Sep 04 2008
Web video - tips from BBC.com
“Video content on the web must differ from TV. It should be shorter, less intermediated, less heavily produced. It should be raw and direct, not like sitting back and watching TV” Richard Sambrook interview with Richard Edelman
Fairly conventional wisdom in 2008 I think, but why is it that so much online news/PR video ignores this advice and comes across as ponderous and stilted.
Three reasons:
1. True spontaneity in any creative endeavor is the preserve of the adept. The neophyte requires a lot of preparation to produce footage that is at once watchable/listenable and “raw”. Breaking news excepted.
2. Raw and direct = handheld. Almost a cliche right? Handheld footage from handicams can easily degenerate into a confusing mess. So while even Hollywood directors are rushing towards the “immediacy”, “authenticity” of hand-held cameras, many videojournalists remain tethered to their tripods. Sure you gain watchable and professional but often at the cost of raw and direct.
3. Less intermediated = live audio only. Lack of preparation time and lack of dedicated audio equipment/personnel, result: the resurrection of the voiceover. The trusty voiceover had all but disappeared from news/feature coverage - but now it’s back with a vengeance. Not to say that the voiceover does not have it’s place in modern video, particularly when it’s woven in to the live audio a la David Attenborough. But for short web features Voiceover = heavily produced.
The solution - more preparation, more training, better equipment - more $$$$.
Not necessarily on the equipment end of things, Peter…
I assembled a kit that is within most shooters budget who are seriously looking to shoot video. A single chip SONY or Canon HDV camera can be had for less than $900 USD. My Sennheiser G2 wireless lav was less than $550 USD. My Ambient Recordings TinyMic, about the same amount (And is equal to the Sennheiser MK66 in sound quality while having either mini jack or XLR options) - and is dramatically smaller in size. Add to that the SONY HD wide angle lens and that’s pretty much it - unless you want to add a Zoom H2 audio recorder for less than $200 USD. All this fits inside a standard Bike Messengers bag.
I would say training is more important - apply what you learned in training and you will develop the skills of being better prepared. The kit - as long as it has the minimum features for shooting video seriously - is the final component.
Handheld footage - I believe that comes with practice - shooters - if they are serious about the quality of their content, should learn to find that balance - it should look like it’s hand held, but not be so obvious the viewer gets motion sickness..
With regards to voiceovers - I think your assessment is pretty accurate - too many voiceovers these days. They do have their place, but it’s sort of like the mainstream news video shooters - standups, b-roll, tripod mounted cameras- has been over used to death - pretty lame and boring IMO. Same can be said for overuse of VO’s.
Cheers!
Cliff Etzel - Solo Vdeo Journalist
bluprojekt | solo vj blog
A tripod is verboten all of a sudden because some Hollywood wannabes say so? I’ll take professional and watchable anyday thankyou very much!
@cliff - your camera features for pro video work fine for me. I would just add 1 caveat - all features must be configurable on the fly/in the dark/in the rain and wind and (for me) in sub-zero temperatures.
@nick - I use tripods (and voiceovers) all the time.
But what do the BBC actually do for web video? If the same style does not work for TV and web does that mean they have parallel crews, one shooting for TV and one for web? That seems bizarre. I would be interested to know how they go about selecting what to put on the web.
In recent years Videojournalism has lost its way. There was some innovative material being put out a few years back but recently its 95% pap.
They are trying so hard to be “professional” that they’ve lost their edge. It goes way beyond being dependent on tripods and voiceovers. Partly the effort suffers from a lack of experience but more profoundly a lack of commitment from the money end. Financial fears are forcing editors to adopt “cheap” video, and while cheap is the major input criteria how is the output ever going to be anything of value?
Yes sure the cameras are cheaper than they were 5 years ago, but how much of the cost of a TV show or film related to the price of the camera, or even the salary of the person operating it?
Peter, you know how to pull in a great debate.
This one’s been raging for a while, a long while.
We very rarely acknowledge this but video journalism is not a one size fits all.
And while there are formulae and methodologies that have come to see the light of day, it’s the talent, the talent, individuals who have an understanding of the various forms and can play around with them; do for us, what many others will try and perhaps not quite get there.
Yesterday I bumped into an old colleague of mine who was the director of a great current affairs film The Siege Of Bethlehem which aired on BBC TV.
Dimitri trained as a Video journalist, circa 94, then went into TV, but for this eye- opening feature which played across the world, he resorted largely to Vjism on a VX 1000.
I’m looking to do a Q and A feature with him and other VJs I have come to know, because some where in there is the gene of creative visuals and TV/Web making which is pretty disruptive to the status quo.
david
@brian - the bottom line is that bbc.com uses very little video, escpecially considering how much they have freely available
@digger - agreed, but any medium becomes less experimental as it matures - unfortunately vj is maturing (in terms of infrastructure) without any idea how to reliably monetize it
@david - my take on vj debates:
vj as an aesthetic? done deal. Don’t like it? - go argue with the Oscar committee.
vj in terms of CNN/BBC sending out solo cameramen with consumer cameras? likewise - they’ve been doing it for well over 25 years.
vj as a tool for print journalists transitioning to the web? No brainer - with the price of point and shoot video equipment, why wouldn’t you?
but vj as a business model? Thousands of successful freelance photojournalists, cameramen, directors, sound engineers. Lots of successful VJ teachers, plenty of high-paid staff vjs and small production companies.
But freelance VJs, or even staff vjs who can say “I generate $x,xxx a week for my employer”? This is more than anything the issue that interests me. As Digger says - it’s a funding issue - huge demand for online video but how do we get them to pay for it?
Maybe you could set that as a theme for your students?