still and video tripods. A still tripod is mean to hold the camera steady while you take ONE shot or a series of shots. It is a platform to hold your gear and let you keep your hands free.
A video camera should have a fluid head…meaning you should be able to pan side to side and up and down evenly without any jerkiness. It should be heavy/solid enough so it doesn’t shake when someone walks by or if you’re out in the weather. AND if you can spring for the money, a ball head would be nice…allows you to level your camera without having to fiddle with the legs.
Thanks again VotE.
Although there are many resources on the web to watch great videos, there’s one outstanding one if you are primarily interested in visual storytelling news style.
TV News Storytellers on facebook has daily posts from cameramen all around the country soliciting input on how to become better or posts from experts in the field demonstrating best practices.
So hop on over and take a look…and enjoy.
…is a headache. Kinda like driving the same old rattrap car forever…when it dies there are way too many bright shiny new choices you’ve heard about but honestly really don’t know anything about.
So I’ve dumped Apple computers for a PC – a Dell. And I’ve been slowly trying to wean myself away from the white keyboard over to the dark and mysterious black keyboard. I’ve done some research and have narrowed the programs realistically down to AVID studio, Adobe Production CS5.5, and Edius. I also looked at Sony Vegas Pro and toyed with the idea of Pinnacle, but that was too many to review. The last two are good from what I’ve seen and heard, but as a friend (yeah, you Larry) told me – Cyndy, you seem to be stuck on the “pro” label. All too true…and not just for the label, but also the fact they are proven industry standards.
What exactly AM I looking for in an editing program? Here goes:
1. Ability to take in a wide variety of video formats into one project (AVCHD, SD, jpegs, TIFFs, etc).
2. Your basic drag and drop editing. Plus.
3. The “plus” should include filters to do color correction, audio sweetening, FX, transitions.
4. Able to take on plug-ins to add to the ability of the program to individualize projects.
5. Either have or be able to work with third-party DVD authoring and burning programs.
6. Ability to create all major video files (Quicktime, mpg, avi, wmv, flv, etc). Who knows what the client will want – I just want to be able to give it to them.
Oh – and some decent tutorials please. While I CAN and have edited my way out of some pretty deep holes, I need some technical assistance so I can find my way around the new desktop.
Stay tuned…I’ll try to keep you in the loop as I wander through the trial downloads of my prospective choices.
Done my homework and played with the programs. Almost…with a deadline fast approaching and unable to download and install Edius, I had to make a decision fast…and have gone with Adobe Production CS5.5. Avid was a breeze, but CS5.5 has all the goodies in one eacy package. And the learning curve is close to non-existent. Just need to make some fairly minor adjustments to my workflow and I should be back up to speed.
FYI – Sony Vegas did not make my cut. Too many difficulties in figuring out how to actually do an edit.
Now if I get that trial disk from Grass Valley and like the look of it, may just go for Edius as a secondary system.
When I saw this, I just sat back and sighed. Law enforcement making arrests based on their aesthetic judgements. If a cop on the beat determines what you are doing ain’t journalism or art, then it’s off to the slammer with ya. Shades of 1984.
There’ve been a few discussions (this is one) and (here’s another one) going on over at b-roll, as well as some stuff happening in my own life that gave rise to this topic.
What IS a professional (videographer)? And what is pond scum? Well, pond scum floats…I really mean bottomfeeders. And can one morph into the other?
Too often those at the top of the food chain look down with distain at those trying to climb out of the bottom. And those at the bottom often desperately love what they do and would (and can) do it for free.
Free – there’s the first difference.
A professional knows their worth – that their time is measured in dollars – based on experience, talent, technical knowledge, and gear, taking into account their market and a few other variables. And they charge accordingly.
Those who are not pros work for free…for the experience…for something for their demo reel…or just for the heck of it.
Pause for a bit of explanation – pros work for free from time to time for worthy causes or marketing purposes (win a free wedding video!).
Now I’m going to split the non-pros off from the pros and get into the nitty-gritty.
You can probably categorize the non-professional videographers into several strands.
1. Hobbyist
2. Student/Beginner
3. Clueless/Wanna-Be
4. True bottomfeeder
The Hobbyist is someone who does video for the love of it…and can and does achieve professional standards often. They’re not in it for the money, but for the love of the craft. (Again, pros are in it for the money…but in most cases there is also love of the craft. They want both though…to work and get paid for something they enjoy doing.)
Student/Wanna-Be are future pros if they play it right. They have learned the basics and are working to gain experience and listen and learn. They have a goal…to become a professional.
Um…Clueless/Wanna-Be. They may look like Students but don’t have the common sense or brain matter to rise above point and shoot. They’re either so into technical standards they don’t bother with aesthetics and the craft of video or they just like to walk around with a camera to impress, but never ever ever seem to move forward. They don’t have a plan or a goal beyond today.
And now for the Bottomfeeders. They’re the ones you have to look out for. They may look like pros or something between a beginner and pro, but they are not into learning or quality or ethics – they are in it for the money (and possibly the flash). They undercut pros in their market, do a shoddy job, and give the entire industry a bad name.
Why all this ranting?
First let me admit to an addition. I love to cruise craigslist. Primarily for the antiques and farm and garden section, but I also from time to time check out the gigs. Not the jobs (TV) section – after looking in there once or twice I had to sterilize my computer. It was NASTY.
And that’s where I (and many of the folks over on b-roll) find our laughs. So many many ads for video-related jobs, all offering no pay and an “opportunity” to work for “experience.”
But I found my first example that concerned me in the photography (for sale) section. A young woman placed an ad for her services as a photographer. She admitted to being a student, but wanted to charge $100 to take a portrait. She wanted to charge clients so she could learn and get experience. No online portfolio…nothing to indicate her abilities.
After an email correspondence I got her name. Yep – a real raw naive teen (ish) girl. She put herself out online and made several huge mistakes.
First – with one email I got her name and could easily, if I wished, have tracked her down or set up an appointment. Jail bait.
Second – she wanted to charge too much for her experience and without any proof of her work or mention of equipment other than having taken an ROP photo class and knowing PhotoShop.
Third – as mentioned above, what can she do for the price she is charging? Does she have a rate sheet…what does she provide for that price? How far will she travel? Where are some examples of her work?
I’m hoping she takes the advice given and sets up a webpage with examples, looks into contracts, rate sheets and more. She is a Student/Beginner…willing to learn.
The next one is similar, involving a teenager with aspirations and no clue about professional conduct. He offered to shoot senior portraits of a friend for free…and they went out over several days to a number of locations and different times (daylight, twilight, night). He shot quite a few photos – and then told his friend she had to pay $350 for the photos because he was a professional.
Ummmm – PROFESSIONAL?
I got involved because his “friend” was also one of my photo students who listened in class, earned an A and had her own concerns about his professionalism. Plus, she was extremely upset at the bait and switch.
A moment to pause for vainglorious shameless self-promotion.
MY student, while working with the above-mentioned “pro” kept questioning him about depth of field, light, aperture – and was able to asses his total lack of knowledge in those areas. Love it when a student actually LEARNS!
In the end she was able to beat him back, give him a token payment and NOT use any of his photos (98% of them were technically poor).
This guy may or may not learn from this. The friendship was broken, but may mend. But he seems to be meandering along his own self-centered path…not willing to move forward and take the necessary steps to become a professional. A current and future Bottomfeeder.
But his problems were similar to example number one, the craigslist babe.
No proof of prior work (no examples, just his word). No professional standards, rates, or contract. Bait and switch of the worst kind.
Now I do have a couple of students involved in video in their communities who are students. One is Cambodian, the other Hispanic. They took my high school broadcasting class and eventually set up their own production companies, shooting events/weddings within their tight-knit neighborhoods. (I’ve now seen Asian and Hispanic weddings from the inside! And pretty darn good productions at that.)
These two very different young men are moving thru the early stages of professionalism. They did some work for free for family/friends…then moved on to either working with a local pro or working on small events for token pay…then bigger projects on their own…to hiring assistants. They drove themselves to learn as much as they could, and still call or email with questions. Their raw talent and drive amaze me.
So – so do as I do – enjoy a good laugh from time to time online reading those trolling for free labor. But don’t get mad. This is a free market and those who don’t check out credentials before shelling over money have only themselves to blame. And don’t judge those who take the gigs too much. They may be clueless, they may be hobbyists, or bottomfeeders. Or they may be you – years ago in the same situation, but different time. Someone with a love, a passion for all things visual who just wants to (eventually) get paid to do what they love.
Recent Comments