Those were the days . . . not!

/in , /by

Recently I read an article about the “wild days of video production in the 1980s” that brought back a lot of memories for me on what it was like to produce and distribute video programs in that era. The article was an interesting mix of nostalgia with a bit of longing for those simpler times, but overall it was a lament of just how challenging it was to create videos with the technology of the times.

My own memories go back to my first production shoots for Pacific Telephone in the early 1980s.   The most popular cameras in use then were the Ikegami HL-79 and the RCA TK-76. Both of these so-called “mini-cams” weighed in at around 25 lbs. (not counting the heavy batteries that lasted about an hour maximum) and utilized expensive and fragile Plumbicon pickup tubes (3 of them to be precise).   Recording (in standard definition of course) was done on a “portable” Sony ¾ inch u-Matic VCR that weighed an additional 25 lbs and consumed even more battery power than the camera. Shooters often wore heavy battery belts to power all of this energy hungry gear. Our field monitoring was a bulky CRT monitor that was fragile and hard to view in the bright sunshine. Tape wrinkling and drop-outs were a constant worry.

Post-production was a world of exotic, expensive equipment that dictated work flows and limited (for most of us anyway) creative expression. Low quality time code “window dubs” on VHS tapes were made of the original footage, enabling the producer or editor to log the footage on an inexpensive VHS deck. From this paper list the producer either went into a cuts-only “offline” edit room to rough cut the show (or edit for real if that’s all the budget would support) or into the “online” editing suite for fine cut editing with transitions, titling, and digital special effects.   Often filled with millions of dollars worth of 1” type C VTRs, switchers, digital special effects devices, along with signal generation and support equipment (not to mention engineers to keep it all working), these online edit suites would typically cost $300/hr. and up.   At those prices the producer better have it together and organized or the budget is in deep jeopardy.

And then when the show was finished, how did it get out to viewers? Most often the answer was “VHS dubs” sent out to people in mailers.   How many people actually viewed the tape was unknown, and reaching a very large audience was a logistical and cost challenge that was often unsolvable. Nobody seemed to be all that concerned about audio/video quality either. VHS is, by today’s standards, very poor quality, but it was viewable, and that was what mattered most in the 1980s.

Today, of course, the world of production is radically different. 4K resolution footage can be shot on tiny inexpensive handheld cameras. The most complex post-production can be performed on desktop (or laptop) computing platforms running advanced editing and effects software. Creative options can be easily and fully explored. Worldwide distribution is as easy as posting to YouTube or Vimeo.

It’s fun to look back and wonder: “how did we ever get anything done back then?” because, after all, we did. I’m sure in 10 to 20 years from now the technologies will be radically different yet again, but that question will still be asked with the same sense of wonderment.

RB

Hold the Sizzle, Add the Steak

/in , /by

Not long ago I viewed a tutorial video intended to show newbies how to use a certain piece of technical equipment. As I watched the video what struck me more than anything was the degree of visual complexity and effects that seemed to overwhelm the content message. Titles just didn’t fade on, they animated in with twists and swirls. The on camera talent’s sections was punctuated by (the now obligatory it seems) jump cuts, reverse angles, shaky cam, extreme close-ups, and black and white sections that seems to exist for no reason other than to startle the viewer. Other parts of the program were embellished with glitzy effects, energetic motion graphics, and a lot of cutting that didn’t, quite frankly, didn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me. The production values and editing finesse were certainly there, but something more important was lost in the process.

Maybe I’m just old school, but I still believe that it’s the message that matters and that a tutorial or informational video needs to teach and communicate above all else, and not necessarily dazzle the eyes and ears. This isn’t to say that high production values, regardless of budget, aren’t important, they are, and if an aurally and visually exciting show can still do the job, well fine and dandy. But more often than not it seems that the sizzle has become more important than the steak.

I’m reminded of some the tenets of editing that were impressed upon me in school and later on the job.

1) Edits should generally feel invisible to the audience and guide along the story or message, unless there’s a compelling reason to make an edit stand out and be noticed.

2) Simpler is generally better than complex, the viewer can only take in so much at any one moment.

3) 98% of transitions should be cuts and dissolve. Use wipes and other fancy transitions with the greatest reverence and respect.

4) Think of special effects in the same way as exotic spices are to cooking. A little bit added at the right moment can greatly enhance the dish, but too much all the time can ruin the flavor.

5) Good edits don’t need justification. Bad edits scream for it.

Well that’s it for now. As always I appreciate your feedback.

RB

 

The Irresistible Lure of the NAB Convention

/in /by

I confess, I’m a junkie when it comes to NAB, the National Association of Broadcasters convention held annually in Las Vegas. Since I attended my first convention in 1984 (as a young producer at Ampex Corporation) I’ve been to around 25 NABs, and, after skipping last year’s show, I’m going again next month. You’d think that someone who’d been to all those conventions would be burned out on the crowds, the commotion, the information overload, and the mesmerizing glitz of Las Vegas. So why does this annual get-together of everything media-technology related still stir my drink after all these years? It’s just got to be the vibe.

NAB is unlike any other show of its kind in the world. It’s simply bigger, badder, and more intense. Literally everybody with something to sell to the media production industry is there representing their products and services. If you’re shopping for any kind of hardware, or production related services like stock footage or music, this is the one show to attend.

During my Ampex years NAB was a relatively staid affair dominated by the broadcast television networks. It was quite formal too.  Everyone, attendees and exhibitors alike, were dressed in lawyers’ attire and opening day was characterized by this massive wave of blue, gray, and black suits streaming into the hall at the opening bell. Network execs and their entourages would get private demonstrations of the latest technologies from the manufacturing execs. Carefully groomed professional presenters would stand on stages within their respective booths to give their pitches.

In the past 20 years much has changed at NAB, just as it has throughout the video and media production industry. Today the show’s scope is much broader, encompassing the gamut of media production from broadcast to webcast.   Suits have given way to tee-shirts and jeans, and the polyglot heard in the vast halls of the Lad Vegas Convention Center is more varied than ever.

But the vibe has remained the same. NAB says that the media industry truly matters to this world, and that those of us fortunate to be involved in professional media creation matter too. NAB is about inspiring creativity through a celebration of the latest tools and techniques. NAB is about seeing and meeting and exchanging ideas and information with fellow media professionals. NAB is excitement, energy, knowledge, and glamour. That’s the vibe the lures me back year after year.

But lest I get too carried away with  romanticized descriptions, here’s some practical advise for those you planning to attend for the first time:

  • If you’re primarily interested in seeing hardware and shopping for specific items, plan to attend on the last two days. The crowds and the noise levels are quite a bit reduced from the previous two days and you can actually get close to the gear and carry on a conversation.
  • Admit that you can’t see everything. The show is simply too big so concentrate on the areas of prime interest and target those booths for visiting. Then wander about and see what else strikes your fancy.
  • Comfortable shoes are essential. Prepare to walk miles per day.
  • I always pack gum or lifesavers (and a bottle of water). It’s easy to get dehydrated in the dry desert air down therein Vegas.
  • There are plenty of free maps of the show floors but be warned that it’s often pretty difficult to locate some of the smaller booths. The locator numbers hanging overhead don’t function very well in my opinion but don’t give up if you really want to see something.
  • If practical, buy food/snacks outside the convention center and bring it in with you. Prices in the hall are high, to say the least.

That’s all for now. I’ll post a short review after I return from the NAB next month. If you go too, have a great time!

Does 4K mean the “Death” of Camera Work?

/in /by

We’re now on the cusp of the 4K era of video production where content is shot, edited, and viewed in a format that offers significantly more resolution than today’s current 1080 HD standard. As with any new technology, the migration to 4K will happen in stages, with widespread consumer adoption marking the final phase. While the impact of 4K on editing, distribution, and viewing are fairly well recognized, what will this ultra high def format mean to field production?

One of the key advantages of shooting 4K in a 1080 world is the possibility that it opens up for reframing the shot in post-production. Now with so many pixels to work with it’s a relatively simple matter to just shoot everything wide and then create alternate framings during the edit. Camera operators no longer have to worry about getting zooms, pans, and tilts right since all these motions can now be synthesized in post production with completely smooth and even motion at precisely the right speed, and with no loss of image quality. There’s even software plug-ins available that can synthetically create rack focus effects.

Overall this development should have a significant positive effect for some types of productions, such as drama, where scenes can be shot with fewer takes without the need to “do it again in a close-up.”  Even in the corporate world I can see situations where a finicky robotic move or difficult manufacturing procedure need only be staged and recorded once because now the producer has the freedom to go in tight for a close up in post production.

So will camera operators be relegated to just setting up the camera on a tripod or support system, checking exposure, framing wide, and standing back? I think not. You still need the artist’s touch to find interesting angles, create real camera moves like crane shots and dollies, and fine-tune aesthetic variables like exposures and “looks.” Sure you can fix a lot more in post these days, but that’s not an excuse for not trying to get it right in the first place during production. 4K will change the game but it will never replace the need for competent and creative camera operators and DPs. New technology challenges and implores us to “adjust, adapt, and create” and we’ll always need skilled people who can do that.

Sorry folks, but we’re not “filming” anything!

/in /by

When you’ve worked in the media business as long as I have I think that one becomes a bit sensitized to terminology. After all, accuracy is a part of the process, and it’s only professional to label activities accordingly. So I guess that’s why I tend to get a tiny bit vexed when people (including some very experienced pros) refer to videography as “filming.” The truth of the matter is that we’re not “filming” anything if we’re not using a film camera that photo-chemically records images onto a reel of flexible emulsion coated celluloid. We’re not even “videotaping” anymore because virtually no one, save students and some stodgy consumers, still uses tape-based camcorders. I venture that the proper response when someone asks you to “film” something should be “I can make a video recording” or “I can digitally capture video content,” both of which reflect what’s actually going on: recording sound and light signals as digitally-based files.

I know, I know, I’m being pedantic about all this, but I think that the sooner we in the industry use correct terminology the better we can communicate exactly what it is we do.

Putting It’s in Its place

/in /by

I’ll admit that one of my pet peeves is the constant and ubiquitous misuse of the contraction “it’s” in place of the possessive form of it: “its” (without the apostrophe.) It’s just so odd to me to read some very scholarly papers or see ads running on a national level that contain this grammatical error. So, at the risk of sounding like everybody’s high school English teacher, please allow me to state the rule as simply as it was explained to me:

It’s = the contraction for “it is,”  or “it has,” always and forever.

Its = the possessive form of it, something belongs to “it,” always and forever.

My own high school English teacher provided a simple way to recognize the problem. Whenever you see “it’s” in a document simply read it as “it is” or “it has.”  If that works then you’ve got it right. If not, simply lose the apostrophe and consider yourself a tad wiser than apparently a lot of other people. Ok, I’ll get off the podium now.

Peeve #2 is “your” and “you’re” but that’s another blog post.