Advice for a zero-budget interview show sought
Scott T. Jensen
distributed over peer-to-peer networking (WinMX, Kazaa, etc.). Basically,
two talking heads. What I have to do it with is two Sony Handicam
DCR-TRV320's, two tri-pods for the cameras, and some friends willing to help
out. As for the set, I could do it in my large living room for that homey
feeling or there's also a possibility of doing it at a very nice showcase
bar at a local micro-brewery after office hours when it is dead quiet. Due
to just two cameras, I'd have one focused on the interviewee and the other
would be basically shot over the shoulder of the interview and it capture
me, the interviewer.
Some of my big concerns at the moment are:
1) Sound. Both cameras pick up sound but not sure how to handle this.
Suggestions?
2) Editing. I have a couple friends with video editing equipment, but
wonder what would be the best to use. Best as also not very expensive.
3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
4) Make-up. First, is it needed? Second, if it is, what is needed? I have
some female friends willing to take care of the make-up if needed.
5) Release forms. First, are they needed? Second, if so, can I use
standard forms? If I can, could someone point me to a URL where I could
download them from.
6) Any other tips???
Thanks in advance!
Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://www.distributedfolding.org/ to sign up your computer.
DK
news:vmko0jo...@corp.supernews.com...
> What I'd like to do is produce a video interview show that would be
> distributed over peer-to-peer networking (WinMX, Kazaa, etc.). Basically,
> two talking heads. What I have to do it with is two Sony Handicam
> DCR-TRV320's, two tri-pods for the cameras, and some friends willing to
help
> out. As for the set, I could do it in my large living room for that homey
> feeling or there's also a possibility of doing it at a very nice showcase
> bar at a local micro-brewery after office hours when it is dead quiet.
Due
> to just two cameras, I'd have one focused on the interviewee and the other
> would be basically shot over the shoulder of the interview and it capture
> me, the interviewer.
>
> Some of my big concerns at the moment are:
>
> 1) Sound. Both cameras pick up sound but not sure how to handle this.
> Suggestions?
Pick one camera as your primary sound camera - and run a mic into it. Don't
use the built-in mics. If you can, consider using two wireless sets, one for
each person - in which case you would use both cameras and sync your sound
in post. Provide a sharp sound (hand clap or such) as a sync mark before the
action.
> 2) Editing. I have a couple friends with video editing equipment, but
> wonder what would be the best to use. Best as also not very expensive.
You will be a lot happier with NLE. BTW - my above suggestion won't work
unless you CAN do NLE. A reasonably basic computer with a capture card and
an extra 30GB or larger HD should do fine.
> 3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
See if you can find back issues of Videomaker magazine in your local
library. A couple years back they had a good article on this. If not, look
into some basic lighting books from the library.
The work lights that have round reflectors and use standard bulbs are pretty
good - use 200W bulbs and you'll be fine for lighting.
> 4) Make-up. First, is it needed?
Probably not, in most cases. Especially for internet broadcast - TV makeup
is rather subtle and it will be lost on a streaming broadcast
> Second, if it is, what is needed?
I would stick with powder for covering shiny spots on the interviewer and
guests.
> I have some female friends willing to take care of the make-up if needed.
> 5) Release forms. First, are they needed?
YES! YES! YES! YES!
Failure to get one can potentially open you up to all sorts of legal
trouble. Don't go there.
> Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry" has some good
basic ones you can modify.
> If I can, could someone point me to a URL where I could download them
from.
Email me (medwyn at medievalmarketplace dot com) and I'll see if I can find
one of my old ones for you.
> 6) Any other tips???
If you're in Southern California, I may consider helping you get things
rolling - I've done EXACTLY this before...
MSu1049321
function to look up SO MANY answers to these and related questions, and there
are numerous people there from DV magazine to help you out with your sound and
lighting suggestions for free.
You can cross-shoot with one camera looking at each talking head, but you can
also mix that with one camera on a 2-shot and the other right next to it on
singles, panning back and forth to whomever is taking the topic. You cut to the
wide shot to cover until the tight shot cam is stable, then cut back to that.
You can also cut in reaction shots from other places in the show. Breaking it
up this way is more like what we do in "real" television. For simple DV
editing, it is hard to beat the free imovie program on macs. on the PC side,
you can get free or cheap versions of Adobe premiere and the various Pinnacle
products when you buy a firewire or video card. Microsoft also bundles some
kind of entry-level editing program, you can try that, I suppose. But you can
also get to try out a variety of editing software for free in the British DIGIT
and Computer Arts magazines every month, for PC or mac. I get mine at Barnes &
Noble about 13 bucks a pop.
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> > What I'd like to do is produce a video interview show that
> > would be distributed over peer-to-peer networking
> > (WinMX, Kazaa, etc.). Basically, two talking heads.
> > What I have to do it with is two Sony Handicam
> > DCR-TRV320's, two tri-pods for the cameras, and some
> > friends willing to help out. As for the set, I could do it in
> > my large living room for that homey feeling or there's also
> > a possibility of doing it at a very nice showcase bar at a
> > local micro-brewery after office hours when it is dead
> > quiet. Due to just two cameras, I'd have one focused on
> > the interviewee and the other would be basically shot
> > over the shoulder of the interview and it capture me, the
> > interviewer.
> >
> > Some of my big concerns at the moment are:
> >
> > 1) Sound. Both cameras pick up sound but not sure how
> > to handle this. Suggestions?
>
> Pick one camera as your primary sound camera - and run a
> mic into it. Don't use the built-in mics.
That's doable. What's a good cheap mic to buy?
> If you can, consider using two wireless sets...
What do you mean by wireless? Like those bugs informants wear to mafia
meetings? :-)
> ...one for each person - in which case you would use both
> cameras and sync your sound in post. Provide a sharp sound
> (hand clap or such) as a sync mark before the action.
If I use one microphone, I'm concerned about either the interviewee or me,
the interviewer, not being properly picked up by it. Then having one that's
loud and the other that's too soft. Putting the microphone between the
interviewee and interviewer would seem to be the solution, but it could
still mean one's not going to be picked up as well as the other. I see this
as a sound editting nightmare just waiting to happen.
> > 2) Editing. I have a couple friends with video editing
> > equipment, but wonder what would be the best to use.
> > Best as also not very expensive.
>
> You will be a lot happier with NLE.
And "NLE" stands for???
> BTW - my above suggestion won't work unless you CAN
> do NLE. A reasonably basic computer with a capture card...
"capture card"???
> ...and an extra 30GB or larger HD should do fine.
I have at least that. 80GB hard drive and a 1GB RAM.
> > 3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
>
> See if you can find back issues of Videomaker magazine in your
> local library. A couple years back they had a good article on this.
> If not, look into some basic lighting books from the library.
I'll check out the library and see if they have it.
> The work lights...
Define what is a "work light" please.
> ...that have round reflectors...
Is this one on the blub (like those blubs that have that metal coating on
their tips) or on the "shade" behind it that reflects the indirect light
onto the subject?
> ...and use standard bulbs are pretty good - use 200W
> bulbs and you'll be fine for lighting.
So I can use standard blubs in place of the work lights?
> > 4) Make-up. First, is it needed?
>
> Probably not, in most cases. Especially for internet broadcast -
> TV makeup is rather subtle and it will be lost on a streaming
> broadcast
The shows will not be offered on streaming video. Just downloadable files.
Tentatively planning on offering it in DVD quality and then in
lower-resolution mpeg fashion. The lower resolution being a smaller file
size for those that would like that.
> > Second, if it is, what is needed?
>
> I would stick with powder for covering shiny spots on the
> interviewer and guests.
Sorry, but I'm a guy that's never been in a school play or musical ... and
that would have been over 20 years ago. What do you mean by "powder"? Or
will my female friends know what I'm talking about when I mention it?
> > I have some female friends willing to take care of the
> > make-up if needed.
>
> > 5) Release forms. First, are they needed?
>
> YES! YES! YES! YES!
I take the above as a "yes", right? ;-)
> Failure to get one can potentially open you up to all sorts
> of legal trouble. Don't go there.
That was my thought.
> > Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
>
> Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry"
> has some good basic ones you can modify.
Where is this located at?
> > If I can, could someone point me to a URL where I could
> > download them from.
>
> Email me (medwyn at medievalmarketplace dot com) and I'll
> see if I can find one of my old ones for you.
Thanks. I've already fired an email off to you. :-)
> > 6) Any other tips???
>
> If you're in Southern California, I may consider helping you
> get things rolling - I've done EXACTLY this before...
*sigh* Unfortunately, I'm in Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Thanks for the help though!
Scott T. Jensen
> A good place for you would be DV.com. Go into the
> forums and use the search function to look up SO
> MANY answers to these and related questions, and there
> are numerous people there from DV magazine to help you
> out with your sound and lighting suggestions for free.
Thanks! I'll head off there after replying here.
> You can cross-shoot with one camera looking at each talking
> head, but you can also mix that with one camera on a 2-shot
> and the other right next to it on singles, panning back and forth
> to whomever is taking the topic. You cut to the wide shot to
> cover until the tight shot cam is stable, then cut back to that.
This would then give my friends that will be operating the camera something
to do. Hmmm. I suppose I'd only need one camera operator then, right? The
wide-shot could be stationary and static. Once it is set up, it should be
good to go.
> You can also cut in reaction shots from other places in the
> show. Breaking it up this way is more like what we do in
> "real" television.
I'm not planning on having an audience at this point. Maybe later, but not
at first.
> For simple DV editing, it is hard to beat the free imovie program
> on macs. on the PC side, you can get free or cheap versions of
> Adobe premiere and the various Pinnacle products when you buy
> a firewire or video card. Microsoft also bundles some kind of
> entry-level editing program, you can try that, I suppose. But you
> can also get to try out a variety of editing software for free in the
> British DIGIT and Computer Arts magazines every month, for
> PC or mac. I get mine at Barnes & Noble about 13 bucks a pop.
I have a PC. I'll ask my computer friends if they have Adobe or Pinnacle DV
editing programs.
Thanks for the help!
DK
> "DK" wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> > > What I'd like to do is produce a video interview show that
> > > would be distributed over peer-to-peer networking
> > > (WinMX, Kazaa, etc.). Basically, two talking heads.
> > > What I have to do it with is two Sony Handicam
> > > DCR-TRV320's, two tri-pods for the cameras, and some
> > > friends willing to help out. As for the set, I could do it in
> > > my large living room for that homey feeling or there's also
> > > a possibility of doing it at a very nice showcase bar at a
> > > local micro-brewery after office hours when it is dead
> > > quiet. Due to just two cameras, I'd have one focused on
> > > the interviewee and the other would be basically shot
> > > over the shoulder of the interview and it capture me, the
> > > interviewer.
> > >
> > > Some of my big concerns at the moment are:
> > >
> > > 1) Sound. Both cameras pick up sound but not sure how
> > > to handle this. Suggestions?
> >
> > Pick one camera as your primary sound camera - and run a
> > mic into it. Don't use the built-in mics.
>
> That's doable. What's a good cheap mic to buy?
Onne warning - check your cameras and be sure they have microphone inputs!
Not all cameras do. If they're higher-end cameras, they probably will.
For a directional mic, I've had good luck with the Radio Shack shotgun that
goes for about $60. It gives a pretty good sound for the money. However, it
IS a directional mic - the best use in this situation would be to have it
pointed between both subjects from about 10' away.
There are some decent low-price omnidirectional mics at Radio Shack, too - I
would take your camera in, and ask to try out the demo models - see which
one works best being set between both subjects to pick everyone up.
> > If you can, consider using two wireless sets...
>
> What do you mean by wireless? Like those bugs informants wear to mafia
> meetings? :-)
>
> > ...one for each person - in which case you would use both
> > cameras and sync your sound in post. Provide a sharp sound
> > (hand clap or such) as a sync mark before the action.
>
> If I use one microphone, I'm concerned about either the interviewee or me,
> the interviewer, not being properly picked up by it. Then having one
that's
> loud and the other that's too soft. Putting the microphone between the
> interviewee and interviewer would seem to be the solution, but it could
> still mean one's not going to be picked up as well as the other. I see
this
> as a sound editting nightmare just waiting to happen.
2 mics is the best way to go - that's what they do on the pro shows (Tonight
Show, etc.) When I say wireless, I mean like what they have.
Wireless - like the Azden WMS-PRO system - is the best way to go. You have
two options there - you can either run them so one goes into each camera and
sync them, or you can run them into a mixer. There may be less expensive
wireless systems at Best Buy or the like. The ideal setup would be to have a
2-channel reciever with 2 transmitters, each hooked to a lapel mic. Run both
channels into a mixer, then run that into your camera. That way, you can
adjust levels at the shoot, which is a lot easier than adjusting it in post.
The Azden WMS-PRO runs over $200 - so that's probably not in your budget. Go
take a cruise around Best Buy and get a look at the wireless options -
remember, you want LAPEL mics for what you're doing.
> > > 2) Editing. I have a couple friends with video editing
> > > equipment, but wonder what would be the best to use.
> > > Best as also not very expensive.
> >
> > You will be a lot happier with NLE.
>
> And "NLE" stands for???
>
> > BTW - my above suggestion won't work unless you CAN
> > do NLE. A reasonably basic computer with a capture card...
>
> "capture card"???
>
> > ...and an extra 30GB or larger HD should do fine.
>
> I have at least that. 80GB hard drive and a 1GB RAM.
NLE - Non Linear Editing. What you'll want is to get a video capture card,
capture the video onto your computer, then edit it using one of the many
programs available for editing (you may want to visit rec.video.desktop for
some tips on good editing programs and capture cards for a budget). If
that's what your friends have, then you're in good shape. If they are using
a linear editing system (where it basically records from tape to tape),
you'll have a lot of problems keeping your sound in sync, and if you don't
like an edit near the beginning, you have to go back and redo the whole
show.
If you get the equipment yourself, remember to get an EXTRA HD - you don't
want to capture onto your primary HD.
> > > 3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
> >
> > See if you can find back issues of Videomaker magazine in your
> > local library. A couple years back they had a good article on this.
> > If not, look into some basic lighting books from the library.
>
> I'll check out the library and see if they have it.
>
> > The work lights...
>
> Define what is a "work light" please.
>
> > ...that have round reflectors...
>
> Is this one on the blub (like those blubs that have that metal coating on
> their tips) or on the "shade" behind it that reflects the indirect light
> onto the subject?
>
> > ...and use standard bulbs are pretty good - use 200W
> > bulbs and you'll be fine for lighting.
>
> So I can use standard blubs in place of the work lights?
Do you have any money to spend on this at all?
I'll get some pictures of what I mean and post them online, then I'll
provide a link so you can see what I'm describing. Although the ones I'm
going to show are photo lights, they sell similar things at Home Depot.
Also, many photo shops have sockets and reflectors fairly cheap.
Back to the videomaker magazine - I clearly recall an article on making
"do-it-yourself" reflectors from umbrellas and foil. This is another
possibility. Or, just get a white umbrella (or any color, and paint the
inside white) - they reflect the light against the umbrella and onto your
subjects.
What's worked for me in the past is to make on key light (the brightest
light) illuminating both subjects, spaced fairly evenly from both (but NEVER
in line with a camera), then a seperate fill for each (fill is a less bright
light that fills in the shadows so they aren't so dark). All in all,
remember, you want pretty even lighting for what you're doing.
> > > 4) Make-up. First, is it needed?
> >
> > Probably not, in most cases. Especially for internet broadcast -
> > TV makeup is rather subtle and it will be lost on a streaming
> > broadcast
>
> The shows will not be offered on streaming video. Just downloadable
files.
> Tentatively planning on offering it in DVD quality and then in
> lower-resolution mpeg fashion. The lower resolution being a smaller file
> size for those that would like that.
>
> > > Second, if it is, what is needed?
> >
> > I would stick with powder for covering shiny spots on the
> > interviewer and guests.
>
> Sorry, but I'm a guy that's never been in a school play or musical ... and
> that would have been over 20 years ago. What do you mean by "powder"? Or
> will my female friends know what I'm talking about when I mention it?
Probably. It's exactly that - a powder that's put on with a puffy make-up
pad. Generally, the only reason to use makeup is to cover anything that
would be distracting - like shiny spots on the nose or forehead. A little
bit of neutral powder or flesh-toned powder would handle this - and anyone
who knows anything at all about makeup would know what these are.
> > > I have some female friends willing to take care of the
> > > make-up if needed.
> >
> > > 5) Release forms. First, are they needed?
> >
> > YES! YES! YES! YES!
>
> I take the above as a "yes", right? ;-)
Probably.
> > Failure to get one can potentially open you up to all sorts
> > of legal trouble. Don't go there.
>
> That was my thought.
>
> > > Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
> >
> > Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry"
> > has some good basic ones you can modify.
>
> Where is this located at?
Your library might have it, and you can certainly find it online (amazon.com
or such). Also, check out marklitwak.com - he may have some stuff there for
free download.
> > > If I can, could someone point me to a URL where I could
> > > download them from.
> >
> > Email me (medwyn at medievalmarketplace dot com) and I'll
> > see if I can find one of my old ones for you.
>
> Thanks. I've already fired an email off to you. :-)
I got it - I'll see if I can find one and get it sent off.
> > > 6) Any other tips???
> >
> > If you're in Southern California, I may consider helping you
> > get things rolling - I've done EXACTLY this before...
>
> *sigh* Unfortunately, I'm in Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
>
> Thanks for the help though!
Good luck with it - it's a bit of work, but it can be fun.
Just a thought - I would recommend doing a few "dry runs" - that is, get a
couple people to sit and talk for a few minutes while you shoot, then go
through the full process of editing to a completed 2-3 minute clip. That
way, you'll be able to work out any problems BEFORE you're doing the real
shoot. Experiment a little first, when it won't matter quite as much.
MSu1049321
> show. Breaking it up this way is more like what we do in
> "real" television.
I'm not planning on having an audience at this point. Maybe later, but not
at first.
No, you misunderstand, not audience reaction, the face of the person listening
to the person who is talking at the time. often, this is very important
non-verbal visual communication, as well as a handy way to add pacing, visual
variety, and emotion to a show. it can also cover small mistakes.;-)
You said you live in Madison. Univerity of Madison Wisconsin has one of the
most renowned television and multimedia course traacks int he country... you
should audit some courses there, as many as you can afford. A bonus would be
that you would have access to their studios and gear for real hands-on
experience.
Likewise, you can take a production course at your local cable Tv local access
channel, which is often run thru the local community college for a nominal fee.
they will teach you everything, let you use the gear, (REAL GEAR!) teach you
to edit, and even put your finished shows on the cable channel. party on,
Wayne, party on Garth.
Not to be indulting, but You are at such an entry level, as evidenced by your
messages, that the best thing for you is not to try a piecemeal approach to
learning this, go with a training program at the cable station or even
community college. In the long run, it's going to save you lots of money and
frustration.
Richard Crowley
> For a directional mic, I've had good luck with the Radio
> Shack shotgun that goes for about $60. It gives a pretty
> good sound for the money. However, it IS a directional
> mic - the best use in this situation would be to have it
> pointed between both subjects from about 10' away.
A $25 "lapel" mic clipped on the subject is almost always
better than even a $2500 shotgun 10 feet (or even 5 feet)
away!
Investigate Radio Shack Cat # 33-3013 I have no first-hand
experience with this product, but if I were doing interviews
on a limited budget that is where I would start.
Note that likely 99% of all professionally-produced, sit-down
interviews are miced with clip-on mics! Pros know what
works best.
....
> 2 mics is the best way to go - that's what they do on the
> pro shows (Tonight Show, etc.)
Absolutely. Trying to do this with one microphone (of ANY
kind or price) is something even professionals with unlimited
resources avoid.
> When I say wireless, I mean like what they have.
> Wireless - like the Azden WMS-PRO system - is the best
> way to go.
Not for a sit-down interview. Never use a wireless mic when
a wired mic will work. It is more hassle, more risk, and FAR
more expensive to get a wireless mic with equivalent quality
to a wired mic (like 10x).
You have two options there - you can either run
> them so one goes into each camera and sync them, or you
> can run them into a mixer.
Connecting the mic to the camera that is shooting the person
(interviewer or interviewee) is the most straightforware and the
most flexible.
> Run both channels into a mixer, then run that into your
> camera. That way, you can adjust levels at the shoot,
> which is a lot easier than adjusting it in post.
If you were to put that to a vote here, I believe it would be
rejected soundly (no pun intended!) Especially when starting
out and fooling around with 2 cameras, inexperienced crew,
etc. etc., the more that you can put off until post-production,
the better/safer you are.
.....
> > I have at least that. 80GB hard drive and a 1GB RAM.
DV (probably the most commonly used here) takes ~ 13Gb
per hour as a rule of thumb.
> > > > 3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
There are some articles/tutorials online showing how to make video
production lights from the "work lights" sold at home warehouse stores.
.....
> > The shows will not be offered on streaming video.
> > Just downloadable files.
Same difference. Video distributed via internet is compressed
so much that subelties such as makeup frequently disappear.
> > Tentatively planning on offering it in DVD quality and then in
> > lower-resolution mpeg fashion. The lower resolution being
> > a smaller file size for those that would like that.
If you care about quality in DVD, then you should consider
makeup as part of the production requirements.
> > > > Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
> > >
> > > Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry"
> > > has some good basic ones you can modify.
> >
> > Where is this located at?
Check out..
http://www.cybercollege.com for a good general online class.
In particular, they have release forms including this...
http://www.cybercollege.com/talent.htm
Scott T. Jensen
> Scott Jensen wrote:
> > MSu1049321 wrote:
> > > You can also cut in reaction shots from other places in the
> > > show. Breaking it up this way is more like what we do in
> > > "real" television.
> >
> > I'm not planning on having an audience at this point. Maybe
> > later, but not at first.
>
> No, you misunderstand, not audience reaction, the face of the
> person listening to the person who is talking at the time. often,
> this is very important non-verbal visual communication, as well
> as a handy way to add pacing, visual variety, and emotion to a
> show. it can also cover small mistakes.;-)
Ah, I get you now. Hmmm. I was just watching the Fox news channel. And
they had some host/newsman talking to two guests. They showed the host on
the left in a large box and the two he was speaking to in two smaller boxes
on the right. What if I did something similar. At the beginning of the
interview, the large box would be on the left and show the interviewer (me)
as I introduce the guest. To the right of the big box would be a smaller box
in the upper 2/3's of the right side and it would show a wide shot of the
interviewer (on the right) and the interviewee. After the introduction, the
big box would switch to the right and contain the interviewee, the smaller
box would shift to the left showing what it was showing before. Both during
the intro and interview, underneath the smaller box would be the show's
title. This way the viewers are moving their eyeballs to follow the
conversation. Less of the body language is lost.
Now if I decided to get a third camera, I'd have two small boxes on the
left. The top small box being a close-up of the interviewer (me) and the
bottom small box being the wide shot of the interviewer and interviewee.
What do you think of the above idea?
Is there a computer program that could arrange the images in this way? A
cheap/free computer program?
I would also suspect that once properly set up, I'd not really even need a
camera operator. I'm simply thinking ahead when the "fun" aspect has faded
for my friends.
> Not to be indulting, but You are at such an entry level, as
> evidenced by your messages, that the best thing for you is
> not to try a piecemeal approach to learning this, go with a
> training program at the cable station or even community
> college. In the long run, it's going to save you lots of money
> and frustration.
No insult taken. However, I don't mind if the product is rough at the
beginning. I think that will have a bit of charm if it is. I'd just like
to get my hands dirty and not just talk but do. Learn as I go along.
Scott T. Jensen
> NLE - Non Linear Editing. What you'll want is to get a video
> capture card, capture the video onto your computer, then edit
> it using one of the many programs available for editing (you
> may want to visit rec.video.desktop for some tips on good
> editing programs and capture cards for a budget). If that's
> what your friends have, then you're in good shape. If they are
> using a linear editing system (where it basically records from
> tape to tape), you'll have a lot of problems keeping your
> sound in sync, and if you don't like an edit near the beginning,
> you have to go back and redo the whole show.
What if I did the three-box view set-up I proposed in my reply to
MSu1049321? Would I need the same stuff for that?
> If you get the equipment yourself, remember to get an EXTRA
> HD - you don't want to capture onto your primary HD.
No problem. I have a 13.5 GB hard drive I can slap into this computer right
now.
> Scott Jensen wrote:
> > So I can use standard bulbs in place of the work lights?
>
> Do you have any money to spend on this at all?
I'm trying to keep costs to as small as possible to launch this on. A
nickel here and a dime there eventually adds up.
> I'll get some pictures of what I mean and post them online,
> then I'll provide a link so you can see what I'm describing.
Thanks. I look forward to it.
> Back to the videomaker magazine - I clearly recall an article
> on making "do-it-yourself" reflectors from umbrellas and foil.
> This is another possibility. Or, just get a white umbrella (or
> any color, and paint the inside white) - they reflect the light
> against the umbrella and onto your subjects.
Now this is what I like. I like the idea of such a set. I think it would
have a certain appeal to my viewers.
> What's worked for me in the past is to make on key light (the
> brightest light) illuminating both subjects, spaced fairly evenly
> from both (but NEVER in line with a camera), then a seperate
> fill for each (fill is a less bright light that fills in the shadows so
> they aren't so dark). All in all, remember, you want pretty
> even lighting for what you're doing.
So the most powerful one being below or above the cameras with two more on
each side to handle the shadows?
> > DK wrote:
> > > Email me (medwyn at medievalmarketplace dot com) and I'll
> > > see if I can find one of my old ones for you.
> >
> > Thanks. I've already fired an email off to you. :-)
>
> I got it - I'll see if I can find one and get it sent off.
Ugh. I'm being currently attacked by the virus that is hitting posters to
newsgroups. Being a co-moderator of four newsgroups, I'm getting hit extra
hard. Could you email me it at scott dot jensen at charter dot net? That's
a little used alternative address I have.
> Good luck with it - it's a bit of work, but it can be fun.
Thanks for the help. And I do hope it will be fun. I'm taking an easy
attitude towards this. My first series of interviews are going to be with
people with unusual and/or interesting jobs.
> Just a thought - I would recommend doing a few "dry runs" - that
> is, get a couple people to sit and talk for a few minutes while you
> shoot, then go through the full process of editing to a completed
> 2-3 minute clip. That way, you'll be able to work out any problems
> BEFORE you're doing the real shoot. Experiment a little first, when
> it won't matter quite as much.
Most definitely. I was thinking of doing longer test interviews, but you're
probably right that I'd only need 2-3 minutes each.
Scott T. Jensen
> Investigate Radio Shack Cat # 33-3013 I have no first-hand
> experience with this product, but if I were doing interviews
> on a limited budget that is where I would start.
Thanks for the tip! I'll check these out.
> > When I say wireless, I mean like what they have.
> > Wireless - like the Azden WMS-PRO system - is the best
> > way to go.
>
> Not for a sit-down interview. Never use a wireless mic when
> a wired mic will work. It is more hassle, more risk, and FAR
> more expensive to get a wireless mic with equivalent quality
> to a wired mic (like 10x).
Sounds logical.
> You have two options there - you can either run
> > them so one goes into each camera and sync them, or you
> > can run them into a mixer.
>
> Connecting the mic to the camera that is shooting the person
> (interviewer or interviewee) is the most straightforware and the
> most flexible.
How about in the set up for the three-box view I proposed in my reply to
MSu1049321?
> > > > > 3) Lighting. Any cheap ways to properly light this small set?
>
> There are some articles/tutorials online showing how to make video
> production lights from the "work lights" sold at home warehouse stores.
I'll try to find them using Google.
> > > Tentatively planning on offering it in DVD quality and then in
> > > lower-resolution mpeg fashion. The lower resolution being
> > > a smaller file size for those that would like that.
>
> If you care about quality in DVD, then you should consider
> makeup as part of the production requirements.
I do. I have a female friend that's willing to come by to do the make-up.
> > > > > Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
> > > >
> > > > Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry"
> > > > has some good basic ones you can modify.
> > >
> > > Where is this located at?
>
> Check out..
> http://www.cybercollege.com for a good general online class.
> In particular, they have release forms including this...
> http://www.cybercollege.com/talent.htm
Thanks!
Scott Jensen
--
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
If you have a business question, problem, or dream, the above
newsgroups are the place to go to post and get feedback on it.
Scott T. Jensen
> > Scott Jensen wrote:
> > > DK wrote:
> > > > Scott Jensen wrote:
> > > > > Second, if so, can I use standard forms?
> > > >
> > > > Certainly. "Contracts for the Film and Television Industry"
> > > > has some good basic ones you can modify.
> > >
> > > Where is this located at?
>
> Check out..
> http://www.cybercollege.com for a good general online class.
> In particular, they have release forms including this...
> http://www.cybercollege.com/talent.htm
How about my volunteer production crew? Let's say I don't give children
nightmares when they watch my interviews and the interviews actually gain a
following and even ... wonders upon wonders ... become popular and get
corporate sponsorship. Yes, yes, I know I'm probably dreaming, but humor
me. If this were to happen and I had a falling out with one or more friend
that helped me with the initial interviews, could they come back at me later
and demand a part of the production company and/or royalties? Even if they
only ran the camera once for one interview where I never got a penny from
anyone to do. Should I get them from the start to sign release form too?
Or don't I need to worry about this until I actually get some fool ...
*cough* ... I mean an advertiser to pay to have me have their pop cans or
whatever visible on the set during the interview? Are there standard forms
for this?
Richard Crowley
.....
> Now if I decided to get a third camera, I'd have two
> small boxes on the left. The top small box being a
> close-up of the interviewer (me) and the bottom small
> box being the wide shot of the interviewer and interviewee.
>
All those production techniques have their place. It depends
on what your resources and requirements are. From your
previous descriptions, these seem very blue-sky methods
and well beyond your resources and requirements at this
time. Start with the basics.
> Is there a computer program that could arrange the images
> in this way?
Many (most?) video edit software will do this at some level.
> A cheap/free computer program?
Perhaps. I'm to busy actually USING Premiere to go and
research and fool around with other SW.
> I would also suspect that once properly set up, I'd not
> really even need a camera operator. I'm simply thinking
> ahead when the "fun" aspect has faded for my friends.
You don't have enough real-world experience to make such
a speculation. Shoot a dozen and THEN come back and
address this notion. :-)
> No insult taken. However, I don't mind if the product is rough at the
> beginning. I think that will have a bit of charm if it is. I'd just like
> to get my hands dirty and not just talk but do. Learn as I go along.
Learn how to get the audio and lighting right, THEN you can
start experimenting with innovative camera techniques. If you
can't see or hear the interviews, the camera moves and special
effects will just look stupid.
Richard Crowley
.....
> Now if I decided to get a third camera, I'd have two
> small boxes on the left. The top small box being a
> close-up of the interviewer (me) and the bottom small
> box being the wide shot of the interviewer and interviewee.
>
> What do you think of the above idea[s]?
Remember that most of the interviews you see on TV
were shot with ONE camera. The actual interview is
shot with the camera on the interviewee. Then after
the interview is over, the camera is reset to get
interviewer questions/reaction inserts to be edited
into place in post-production. Big-budget shows (like
60 minutes can afford two cameras/operators to shoot
"TV-style".
Richard Crowley
MSu1049321
visual info you're trying to cram into it with three boxes of moving video, not
to mention that three faces on screen at once maks each separate one smaller,
and even harder to see in the realplayer window. When you watch a TV news
show with people in boxes, it's because they are all satelite feeds from
different locations, and this is the only way to put them 'together' inthe
'same' room. Evn then, this is not something you want to do over an entire
show. You introduce the people in the boxes, open the question, then as each
person chimes in, you cut to full-screen of the talker, with occasional bumps
out to multi-boxes if there is obvious agitation among the others.
Three camera multicam editing is NOT for you, yet.
Shoot for two cameras, that you will find to be quite challenging enough at
first.
Scott T. Jensen
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:vmoo2ej...@corp.supernews.com...
I did not realize this. Hmmm. Should I just use one camera then and not
the two I have? Would that be simpler to produce?
DK
> "DK" wrote ...
> > For a directional mic, I've had good luck with the Radio
> > Shack shotgun that goes for about $60. It gives a pretty
> > good sound for the money. However, it IS a directional
> > mic - the best use in this situation would be to have it
> > pointed between both subjects from about 10' away.
>
> A $25 "lapel" mic clipped on the subject is almost always
> better than even a $2500 shotgun 10 feet (or even 5 feet)
> away!
Agreed - the shotgun approach is, however, something that I have used in
these situations in the past, with surprisingly good sound. That specific
mic seems to work well under such circumstances (better than the expensive
ones, actually).
> Investigate Radio Shack Cat # 33-3013 I have no first-hand
> experience with this product, but if I were doing interviews
> on a limited budget that is where I would start.
>
> Note that likely 99% of all professionally-produced, sit-down
> interviews are miced with clip-on mics! Pros know what
> works best.
Definitely the best way to go.
> ....
> > 2 mics is the best way to go - that's what they do on the
> > pro shows (Tonight Show, etc.)
>
> Absolutely. Trying to do this with one microphone (of ANY
> kind or price) is something even professionals with unlimited
> resources avoid.
>
> > When I say wireless, I mean like what they have.
> > Wireless - like the Azden WMS-PRO system - is the best
> > way to go.
>
> Not for a sit-down interview. Never use a wireless mic when
> a wired mic will work. It is more hassle, more risk, and FAR
> more expensive to get a wireless mic with equivalent quality
> to a wired mic (like 10x).
To use your same argument - the pros know what works best, and the pros use
wireless mics. Watch Leno, Letterman, Conan, etc. and you'll see that to be
the case.
You may be right about the price. In the past, Radio Shack used to carry a
wireless camera mic that ran about $50-75. I have not been able to find it
recently.
OTOH, doing a search online shows me the following:
B&H has an Azden WLX-PRO system for $135 at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=
Adorama has a Bescor BMW-PRO system for $119 at
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=10640816534371105&sku=BOBM
WPRO
And if you're looking for cheap, there's a Nady 151-VRLT for $76 at
http://store.yahoo.com/eenidmarket/151vr-lt.html
The Azden WMS-PRO goes for around $250 - and it is quite a good mic for this
purpose.
I'm not as familiar with these, but generally, when you're setting the
cameras 10-15' away from your subjects you don't get much of a problem with
interference and the sound is pretty good.
I will certainly grant that a directly wired mic will work better. There are
some downsides, including the fact that you will have to deal with the wires
possibly getting in the way, you may have to buy extensions, as the cords
they come with may not be long enough, and if there is any movement at all,
the wires will wind up getting in the way. If a guest walks on or off the
set, you will have all sorts of trouble if you're using a wired mic.
The best advice I can give is to determine what you want to spend on
wireless systems and go try some out. See what works within your budget. If
the only thing you can afford is a wired lapel mic, then by all means use
that. But be aware of the potential problems.
In any case, though, the BEST results will come from lapel mics on both
subjects - the shotgun approach is workable, but not ideal by any measure.
> You have two options there - you can either run
> > them so one goes into each camera and sync them, or you
> > can run them into a mixer.
>
> Connecting the mic to the camera that is shooting the person
> (interviewer or interviewee) is the most straightforware and the
> most flexible.
Agreed.
> > Run both channels into a mixer, then run that into your
> > camera. That way, you can adjust levels at the shoot,
> > which is a lot easier than adjusting it in post.
>
> If you were to put that to a vote here, I believe it would be
> rejected soundly (no pun intended!) Especially when starting
> out and fooling around with 2 cameras, inexperienced crew,
> etc. etc., the more that you can put off until post-production,
> the better/safer you are.
Good point - it adds to what you're doing, and when starting off, there's
already enough to worry about. Now, if you have a friend who has a mixer and
knows how to use it, that's another story.
DK
You're getting way too ambitious for your level of experience. Besides, IMO,
that sort of stuff is actually more distracting than helpful. Keep with the
"Tonight Show" format for now - it works.
> Is there a computer program that could arrange the images in this way? A
> cheap/free computer program?
Most NLE programs should be able to do something like this. I've heard some
good things about vegas. Again, check out rec.video.desktop for info on that
subject - there's been a couple recent threads about editing programs under
$100.
> I would also suspect that once properly set up, I'd not really even need a
> camera operator. I'm simply thinking ahead when the "fun" aspect has
faded
> for my friends.
When I did this in the past, with 2 cameras, I would occaisionally change
the cameras around a little - perhaps by zooming one out to a 2-shot, or
changing to a tighter shot from a medium shot. You don't have to, and
shouldn't, at first. But as you gain experience, you can start playing with
it this way - which will keep things interesting for the people helping out,
too.
> > Not to be indulting, but You are at such an entry level, as
> > evidenced by your messages, that the best thing for you is
> > not to try a piecemeal approach to learning this, go with a
> > training program at the cable station or even community
> > college. In the long run, it's going to save you lots of money
> > and frustration.
>
> No insult taken. However, I don't mind if the product is rough at the
> beginning. I think that will have a bit of charm if it is. I'd just like
> to get my hands dirty and not just talk but do. Learn as I go along.
There's some really good books about this sort of stuff, too. Also, I would
highly recommend checking out the info available at www.videouniversity.com
for a start.They sell a lot of stuff, but there's some good free material
available, too.
DK
> "DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote>
> > NLE - Non Linear Editing. What you'll want is to get a video
> > capture card, capture the video onto your computer, then edit
> > it using one of the many programs available for editing (you
> > may want to visit rec.video.desktop for some tips on good
> > editing programs and capture cards for a budget). If that's
> > what your friends have, then you're in good shape. If they are
> > using a linear editing system (where it basically records from
> > tape to tape), you'll have a lot of problems keeping your
> > sound in sync, and if you don't like an edit near the beginning,
> > you have to go back and redo the whole show.
>
> What if I did the three-box view set-up I proposed in my reply to
> MSu1049321? Would I need the same stuff for that?
A good computer NLE system can handle that, but I strongly recommend against
trying it until you have a LOT more experience.
All the best talk shows I've seen simply cut between their subjects (host
and guests) - they don't use the fancy graphics. It takes away from the
interview.
> > If you get the equipment yourself, remember to get an EXTRA
> > HD - you don't want to capture onto your primary HD.
>
> No problem. I have a 13.5 GB hard drive I can slap into this computer
right
> now.
That's about an hour of DV quality video. Probably enough for now. You'll
want to expand later.
> > Scott Jensen wrote:
> > > So I can use standard bulbs in place of the work lights?
> >
> > Do you have any money to spend on this at all?
>
> I'm trying to keep costs to as small as possible to launch this on. A
> nickel here and a dime there eventually adds up.
>
> > I'll get some pictures of what I mean and post them online,
> > then I'll provide a link so you can see what I'm describing.
>
> Thanks. I look forward to it.
>
> > Back to the videomaker magazine - I clearly recall an article
> > on making "do-it-yourself" reflectors from umbrellas and foil.
> > This is another possibility. Or, just get a white umbrella (or
> > any color, and paint the inside white) - they reflect the light
> > against the umbrella and onto your subjects.
>
> Now this is what I like. I like the idea of such a set. I think it would
> have a certain appeal to my viewers.
There may be a similar article online - check it out with Google. Also,
Videomaker may offer back issues or article reprints, if you can't find that
issue in the library. It was about 2-3 years ago, as I recall.
> > What's worked for me in the past is to make on key light (the
> > brightest light) illuminating both subjects, spaced fairly evenly
> > from both (but NEVER in line with a camera), then a seperate
> > fill for each (fill is a less bright light that fills in the shadows so
> > they aren't so dark). All in all, remember, you want pretty
> > even lighting for what you're doing.
>
> So the most powerful one being below or above the cameras with two more on
> each side to handle the shadows?
The EASIEST way to handle it is to shoot under fluorescent light. But watch
the white balance if you do that - otherwise it will look funny. It's also
by no means the BEST way to do it.
Using the standard "3-point" lighting system (which you could do with the
umbrella lights I mentioned), you would typically place the key and fill
lights slightly above the subjects pointing down. You may be able to use
only two (one key and one fill) or you may have to use 3 or 4, depending on
how much area the light covers and how far apart the subjects are. If the
lights are above the subjects, though, you should also consider a softer
light in front of them on the floor, to soften the shadows under their chin
and nose. Another consideration may be a "rim" light, or back light, to give
a slight illumination around the edges of the subjects to set them apart
from the background. Personally, I don't think this is necessary for what
you're doing, but you may like the effect.
DK
Probably not a concern, but contracts and/or releases from everyone involved
is always a good idea. Generally, they get money if you get money FOR THE
EPISODE THEY WORK ON.
Do you get Wally George where you live? Try to find him. IMO, it's a stupid
show, but it's not much beyond the level you're working at, and he's been on
the air for years now - and has advertisers!
If you don't, I'll see if I can tape a copy of it for you...
DK
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xprt.net> wrote in message
> news:vmoo2ej...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Scott T. Jensen" wrote ....
> > .....
> > > Now if I decided to get a third camera, I'd have two
> > > small boxes on the left. The top small box being a
> > > close-up of the interviewer (me) and the bottom small
> > > box being the wide shot of the interviewer and interviewee.
> > >
> > > What do you think of the above idea[s]?
> >
> > Remember that most of the interviews you see on TV
> > were shot with ONE camera. The actual interview is
> > shot with the camera on the interviewee. Then after
> > the interview is over, the camera is reset to get
> > interviewer questions/reaction inserts to be edited
> > into place in post-production. Big-budget shows (like
> > 60 minutes can afford two cameras/operators to shoot
> > "TV-style".
>
> I did not realize this. Hmmm. Should I just use one camera then and not
> the two I have? Would that be simpler to produce?
No - if you have two cameras, use them. But the money that you would have
spent on another camera would serve you better going into sound and lighting
equipment.
Richard Crowley
> To use your same argument - the pros know what works
> best, and the pros use wireless mics. Watch Leno,
> Letterman, Conan, etc. and you'll see that to be
> the case.
Completely different kind of production. If you are shooting
a show where the host and guests walk on and off the set
during a live program, of course wireless mics make sense.
But I'll say it again. 99% of all the sit-down interviews you
see on TV use WIRED clip-on mics. I am assuming he is
talking about interviews like 60 Minutes, History Channel,
etc. show. Talk shows are not interviews by my definition.
No professional would use a wireless mic when the situation
permits using a wired mic. There is just no advantage and a
ton of disadvantages.
> You may be right about the price. In the past, Radio Shack
> used to carry a wireless camera mic that ran about $50-75.
> I have not been able to find it recently.
Most people I know who have been there and tried it now
believe that wireless mics <$200 are toys, and <$500 are
usually too cheap to be reliable. If you can't afford a good
one, rent it, or do without. Cheap wireless mics are, at best,
a gamble and are usually a prime waste of money for low-
budget videographers.
I know that is a controversial statement here in
news:rec.video.production, but I dare you to ask it in
news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound and see what the
production sound professionals say. Note that to them
anything <$1500 or $2000 is a "cheap" wireless mic.
DK
> "DK" wrote ...
> > To use your same argument - the pros know what works
> > best, and the pros use wireless mics. Watch Leno,
> > Letterman, Conan, etc. and you'll see that to be
> > the case.
>
> Completely different kind of production. If you are shooting
> a show where the host and guests walk on and off the set
> during a live program, of course wireless mics make sense.
>
> But I'll say it again. 99% of all the sit-down interviews you
> see on TV use WIRED clip-on mics. I am assuming he is
> talking about interviews like 60 Minutes, History Channel,
> etc. show. Talk shows are not interviews by my definition.
>
> No professional would use a wireless mic when the situation
> permits using a wired mic. There is just no advantage and a
> ton of disadvantages.
If all involved are going to be sitting down and not moving around, then I
certainly will concede the point. I just want him to consider all the
ramifications - if people are moving around, a wired mic can cause
difficulties. But I'm with you in that if they're just sitting, a wired mic
is better, as well as cheaper.
> > You may be right about the price. In the past, Radio Shack
> > used to carry a wireless camera mic that ran about $50-75.
> > I have not been able to find it recently.
>
> Most people I know who have been there and tried it now
> believe that wireless mics <$200 are toys, and <$500 are
> usually too cheap to be reliable. If you can't afford a good
> one, rent it, or do without. Cheap wireless mics are, at best,
> a gamble and are usually a prime waste of money for low-
> budget videographers.
I've had very good luck with the $250 Azden WMS-Pro model - at distances of
up to about 50 feet. Sound is good and at close ranges there is no
interference to speak of.
> I know that is a controversial statement here in
> news:rec.video.production, but I dare you to ask it in
> news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound and see what the
> production sound professionals say. Note that to them
> anything <$1500 or $2000 is a "cheap" wireless mic.
Of course, we ARE talking about a micro-budget production, not a TV show or
a feature. There is a place for the low-end mics, and this is probably it.
But, again, if nobody is moving around, I'll agree that a wired mic is the
way to go.
Jay Rose CAS
> > a wired mic will work. It is more hassle, more risk, and FAR
> > more expensive to get a wireless mic with equivalent quality
> > to a wired mic (like 10x).
>
> To use your same argument - the pros know what works best, and the pros use
> wireless mics. Watch Leno, Letterman, Conan, etc. and you'll see that to be
> the case.
That's because host and guests move around. The networks also use $4k
wireless rigs.
Unless you're prepared to spend for a fully wireless digital rig, it won't
sound as good as a wire. And if you're in a low- or no-budget situation, a
wireless will sound a lot worse than a wire and not be reliable.
--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
MSu1049321
and garage bands, sound like baby monitors or the kareoke stuff you tune in on
the bottom of your stereo's FM band to use. You want a manly wireless that
won't let you down: price a lectrosonics. In 15 years of using them, they've
never let me down. Ever. On a budget? Use quality hardwired mics, get a free
catalog or visit the site for the company called FullCompass: they have tons
of mics, and tell you how to use each one best, what it is most suited for.
They also have different price ranges.
If this is a serious project, rent good gear until you can afford to buy it. It
always works and works well, you don't have to pay to maintain it or absorb the
amortization costs while it becomes obsolete, you can always use the latest
model, and you're training yourself in proper technique all the time you're
using it.
DK
news:20030920230113...@mb-m02.aol.com...
As we discuss this, remember the OP's intentions - an internet broadcast
(and downloadable) talk show.
I think all of the mics discussed will fit the needs for this purpose. This
isn't network TV we're talking about. Hell, it's not even local access
cable! He's trying to do this on the cheap, and I get the impression that
$1500 for a mic system is a bit out of the budget range.
Andys cam
>and garage bands, sound like baby monitors or the kareoke stuff you tune in
>on
>the bottom of your stereo's FM band to use
Clueless asshole
MSu1049321
Pipe down, now, the grownups want to talk.
Andys cam
>Pipe down, now, the grownups want to talk.
I've read you before and the comment is accurate
Scott T. Jensen
> Probably not a concern, but contracts and/or releases from
> everyone involved is always a good idea.
Same release form as the one used for the interviewees?
> Generally, they get money if you get money FOR THE
> EPISODE THEY WORK ON.
That makes sense.
> Do you get Wally George where you live? Try to find him.
> IMO, it's a stupid show, but it's not much beyond the level
> you're working at, and he's been on the air for years now
> - and has advertisers!
>
> If you don't, I'll see if I can tape a copy of it for you...
Nope, I never heard of Wally George. Where might I find him? Public
access? Cable network?
Scott T. Jensen
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xprt.net> wrote:
> > "DK" wrote ...
> > No professional would use a wireless mic when the situation
> > permits using a wired mic. There is just no advantage and a
> > ton of disadvantages.
>
> If all involved are going to be sitting down and not moving
> around, then I certainly will concede the point. I just want
> him to consider all the ramifications - if people are moving
> around, a wired mic can cause difficulties. But I'm with you
> in that if they're just sitting, a wired mic is better, as well as
> cheaper.
All guests will already be seated when the interviews start and will remain
so until the end.
Scott T. Jensen
> If this is a serious project, rent good gear until you can afford
> to buy it. It always works and works well, you don't have to
> pay to maintain it or absorb the amortization costs while it
> becomes obsolete, you can always use the latest model, and
> you're training yourself in proper technique all the time you're
> using it.
How much would it cost for a day's rental? Again, I'm in Madison,
Wisconsin, USA if it matters.
Scott T. Jensen
"DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> > "DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote>
> > > What's worked for me in the past is to make on key light (the
> > > brightest light) illuminating both subjects, spaced fairly evenly
> > > from both (but NEVER in line with a camera), then a seperate
> > > fill for each (fill is a less bright light that fills in the shadows
so
> > > they aren't so dark). All in all, remember, you want pretty
> > > even lighting for what you're doing.
> >
> > So the most powerful one being below or above the cameras
> > with two more on each side to handle the shadows?
>
> The EASIEST way to handle it is to shoot under fluorescent light.
As the fluorescent lights I believe you're talking about are long, should I
position them vertically or horizontally?
> But watch the white balance if you do that - otherwise it will look
> funny.
We don't have Lowes in Madison, Wisconsin. We do have Home Depot. When
visiting them yesterday, they didn't have any tungstun lights. They did
have some that were pink. Should I used some of those? Have all the lights
be those?
> It's also by no means the BEST way to do it.
My plan is to gradually improve everything as time goes along.
> Using the standard "3-point" lighting system (which you could
> do with the umbrella lights I mentioned), you would typically
> place the key and fill lights slightly above the subjects pointing
> down. You may be able to use only two (one key and one fill)
> or you may have to use 3 or 4, depending on how much area
> the light covers and how far apart the subjects are. If the lights
> are above the subjects, though, you should also consider a softer
> light in front of them on the floor, to soften the shadows under
> their chin and nose. Another consideration may be a "rim" light,
> or back light, to give a slight illumination around the edges of the
> subjects to set them apart from the background. Personally, I
> don't think this is necessary for what you're doing, but you may
> like the effect.
The set that I'm hoping to use will be a private very nice showcase bar at a
local micro-brewery. And if this doesn't go through, I plan to seek out a
bar that will be up for this. Possibly shooting during the day on Saturdays
and Sundays when they're closed.
The idea is for me (the interviewer) to stand behind the bar like a
bartender and interview the guest who will be on the other side of the bar
and sitting on a barstool. Would any of the above instructions change
because of this set-up?
Scott T. Jensen
> > Shack shotgun that goes for about $60. It gives a pretty
> > good sound for the money. However, it IS a directional
> > mic - the best use in this situation would be to have it
> > pointed between both subjects from about 10' away.
>
> A $25 "lapel" mic clipped on the subject is almost always
> better than even a $2500 shotgun 10 feet (or even 5 feet)
> away!
>
> experience with this product, but if I were doing interviews
> on a limited budget that is where I would start.
Yesterday, I went down to my local Radio Shack and they have them. They
were $25. I have put them on the list of stuff to buy for the show.
Mike Kujbida
"cheap lighting" in the search string. It brings up an article titled
"Lighting on the Cheap" where the author does a shopping trip to Home Depot.
It doesn't get much cheaper than this. Enjoy.
Mike
MSu1049321
going to have to take a hard look at what the background behind the guest will
look like. Also, often bars have lots of shiny features, polished wood, glass,
brass... things your human eye may gloss over, but that can freak out a camera.
All these might be sources of bad reflections, so you will have to light
carefully to avoid reflective 'hot spots'. Frankly, I think it works better if
you're both on the same side of the bar.
Too keep a bar atmosphere, you keep the overall lighting low, place one
softlight key on each person, set at about 45 degrees up and 45 to the side as
a start, have spill from each key be fill for the opposite person, then cut
yourselves out of the dark background and add dimension, by putting a backlight
in to add a rim of light to the shoulders and the back of the head. You can
play with colored gels a little for this light, and you might take a fourth
light and let it wash over parts of the bar back to make interesting, but not
distracting, highlights.
Try renting a real light kit at least once, I would say 50 bucks would be
fair for a three-light kit. Ask the rental place if they have some gels too,
otherwise, try a high-end camera shop or order online thru markertek or
similar. While renting the lights, ask the guys there where you could find
someone with a nonlinear edit system and a low rate for a "beginner" project.
Rental people by nature have ties and inside dope on who's shooting what and
where, and who has editing gear to rent access time on. Google the Madison area
for video equipment rental places, or call the media department at the
university and ask for a referral.
Two wired "lav" mics for audio, ratshack if that's all you can afford, but stay
away from Radio Shack, or low-end Samson or Nady wireless mics. They are
nothing but trouble in my experience, the minute you're counting on them for
capturing wedding vows, or whispered dialog between two actors, or a brilliant
speech by a businessman, they start to drop out or pick up interference. If
you were more skilled and practiced in editing, i might recommend a good lav
mic attached to a minidisk recorder, much more reliable than the cheap
wireless, higher quality for the same or less money. The catch is you have more
editing work in post to synch up the minidisk track with the on-camera audio.
Whatever you do, promise me you're not going to try to do this using the cheesy
on-camera mic alone.
Andys cam
thread is "zero-budget"
MSu1049321
Where was I? Oh, yeah. Besides researching at sites like DV.Com's forums and
maybe CreativeCow.net's forums, there is quite a wealth of info on how to do
things on the cheap over at Vidpro.org's web site. There are instructions over
there on how to make inexpensive softlights, inexpensive sets that look good,
and various tips and techniques that you can use when you don't want to spend
big bucks on single-purpose gear. I'm a big fan of tools that are
multi-purpose, where appropriate. What you want to do is spend your limited
money where it does the most good; "on the screen" as they say in Hollywood.
When you buy stuff, it should be quality stuff that you can use a long time.
Lights are a great example of this. The junkyard wars stuff is only to get you
by until you can afford the Good Stuff. no shame in using Menards or Home
Depot stuff when you can only afford that, but you should be trying to get past
that stage as soon as practical.
When shopping ebay and the like, I would look for used lowel stuff: you can get
the parts for what's broken or missing, they are durable (except the knobs on
the stands;-)), they are good value for money. Since you can make softboxes
at home from the instructions at Vidpro, you'd be safe first getting a
tota-light or two to be used with umbrellas, a bounce card, or the softboxes.
I would stay away from the lowel v-lights, those are the only lowel products i
never did much like. Lowel pro's, omni-pros, and i-lights, are all great
multi-purpose instruments, you can really build a great kit around these, a
piece at a time, as and when you can afford it. And the rental place will let
you get your hands on these and TRY them before you buy them. If you can
strike up a camaradrie with the rental people, they will also probably give you
a tutorial at the shop, if they have the time.
The cheapest thing of all, and the most efficient, is to keep researching a bit
longer; the more you read up on technique, the fewer expensive mistakes you'll
make later. Do see if you can't find and talk to some people at the University
there, they have folks just itching to practice their new skills, even for
free.
DK
> "DK" wrote:
> > Probably not a concern, but contracts and/or releases from
> > everyone involved is always a good idea.
>
> Same release form as the one used for the interviewees?
Not exactly - you'll want a crew contract. I'll dig that up along with the
other for you.
> > Generally, they get money if you get money FOR THE
> > EPISODE THEY WORK ON.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > Do you get Wally George where you live? Try to find him.
> > IMO, it's a stupid show, but it's not much beyond the level
> > you're working at, and he's been on the air for years now
> > - and has advertisers!
> >
> > If you don't, I'll see if I can tape a copy of it for you...
>
> Nope, I never heard of Wally George. Where might I find him? Public
> access? Cable network?
He airs locally in Southern California. He has a website, but I don't think
there are any clips on it. I'll see if I can get ahold of a copy for you.
DK
> "MSu1049321" <msu10...@aol.com> wrote:
> > If this is a serious project, rent good gear until you can afford
> > to buy it. It always works and works well, you don't have to
> > pay to maintain it or absorb the amortization costs while it
> > becomes obsolete, you can always use the latest model, and
> > you're training yourself in proper technique all the time you're
> > using it.
>
> How much would it cost for a day's rental? Again, I'm in Madison,
> Wisconsin, USA if it matters.
For what you're doing, don't bother. It's not worth the rental.
Despite what MSU... is saying, a cheap $25 radio shack lapel mic will work
just fine for what you are doing. I KNOW - I HAVE DONE THIS.
I have produced talk shows on budgets of less than $50, with production
equipment totaling about $400 in total value. (camera, lights, microphones,
etc.). As you get more experience, then you'll want to get better equipment.
DK
news:vmrj0qd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > "DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote>
> > > > What's worked for me in the past is to make on key light (the
> > > > brightest light) illuminating both subjects, spaced fairly evenly
> > > > from both (but NEVER in line with a camera), then a seperate
> > > > fill for each (fill is a less bright light that fills in the shadows
> so
> > > > they aren't so dark). All in all, remember, you want pretty
> > > > even lighting for what you're doing.
> > >
> > > So the most powerful one being below or above the cameras
> > > with two more on each side to handle the shadows?
> >
> > The EASIEST way to handle it is to shoot under fluorescent light.
>
> As the fluorescent lights I believe you're talking about are long, should
I
> position them vertically or horizontally?
Actually, I meant the lights that are already installed - like in most
retail stores. I'm assuming the microbrewery doesn't have these?
As I said, though, it's the EASIEST, but by no means the best. It will,
however, get you started while you learn more about lighting.
Whatever you do, though, DO NOT mix flourescent lighting, Daylight, and/or
incandescent light. Each of these has a different color temperature and will
produce a different look. Until you REALLY know how to handle lighting,
mixing them will cause you all sorts of grief with your color and white
balance.
> > But watch the white balance if you do that - otherwise it will look
> > funny.
>
> We don't have Lowes in Madison, Wisconsin. We do have Home Depot. When
> visiting them yesterday, they didn't have any tungstun lights. They did
> have some that were pink. Should I used some of those? Have all the
lights
> be those?
You must have spoken to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Tungsten lights are your standard light bulbs - the filament inside is made
of tungsten. Every Home Depot I've been to carries them.
Not significantly, but you may be able to place lights ON the bar (off to
the side) or hide some behind the bar. Not knowing the exact setup, I can't
offer any more..
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> > "DK" wrote:
> > > Probably not a concern, but contracts and/or releases from
> > > everyone involved is always a good idea.
> >
> > Same release form as the one used for the interviewees?
>
> Not exactly - you'll want a crew contract. I'll dig that up along
> with the other for you.
Thanks!
And sorry for the delay in replying. A lot of things have been happening
with this. I've talked to a couple tavern owners and all of them are
interested in hosting the show. However, one of them suggested I do it in
another location and I'm currently exploring that. Not sure if I should
tell what that location is quite yet. One, I'd hate someone use doing it
before I do it. Two, I'd like one of them to express interest first so I
can keep the needle on the wish-o-meter down. ;-) However, I will say the
new possible location would essentially have the interviews be around a
table.
There's also a chance the above places (the taverns and the mystery
locations) will be at least willing to pay cash and/or barter to have it at
their places and I being able to use part of this to get a more professional
person(s) and their professional equipment to tape these shows on Sundays.
I'm right now talking to a couple about this. If anyone knows someone in
the Central Wisconsin area that might be also up for this, I'd appreciate an
introduction to them. :-)
> > > Do you get Wally George where you live? Try to find him.
> > > IMO, it's a stupid show, but it's not much beyond the level
> > > you're working at, and he's been on the air for years now
> > > - and has advertisers!
> > >
> > > If you don't, I'll see if I can tape a copy of it for you...
> >
> > Nope, I never heard of Wally George. Where might I find him?
> > Public access? Cable network?
>
> He airs locally in Southern California. He has a website, but I
> don't think there are any clips on it. I'll see if I can get ahold of
> a copy for you.
Again, thanks!
Scott Jensen
--
Peer-to-peer networking (a.k.a. file-sharing) is entertainment's future.
If you'd like to know why, read the white paper at the link below.
http://www.nonesuch.org/p2prevolution.pdf
Scott T. Jensen
Thanks for all the advice.
There's been some developments and I've held off from posting until
something solid happens. However, I'd not like this thread to die so I'll
bring you and others here up to date. Nothing solid yet though.
I've talked to some tavern owners and they're all interested in hosting the
show. However, one of them (a friend of mine ... true friend that wants me
to succeed more than possibly help out his business ... which he said before
telling me the following) suggested another location and I'm currently
exploring that location. I don't want to go into too much detail about the
new location yet. One, I'd hate someone else doing it at that location
before I do. Two, I'd like to keep the needle on the wish-o-meter down as
much as possible. What I can say is that the new location would essentially
have the interviews done around a table.
Another change is group interviews. Due to the table location and a change
in how I'd like to do the show, I'll be interviewing three to six people at
a time. All of us on one side of the table. I'm figuring with two camera,
now would be a good time to use the technique of one camera being a pan shot
of all of the people at the table and the other moving around for close-ups.
In the editing room, the pan shot would be used for the transition to the
next close-up.
Another update is that there might be the possibility that the taverns and
mystery locations will pay cash and/or barter to have the show filmed at
their locations. In talking to other friends, some of them know people who
are video professionals (of varying degrees) that might be up for taking
care of the camera work in exchange for some cash and/or cut of the barter
deal plus some advertising on the show. Any advice on how to possibly deal
with this situation? And if anyone knows of someone similar in Central
Wisconsin, I'd appreciate an introduction to them. :-)
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> > "MSu1049321" <msu10...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > If this is a serious project, rent good gear until you can afford
> > > to buy it. It always works and works well, you don't have to
> > > pay to maintain it or absorb the amortization costs while it
> > > becomes obsolete, you can always use the latest model, and
> > > you're training yourself in proper technique all the time you're
> > > using it.
> >
> > How much would it cost for a day's rental? Again, I'm in
> > Madison, Wisconsin, USA if it matters.
>
> For what you're doing, don't bother. It's not worth the rental.
>
Please see my latest reply to MSU for what I'm now planning.
Thanks for the help!
Scott T. Jensen
Thanks! I printed off a copy. :-)
MSu1049321
multiple presenters and guest speakers, featuring live call-in Q& A sessions.
One of the things to watch out for if you're going to do 3-6 people around a
table is that you don't make everybody go around the table in left to right
order, each takign aturn and giving the whole story before the next person
talks... this means the audience and the last speaker have to wait untilt he
end of the show to hear from tail-end Charlie, meanwhile, he's been sitting
there like a lump for 20 minutes. What you want is a strong, capable
moderator, who bounces back and forth between everybody. Hopefully, everybody
gets to say something every two minutes or so. I'm sure you'll get lots of
opinions on how to light this (round?) table, from the Charlie Rose limbo look
to the Colin Quinn Tough Crowd approach. You might even shoot them around a
pool table, playing a game while talking. That's a more challenging situation
than a beginner like you should try. You have options for micing this: PZM
boundary type on the table getting everybody, or hard-wired lav mics on each
person, fed into a mixer, then the camera. Or a combo. For six people at the
table, I would budget for three cameras: one for a master shot, one for the
three on the right, one for the three on the left. With practice, you can do
this with two cams and a good cameraman, but to start, three is safer.
Scott T. Jensen
> One of the things to watch out for if you're going to
> do 3-6 people around a table is that you don't make
> everybody go around the table in left to right order,
> each takign aturn and giving the whole story before
> the next person talks... this means the audience and
> the last speaker have to wait untilt he end of the
> show to hear from tail-end Charlie, meanwhile, he's
> been sitting there like a lump for 20 minutes. What
> you want is a strong, capable moderator, who
> bounces back and forth between everybody.
> Hopefully, everybody gets to say something every
> two minutes or so.
We'll see how I do. At no time was I planning on having everyone get a turn
at talking (McLaughlin style), but simply letting it flow as it goes.
That's one of the reasons for having more than one guest. I view my job is
more along the lines of pulling out the wallflowers and getting them to
voice their opinions. That and keeping the discussion on track and lively.
Things slow down, I toss out another question.
> I'm sure you'll get lots of opinions on how to light this
> (round?) table...
Half circle and the guests and myself on the curve side.
> ...from the Charlie Rose limbo look to the Colin
> Quinn Tough Crowd approach.
No clue what any of those mean. :-)
> You might even shoot them around a pool table, playing
> a game while talking. That's a more challenging situation
> than a beginner like you should try.
No the situation has all of them seated.
> You have options for micing this: PZM boundary type on
> the table getting everybody, or hard-wired lav mics on each
> person...
I was thinking of using clip-on mics.
> ...fed into a mixer...
What's cheap-but-good mixer?
> ...then the camera. Or a combo. For six people at the table,
> I would budget for three cameras: one for a master shot, one
> for the three on the right, one for the three on the left. With
> practice, you can do this with two cams and a good
> cameraman, but to start, three is safer.
Sorry, but I only have two cameras and will need to make do with them.
DK
news:vnkkmbg...@corp.supernews.com...
<...>
> We'll see how I do. At no time was I planning on having everyone get a
turn
> at talking (McLaughlin style), but simply letting it flow as it goes.
> That's one of the reasons for having more than one guest. I view my job
is
> more along the lines of pulling out the wallflowers and getting them to
> voice their opinions. That and keeping the discussion on track and
lively.
> Things slow down, I toss out another question.
Look at "Politically Incorrect" - that sounds a lot like what you're
describing, albeit without the table
> > I'm sure you'll get lots of opinions on how to light this
> > (round?) table...
>
> Half circle and the guests and myself on the curve side.
>
> > ...from the Charlie Rose limbo look to the Colin
> > Quinn Tough Crowd approach.
>
> No clue what any of those mean. :-)
>
> > You might even shoot them around a pool table, playing
> > a game while talking. That's a more challenging situation
> > than a beginner like you should try.
>
> No the situation has all of them seated.
>
> > You have options for micing this: PZM boundary type on
> > the table getting everybody, or hard-wired lav mics on each
> > person...
>
> I was thinking of using clip-on mics.
>
> > ...fed into a mixer...
>
> What's cheap-but-good mixer?
For what you're doing, you should be able to find some at Radio Shack or
Best Buy. Also consider looking at the mixers you can find at some Music
stores. You'll probably want 6 channels - that would give you 5 mics (you
and 4 guests) with one extra channel for other purposes or an extra mic. You
don't need a lot of effects - just straight mixing, so you'll want a volume
control for each channel, possibly a gain, and, if you want to be able to do
stereo mixing, a pan control (you can pan each guest toward the side they're
sitting on).
RS used to sell a 4-channel battery powered one for about $20 that I used
for a radio program awhile back. It's been a long time, so the price is
probably higher, but you may want to look into it. 2 of those, with an audio
sync mark and each running into a seperate camera, would give you
essentially 8 channels.
> > ...then the camera. Or a combo. For six people at the table,
> > I would budget for three cameras: one for a master shot, one
> > for the three on the right, one for the three on the left. With
> > practice, you can do this with two cams and a good
> > cameraman, but to start, three is safer.
>
> Sorry, but I only have two cameras and will need to make do with them.
Try as hard as you can to get one more ASAP.
And in the meantime, get the best camera operators you can find. Teach them
to work together - you can have one camera changing shots while the other
camera is getting the important stuff. For example - as one guest begins
talking, the camera NOT on him pulls back to a wide shot of everyone. Then
while someone else is speaking, the first camera can zoom in on the host for
a close-up of the next question. It will take some time for them to get a
feel for the flow, but it CAN be done.
L David Matheny
<snip>
> > You have options for micing this: PZM boundary type on
> > the table getting everybody, or hard-wired lav mics on
> > each person...
>
> I was thinking of using clip-on mics.
>
> > ...fed into a mixer...
>
> What's cheap-but-good mixer?
>
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=recomptv
I bought one from him recently but haven't received it yet. It is
an automatic mixer that according to A-T is "ideal for meetings,
seminars", etc. You can read more about it here:
http://www.audiotechnica.com/guide/other/automix/ATMX341a.html
I have used one with good results when videotaping seminars.
MSu1049321
all the inputs down until it starts to detect a person talking on a particular
channel, then it brings the gain up for that channel until a second or so after
the guy stops talking, then it drops that input down again. This is terrific
with a large groups of miced folks around a table taking turns, but I'm not
sure how well it works when people talk simultaneously. This is a box normally
used for video teleconferencing rooms.
DK
While many of the automatic systems are decent, they do have their
drawbacks. Sometimes they cut off the beginning of the sound, and if the
speaker says something below threshold, it won't register.
I'd rather have the control offered by a manual mixer.
Scott T. Jensen
> I'd rather have the control offered by a manual mixer.
Do I then have to have someone listening to it to determine who should get
the focus?
Alan Lloyd
wrote:
>"DK" wrote:
>> I'd rather have the control offered by a manual mixer.
>
>Do I then have to have someone listening to it to determine who should get
>the focus?
Generally regarded as a good idea if there are a _large_ number of
open mics. For two or three, leave 'em up.
I've worked shows with nine-person panels - leaving all of those mics
open sounds pretty weird at times.
DK
> "DK" wrote:
> > I'd rather have the control offered by a manual mixer.
>
> Do I then have to have someone listening to it to determine who should get
> the focus?
>
> Scott Jensen
Ideally, yes. Not even so much for the focus as to keep everyone balanced.
If you set your levels and one of the guests starts yelling, it's very
likely that guest's voice will become distorted. At the VERY least, have
your most experienced camera operator wear headphones to monitor the audio
being recorded by the camera.
But if you can't have someone do that, get a level range for each guest -
have them speak very loudly, and set the level just below where you start to
get clipping (distortion), then have them speak quietly. If you can hear
them clearly when they're quiet and there's no distortion when they're loud,
you have a pretty good average level. Of course, you'll have to balance all
of them against each other this way - a mixer with some sort of meter would
be good for this.
If you can have someone run the mixer during the interview, by all means do
so. For what you're doing, you don't need an expert, but at least someone
with decent hearing and reasonable intelligence...
MSu1049321
background noise in your audio track.
L David Matheny
you don't lose room tone. And if several people will be talking
(or singing, etc) at once, an auto mixer is not what you want.
DK
> If you just leave all six mics open all the time, you will get lots of
hiss and
> background noise in your audio track.
Having someone to run the mixers may not be an option for him, though. In
either case, someone needs to monitor the sound, even if it's a camera
operator. I would agree, though, that he needs to get someone to run the
mixer if there is any way at all to do so.
Scott T. Jensen
> Auto mixers generally leave the last mic that was used open so
> you don't lose room tone. And if several people will be talking
> (or singing, etc) at once, an auto mixer is not what you want.
I'm not planning having them speak in turn and fully expect them to jump
into each other's conversations.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated
Scott T. Jensen
> Having someone to run the mixers may not be an option for him,
> though. In either case, someone needs to monitor the sound,
> even if it's a camera operator. I would agree, though, that he
> needs to get someone to run the mixer if there is any way at all
> to do so.
Is this all assuming that everyone will speak in turn? That's not what I'm
seeking. I fully expect them to jump into each other's conversation. A lot
of quick fire comments going all around.
Ken P.
I'm
> seeking. I fully expect them to jump into each other's conversation. A
lot
> of quick fire comments going all around.
>
> Scott Jensen
> --
Buy or rent Shure's 410 auto mixer. It's probably the smoothest and most
versatile auto around.
Buy or rent Crown's PCC 160 mics. They have a good flat response several
feet away from the mic with a remarkable rejection outside of their 180 deg.
pattern.
kp
DK
> "DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote:
> > Having someone to run the mixers may not be an option for him,
> > though. In either case, someone needs to monitor the sound,
> > even if it's a camera operator. I would agree, though, that he
> > needs to get someone to run the mixer if there is any way at all
> > to do so.
>
> Is this all assuming that everyone will speak in turn? That's not what
I'm
> seeking. I fully expect them to jump into each other's conversation. A
lot
> of quick fire comments going all around.
>
> Scott Jensen
>
You'll want the mics open, but the sound levels can get rather jumbled if
the guests speak at different levels - if one jumps in almost yelling,
without someone on the board you can get distortion. Like I said, the IDEAL
is to have someone dedicated to the mixer. But if you can't do that, have
one of the camera guys stationed within arms reach of the mixers so he can
make a quick adjustment if things get a bit hot, and set it back when things
calm down. For this, though, you would establish your range in advance - I
would recommend putting marks (small bits of colored or masking tape work
well) at the low and high end of the range - that way the operator can
quickly slide the control to the low level when someone is yelling, and back
to the high level when they quiet down - it takes less time away from
running the camera
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > ...then the camera. Or a combo. For six people at the table,
> > > I would budget for three cameras: one for a master shot, one
> > > for the three on the right, one for the three on the left. With
> > > practice, you can do this with two cams and a good
> > > cameraman, but to start, three is safer.
> >
> > Sorry, but I only have two cameras and will need to make do
> > with them.
>
> Try as hard as you can to get one more ASAP.
>
> And in the meantime, get the best camera operators you can find.
> Teach them to work together - you can have one camera changing
> shots while the other camera is getting the important stuff. For
> example - as one guest begins talking, the camera NOT on him
> pulls back to a wide shot of everyone. Then while someone else is
> speaking, the first camera can zoom in on the host for a close-up
> of the next question. It will take some time for them to get a feel
> for the flow, but it CAN be done.
Just an update here.
The talks with the tavern owners is just taking too much time. I've decided
to go ahead and produce at least the first few episodes in my living room.
Fortunately, it is a good size living room (15' x 20') with a high cathedral
ceiling. In setting up the discussion table and working around a unique
feature of the show, I've found that I can get good shots with two video
cameras. If there's four at the discussion table (the show's minimum and
that's me with three guests), one camera can film two from across the
opposite side of the table and the other camera can film the other two from
the other side. If I have four guests, the two cameras can film three each
with me in the middle and in both camera shots. This can be done up to
seven (me and six guests) quite nicely.
My idea is to simply switch between these two views to capture who's
talking. No focusing in on one speaker. This way I'd get the speaker on
camera and at least one other person listening and thus giving body talk.
Switching between the shots will hopefully provide nice sense of movement
and action to keep it lively. I've watch WAY too many public access
channels with their single cameras and how boring that is.
If I get a third camera, I would have it be a shot of everyone at the table
and simply use it as a go-between shot when both sides are talking at the
same time.
This Sunday night I will be chatting with a lighting professional. One that
is perfect for what I'm doing and the budget I have. Even if he doesn't
help out on the set, him helping set it up and showing how to do so will
greatly help out. I also encountered a sound technician at my local Radio
Shack while buying those lav mics and inquiring about mixers. He expressed
interest in helping me but so far hasn't replied back to the email I sent
him using the email address he gave. I've held off buying more lav mics (I
have three right now) and a mixer in case this individual helps out. He
says he has a five-mixer.
Anyway, just thought you'd like an update and my current thoughts on how to
do this all. I do GREATLY appreciate the advice people have been giving
here. I directed the lighting guy to this thread and he replied back that
I'm getting good advice from you all. :-)
Oh, there is one issue I'd appreciate additional input on. The backdrop.
The current wall behind the discussion table is a solid off-white wall. I'm
wondering if I should jury-rig a curtain behind it. Is off-white OK for a
background? If not, what would be a good color for the backdrop? It would
need to be a curtain or removable wall panels as painting the back wall is
currently out of the question.
MSu1049321
visual feng-shui, take my word for it. Ignore me, and you WILL look like bad
access programming;-) You want to go from a 2-shot to a single or 3-shot, never
another 2-shot. You go from a wide of the panel to single of a speaker. You go
from a 2 shot of you and the guy to your right to a wide 3- shot when the guy
on your left pipes up, then, you can cut to a single of lefty if he continues,
or back to the original 2-shot. This keeps the audience oriented and the
conversational flow punctuated. You do seem to understand cross-shooting, by
your last post, you described this important technique correctly, i.e. the line
between talent and cameras should be like the legs of the letter "x", which
gives you better face shots, facing in to each other.
The white walls are bad, especially if you're going to be right next to them.
They will throw off auto-iris exposure, they will show shadows from your cheap
lighting, they take up too much visual space in your frame with their negative
space. This is where a professional LD with a good light kit could save the
day. Failing having such, at least move the couch as far away from the wall as
possible, so your shadows don't hit it, then flag off your lighting so no
lights impinge on the wall at all, just your talent. If you had a small
spotlight, you could use it with a cookaloris or "cookie" to throw a diffused
breakup pattern on that white wall, and that could be nice, especially with a
colored gel. Sans cookie, you could gel the light and have it wash across the
wall with a slashing effect.
With all the changes this project keeps having, it's starting to have just a
whiff of troll about it... is this a serious project or not?
Scott T. Jensen
> With all the changes this project keeps having, it's starting
> to have just a whiff of troll about it... is this a serious
> project or not?
Would a photo of the "set" so far be enough proof? Also, I'm on public
record via my white paper. All contact information on that white paper is
still current. Call if you like.
Scott T. Jensen
> With all the changes this project keeps having...
The reason for that is because this project is adjusting, modifying, and
evolving as I progress forward with it. That and I'm receiving advice for
other forums, local professionals, and such. However, the overall project
hasn't changed. It will still be an interview talk show.
DK
It won't be great, but it will work. And it will be AT LEAST as good as much
of the public access (and leased access) crap that's out there. Still, work
for getting it even better - that's where getting operators for the cameras
comes in. IMO, you are better off with two cameras and two good operators
than with three cameras. Of course, if you get two good operators and
another camera, station the operators on the two side cameras and leave the
center one on a wide shot - that's always good for covering if there's
simultaneous camera motion on the other two.
In the meantime - get out there and learn. And for me, what you're doing
worked quite well - learn by doing, and by asking questions of those with
more experience.
> If I get a third camera, I would have it be a shot of everyone at the
table
> and simply use it as a go-between shot when both sides are talking at the
> same time.
right basic idea.
> This Sunday night I will be chatting with a lighting professional. One
that
> is perfect for what I'm doing and the budget I have. Even if he doesn't
> help out on the set, him helping set it up and showing how to do so will
> greatly help out. I also encountered a sound technician at my local Radio
> Shack while buying those lav mics and inquiring about mixers. He
expressed
> interest in helping me but so far hasn't replied back to the email I sent
> him using the email address he gave. I've held off buying more lav mics
(I
> have three right now) and a mixer in case this individual helps out. He
> says he has a five-mixer.
be prepared to do it on your own - I've often had meetings like that where
nobody came through. If it happens to work out, though, that will be great -
nothing makes a production seem more amateur than bad sound. (well, that MAY
be an exaggeration, but not by much)
> Anyway, just thought you'd like an update and my current thoughts on how
to
> do this all. I do GREATLY appreciate the advice people have been giving
> here. I directed the lighting guy to this thread and he replied back that
> I'm getting good advice from you all. :-)
Thanks - it's nice to know that we're appreciated. Especially after some of
the idiots we've had here recently...
> Oh, there is one issue I'd appreciate additional input on. The backdrop.
> The current wall behind the discussion table is a solid off-white wall.
OUCH!
> I'm
> wondering if I should jury-rig a curtain behind it. Is off-white OK for a
> background? If not, what would be a good color for the backdrop? It
would
> need to be a curtain or removable wall panels as painting the back wall is
> currently out of the question.
Not plain, and aesthetically balanced. The off-white MAY be passable, but a
softer color would be better. WHAT color to go with depends on too many
factors - what is the overall feel of your show? A computer tech talk show
would probably work with a cool blue, while a parenting talk show would
probably work best with light earth-tones. If you can, find something to
break up the background so it isn't a plain color. Simple wall hangings can
work (pictures -as long as they don't draw the attention away from the
speakers, diplomas if in a doctors or lawyers office, the signs in the bar,
etc.), but if you can't do that, any sort of texturing will help.
Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, remember to be sure that you and your
guests do not wear white (off-white is probably ok, but not pure white) and
especially not red. Bright red can wreak havoc with your video if you don't
know how to handle it properly. With some experience, you'll be able to get
away with more stuff like that, but keep it simple and safe for now. Also,
pinstripes and other close patterns tend to cause mosaics on screen that can
be very distracting - stay away from those as well.
BTW - I found the contract book. I still haven't found any on disk, but if
you email me your address (don't post it!) I'll make some copies and drop
them in the mail - assuming I don't find my blank computer ones first...
DK
<...>
> With all the changes this project keeps having, it's starting to have just
a
> whiff of troll about it... is this a serious project or not?
I don't get troll at all - quite the contrary. Scott has been asking
questions that seem to be coming from a beginner with a little bit of
knowledge and a lot of enthusiasm, but no experience to speak of. The
changes he's facing are no different than the changes that hit most projects
like this. Hell, how many times are the mega-blockbusters reworked before
production, or even DURING production? I've seen it happen far too often to
think it at all unusual.
Scott T. Jensen
> You don't want to cut between two similar shots as you
> described. It's bad visual feng-shui, take my word for it.
> Ignore me, and you WILL look like bad access
> programming;-) You want to go from a 2-shot to a single
> or 3-shot, never another 2-shot. You go from a wide of
> the panel to single of a speaker. You go from a 2 shot of
> you and the guy to your right to a wide 3- shot when the
> guy on your left pipes up, then, you can cut to a single of
> lefty if he continues, or back to the original 2-shot. This
> keeps the audience oriented and the conversational flow
> punctuated.
I'm just concerned about the way of doing the above with just two cameras.
With three, I can see easily doing the above, but not with two. Then again,
maybe I'm not seeing it the way you do. Here's how I see it. Given your
camera movement instructions above...
There's four people on the other side of the table. Let's just label them
A, B, C, D. A on the far left to D on the far right.
First what I feel would be a relatively easy one. Camera #1 is doing a
single on A while Camera #2 is doing a three-shot on B,C,D. A is talking.
Now D talks up. Camera #1 then turns to focus in on D. Camera #2 operator
see Camera #1 operator nod. Camera #2 operator then does a three-shot on
A,B,C. A talks up again. Camera #1 turns back to A and nods. Camera #2
turns to do a three-shot of B,C,D. To viewers (and due to the magic of
editing), they see A talking ... then D talking in a three-shot with B and C
... then a single-shot of D as he continues to talk ... then A talking in a
three-shot with B and C ... then a single-shot of A ... and back and forth.
However, let's say B is talking and Camera #1 turns to put them into a
single shot. The way I feel this could only be handled properly done is if
Camera #2 does a four-shot. This way if A, C, or D start talking up,
they're covered by #2. C starts talking up and Camera #2 remains doing a
four-shot while Camera #1 turns to do a single-shot of C. To viewers, it
looks like A is talking ... B talks up and is shown in a three-shot with C
and D ... B gets a close-up ... C talks up and is shown in a four-shot of
everyone ... then C gets a close-up. Now if A or D starts talking up,
Camera #1 single-shoots them while Camera #2 does a three shot on the other
three. This I can see it being done and not end up having myself or a guest
talking off camera (to the viewers) for a moment or two because there's not
a camera covering them. This so far has one camera operator doing
single-shots and the other doing panel shots (covering all current
non-talkers).
Now Camera #1 operator could choose to do two-shots once in a while to break
up the routine above. I suppose if the #1 operator would hold of two
fingers and nod right or left to indicate which spare s/he is picking up,
the Camera #2 operator could on the other two ... saying it's either A and B
or C and D. If Camera #1 did B and C, Camera #2 would have to do a
four-shot.
Naturally this is a lot more work than having Camera #1 just focus on A and
B and Camera #2 just focus on C and D. Fixed views would only require one
camera operator to go between the two and just make sure the camera keep
their two targets in view.
And now to toss in more problems. The four on the one side of the table
will naturally curve so they can see and speak to each other. A and D
curving in. B and C likely staying as they are. Given this, Camera #1 will
need to be centered on the table and right next to Camera #2.
Unfortunately, this means A and D will be shown in profile where as B and C
will have face shots.
On top of all this, there will be a person on the camera's side of the table
and centered on the table (part of the show's unique spin) that doesn't
participate in the discussion but cannot be done without. This would
require there to be space on the other side of the table between B and C. A
gap. B and C will likely then go a bit profile and A and D even more so.
Now possibly one camera operator would be all that's needed. One camera
does a fixed four-shot and the other camera turns and does single-shots.
Saying it doesn't get too crazy, that single camera operator could also
bounce between the two cameras and do three-shots with one camera and
single-shots with the other. Instead of Camera #1 operating nodding to
Camera #2 operator for the switch-off, the solo camera operator would simply
move from one camera to the other. Editing making it look like there was
two camera operators.
How does the above sound?
> You do seem to understand cross-shooting, by your last
> post, you described this important technique correctly, i.e.
> the line between talent and cameras should be like the legs
> of the letter "x", which gives you better face shots, facing in
> to each other.
And would continue to be able to do so with three cameras, but I don't think
with two. Given the camera placements of the scenarios above, A and D will
be profile shots and B and C will be face shots with a slight profile.
> The white walls are bad, especially if you're going to be
> right next to them. They will throw off auto-iris exposure,
> they will show shadows from your cheap lighting, they
> take up too much visual space in your frame with their
> negative space. This is where a professional LD with a
> good light kit could save the day.
Tomorrow night I'll see what the one that has asked me to call him when he's
back in town says.
> Failing having such, at least move the couch as far away
> from the wall as possible...
Due to the dimensions of the room, I could move the discussion table
probably five feet away from the back wall.
> ...so your shadows don't hit it, then flag off your lighting
> so no lights impinge on the wall at all, just your talent.
"Flag off"?
And how would I lit up their faces without casting light on the wall?
Lights on either side of the table with hand-made aluminum shutters on the
lights so they don't shine on the back wall?
> If you had a small spotlight, you could use it with a
> cookaloris or "cookie" to throw a diffused breakup
> pattern on that white wall, and that could be nice...
You mean like tiger stripes? Or like a show logo?
> ...especially with a colored gel.
What color normally flatters the subjects on such a back wall?
> Sans cookie, you could gel the light and have it wash
> across the wall with a slashing effect.
In other words, using the principles of camouflage. Breaking up any shadow
that does happen to fall on it.
Scott T. Jensen
> > capture who's talking. No focusing in on one speaker.
> > This way I'd get the speaker on camera and at least one
> > other person listening and thus giving body talk.
> > Switching between the shots will hopefully provide nice
> > sense of movement and action to keep it lively. I've
> > watch WAY too many public access channels with
> > their single cameras and how boring that is.
>
> It won't be great, but it will work. And it will be AT LEAST
> as good as much of the public access (and leased access)
> crap that's out there.
I really do want this show to look as good as it can. I just have a very
limited budget to start it up with.
> Still, work for getting it even better - that's where getting
> operators for the cameras comes in. IMO, you are better
> off with two cameras and two good operators than with
> three cameras.
Please read my reply to MSU for my take how I think MSU is suggesting the
two cameras be operated. I'm leaning to both cameras next to each other and
either one fixed on all four and the other doing single-shot of the talkers
OR, if I've got an ambitious camera operator (and I think I do have one ...
though with little experience), the camera operator bouncing back and forth
between the two cameras (they'd be located next to each other) and then
doing three- or four-shots with one and single shots with the other.
> Of course, if you get two good operators and another
> camera, station the operators on the two side cameras
> and leave the center one on a wide shot - that's always
> good for covering if there's simultaneous camera motion
> on the other two.
I am asking all my friends if they have a digital video camera I can borrow.
Nothing so far.
> In the meantime - get out there and learn. And for me,
> what you're doing worked quite well - learn by doing,
> and by asking questions of those with more experience.
Totally agree. We learned a lot by just re-arranging the living room (and
storing some furniture from it) to get it set up for the show. We were all
jazzed by doing it. It really started to look like a film set with the two
cameras, lights all over the place, wires running here and there, and so
forth. Even have a place for the guests to hang out and watch TV while we
get things ready to go. :-)
We tried using the lights in the house for the lighting of this set and
immediately learned that was a bad idea. We then read over Bruce Johnson's
"Lighting on the cheap"
(http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2001/bjohn
son0401). We're going to hold off doing what it recommends until after I
talk to the lighting professional this Sunday evening. I'm hoping he'll at
least come over and take a look at the set up and offer suggestions.
While doing that, we had someone sit on the camera side of the table and
began working around that problem. The camera-side person will not converse
during the show. They have another job to do. They are also necessary and
will give the show its unique spin. However, having the most petite adult
we know sit there, it did cause problems. This is what caused us to move
the two cameras to either side. Each camera focusing on one half of the
table. In trail runs, it worked fine up to seven people. With an odd
number though, we thought the cameras needed the middle person in both
shots. After a discussion, we felt it would look best for me to sit in the
middle then. Then again, if MSU's feng-shui thing is right, if there's an
odd number of guests, have one camera have one more person in their view
than the other.
Then again, when we move the cameras back more and split the guests so there
was a space in the middle (what the person on the camera-side would block),
they were all viewed adequately by the centered cameras. One taking the
panel shot and the other doing single-shots.
> > I also encountered a sound technician at my local Radio
> > Shack while buying those lav mics and inquiring about
> > mixers. He expressed interest in helping me but so far
> > hasn't replied back to the email I sent him using the
> > email address he gave. I've held off buying more lav
> > mics (I have three right now) and a mixer in case this
> > individual helps out. He says he has a five-mixer.
>
> be prepared to do it on your own - I've often had meetings
> like that where nobody came through.
I agree and have experienced such in other endeavors.
> If it happens to work out, though, that will be great -
> nothing makes a production seem more amateur than
> bad sound. (well, that MAY be an exaggeration, but
> not by much)
It is one of my biggest concerns. It is partly for this reason that my
first guest type was selected by what a few of my friends could fill. They
are more than understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish. The three
I've asked are real cool with possibly having to do it over again and again.
They realize that theirs will be the one I'll be the most rough on and may
need to redo more than once.
> > Oh, there is one issue I'd appreciate additional input on. The
> > backdrop. The current wall behind the discussion table is a
> > solid off-white wall.
>
> OUCH!
:-(
> > I'm wondering if I should jury-rig a curtain behind it. Is
> > off-white OK for a background? If not, what would be
> > a good color for the backdrop? It would need to be a
> > curtain or removable wall panels as painting the back
> > wall is currently out of the question.
>
> Not plain, and aesthetically balanced. The off-white MAY
> be passable, but a softer color would be better. WHAT
> color to go with depends on too many factors - what is the
> overall feel of your show? A computer tech talk show
> would probably work with a cool blue, while a parenting
> talk show would probably work best with light earth-tones.
It is meant to be a show for adults. Talking seriously and no-holds-barred
about many things. Due to it being distributed over peer-to-peer, there
will be no censoring of speech. No bleeps. And I'm looking at interviewing
mainly professionals about their professions and business owners about their
businesses. No mixing. They're all one type. Like all homicide detectives
or all restaurant owners. Additionally, I plan to have on history
professors and teachers to discuss "What if...?" alternative histories ...
people who have all accomplished something unusual (like climbing Mount
Everest) ... and occasionally dabble a bit into more risqué topics and
guests to spice things up. So what color would you suggest might best fit
this type of show?
> If you can, find something to break up the background so
> it isn't a plain color. Simple wall hangings can work (pictures
> -as long as they don't draw the attention away from the
> speakers, diplomas if in a doctors or lawyers office, the signs
> in the bar, etc.), but if you can't do that, any sort of texturing
> will help.
"texturing"?
I could put something on the walls. How about abstract paintings or posters
without a lot of red and white in them?
And I assume if I use color lights to bath the wall that it should then be
clear of hangings and such.
> Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, remember to be sure that
> you and your guests do not wear white (off-white is probably
> ok, but not pure white) and especially not red. Bright red can
> wreak havoc with your video if you don't know how to handle
> it properly. With some experience, you'll be able to get away
> with more stuff like that, but keep it simple and safe for now.
> Also, pinstripes and other close patterns tend to cause mosaics
> on screen that can be very distracting - stay away from those
> as well.
Ok, I've just started up the "Tips for appearing on the show" document which
I'll send to all my future guests. Your above two clothing recommendations
will be the first entry into that document.
> BTW - I found the contract book. I still haven't found any on
> disk, but if you email me your address (don't post it!) I'll make
> some copies and drop them in the mail - assuming I don't find
> my blank computer ones first...
My postal address is located at the end of my white paper that's listed in
my signature.
Thanks for all the help!
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> > 2) Editing. I have a couple friends with video editing
> > equipment, but wonder what would be the best to use.
> > Best as also not very expensive.
>
> You will be a lot happier with NLE.
After reading the thread "TV Editing - Career Advice" in this newsgroup, I
wondered if turning over the editing to an experienced editor far away (such
as GB or Sweden as in that thread) is a viable option. Loading the raw
footage onto a website (password accessible) and the editor download it
wherever they are, edit it, and send back the finished show. Unfortunately,
at this stage, I couldn't pay them ... which probably kills this idea right
there. Now if the show becomes profitable then that's different, but I
doubt experienced editors would be interested in such wishful thinking. On
the other hand, if you did think this was something worth exploring, where
and how would I best do it? Or would I be just asking for a massive
headache if I did?
Another thing I've been wondering about is if to bring in film/TV students
and how to handle them if I did. I'm here in Madison, Wisconsin, USA and
there's University of Wisconsin - Madison (which offers degrees in film and
television) and MATC (a vo-tech school that has photography and visual
communications programs). There's also my alma mater (UW-Platteville) that
also offers degrees in film and television. A lot of my friends have
suggested that I bring in some of these students as these students seek
experience doing this stuff, have at least some experience (if I limit it to
seniors), have far more film/TV knowledge than me, might have some
professional equipment/programs they bring with them, can always use another
credential/reference for their resumes (though I doubt how much of one I
would be until I get this show to be profitable), and some might be willing
to work for free until I can start generating advertising and thus can start
to pay people to help me produce this. Saying this is something I should
pursue, how best would I go about doing it? My approach idea would be to
simply send letters to the professors in these programs, explain what I'm
trying to do, and if they know of any film/TV student that might be
interested, that I'd appreciate if they'd pass my name and phone number
and/or email address along to them.
DK
you imagine. Find a way to have all 4 participants sitting in a "V" shape,
with the cameras at the open end of the "V". You'll be a LOT happier with
the results.
Also, I again refer you to Politically Incorrect, which is set up very much
like you describe.
"Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vnv8ir9...@corp.supernews.com...
DK
> "DK" wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > My idea is to simply switch between these two views to
> > > capture who's talking. No focusing in on one speaker.
> > > This way I'd get the speaker on camera and at least one
> > > other person listening and thus giving body talk.
> > > Switching between the shots will hopefully provide nice
> > > sense of movement and action to keep it lively. I've
> > > watch WAY too many public access channels with
> > > their single cameras and how boring that is.
> >
> > It won't be great, but it will work. And it will be AT LEAST
> > as good as much of the public access (and leased access)
> > crap that's out there.
>
> I really do want this show to look as good as it can. I just have a very
> limited budget to start it up with.
Been there. It's doable, but takes creative thought. You're heading the
right direction.
> > Still, work for getting it even better - that's where getting
> > operators for the cameras comes in. IMO, you are better
> > off with two cameras and two good operators than with
> > three cameras.
>
> Please read my reply to MSU for my take how I think MSU is suggesting the
> two cameras be operated. I'm leaning to both cameras next to each other
and
> either one fixed on all four and the other doing single-shot of the
talkers
> OR, if I've got an ambitious camera operator (and I think I do have one
...
> though with little experience), the camera operator bouncing back and
forth
> between the two cameras (they'd be located next to each other) and then
> doing three- or four-shots with one and single shots with the other.
The way you described it is a lot like I've done mine in the past, and it's
worked well. You need a couple of decent operators, or one REALLY good one.
I did a talk show for cable (that I was paid for) running two cameras by
myself for a couple years. It's rough, but it can be done. The cameras were
typically set about 7-10 feet apart.
If you have two operators, make one the Director (the more experienced) and
make it clear that he has final say. That's probably the one you want doing
close-ups
> > Of course, if you get two good operators and another
> > camera, station the operators on the two side cameras
> > and leave the center one on a wide shot - that's always
> > good for covering if there's simultaneous camera motion
> > on the other two.
>
> I am asking all my friends if they have a digital video camera I can
borrow.
> Nothing so far.
>
> > In the meantime - get out there and learn. And for me,
> > what you're doing worked quite well - learn by doing,
> > and by asking questions of those with more experience.
>
> Totally agree. We learned a lot by just re-arranging the living room (and
> storing some furniture from it) to get it set up for the show. We were
all
> jazzed by doing it. It really started to look like a film set with the
two
> cameras, lights all over the place, wires running here and there, and so
> forth. Even have a place for the guests to hang out and watch TV while we
> get things ready to go. :-)
Paint it green ;). In theater, that place is traditionally called "the green
room". (at least at the theaters I've worked in)
> We tried using the lights in the house for the lighting of this set and
> immediately learned that was a bad idea. We then read over Bruce
Johnson's
> "Lighting on the cheap"
>
(http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2001/bjohn
> son0401). We're going to hold off doing what it recommends until after I
> talk to the lighting professional this Sunday evening. I'm hoping he'll
at
> least come over and take a look at the set up and offer suggestions.
>
> While doing that, we had someone sit on the camera side of the table and
> began working around that problem. The camera-side person will not
converse
> during the show. They have another job to do. They are also necessary
and
> will give the show its unique spin. However, having the most petite adult
> we know sit there, it did cause problems. This is what caused us to move
> the two cameras to either side. Each camera focusing on one half of the
> table. In trail runs, it worked fine up to seven people. With an odd
> number though, we thought the cameras needed the middle person in both
> shots. After a discussion, we felt it would look best for me to sit in
the
> middle then. Then again, if MSU's feng-shui thing is right, if there's an
> odd number of guests, have one camera have one more person in their view
> than the other.
If you're the moderator or host, you SHOULD be sitting in the middle, IMO.
Personally, I don't see too much problem with the crossed 3-shots. But have
the flexibility to move in for tighter shots while covering it with the
other camera.
Also, if you watch a lot of talk shows, you won't always see the person
talking on camera. Often, it may take a couple seconds to get them on camera
after they begin talking - especially in a live-switched situation. If you
have some really good, on-the-ball operators, you can have camera A in a
close-up and leave camera B on a 3-shot on the other side. If someone next
to the person speakingstarts talking, then camera B can QUICKLY swing around
to get that 3-shot, changing sides, while camera A stays on the close-up,
then when camera B is set, camera A can move or pull back. I've done this
without it looking bad at all - you wind up cutting in on the speaker after
he's been speaking for 1-2 seconds. But you have to be FAST!
That's a lot of variety. I would go with something moderately neutral - that
is, avoid the brighter colors that really stand out. pastel shades are good,
and a deep umber shade might work OK, too. Although with incandescent
lighting, you may want to lean more to the blue or green side. Pastel earth
tones are almost always safe.
Of course, there's also duvitene - if lit properly, it's a pure
photographic black. Remeber Babylon 5? If you do, the Minbari council
chamber that looked like a vast cavernous room with 9 spots of light was
actually a rather small room (only about 20x20) lined with duvitene. It may
be more expensive than you can afford, though. Basically, it would give you
a featureless BLACK background, kind of like the PBS actors interview show
(don't remember the name, sorry)
> > If you can, find something to break up the background so
> > it isn't a plain color. Simple wall hangings can work (pictures
> > -as long as they don't draw the attention away from the
> > speakers, diplomas if in a doctors or lawyers office, the signs
> > in the bar, etc.), but if you can't do that, any sort of texturing
> > will help.
>
> "texturing"?
>
> I could put something on the walls. How about abstract paintings or
posters
> without a lot of red and white in them?
If they tend toward the pastels without too much strong color, you're rather
safe. The stronger colors can be used, but be sure they don't distract. As
you're setting this up, remember about visual weight, too - a painting with
a lot of blue or brown (not pastel) would LOOK heavy in your visual
composition.
Of course, another fix for that is to set the cameras far enough back that
you can zoom in quite a ways, and putting the background as far from the
guests as possible, thereby reducing the field of focus, which would throw
the background out of focus.
> And I assume if I use color lights to bath the wall that it should then be
> clear of hangings and such.
Not necessarily, but be aware of how the colors interplay - you could wind
up with some unexpected surprises.
DK
way to go. I've had some VERY impressive work done by students. And some of
them may have a camera, which would solve your 2 vs 3 camera dilemma.
Just remember to feed them.
And if you can, talk to the college and see if you can qualify to give them
internship credits. Depending on the school, this can be as simple as
signing off a piece of paper saying they did so many hours on your show.
"Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vo0gp03...@corp.supernews.com...
Scott T. Jensen
> You have some good ideas there, but it may get a bit more
> complicated than you imagine. Find a way to have all 4
> participants sitting in a "V" shape, with the cameras at the
> open end of the "V". You'll be a LOT happier with the results.
Well, we pulled away the elongated dining table and popped in a square card
table. A "tad" bit tighter seating. Taking out all the inserts on the
dining table still have it too elongated to be visually acceptable for a V
set-up. The square table puts the camera-side person closer to the cameras
though. On the other hand, we could just go to a lumber yard and have a
triangular board cut, drape it with a table cloth, and then be able to raise
it so we could use barstools. It would give more room for the guests, could
have different table sizes for different numbers of guests, and the
camera-side person would be further away from the cameras thus block less of
the guest side. And instead of "V", how about a half-moon shape to the
table?
> Also, I again refer you to Politically Incorrect, which is set up
> very much like you describe.
In visiting their website, it says the show "has ended its run".
David McCall
thread very closely, but thought I might offer some of my opinions.
The room used as a waiting room for musicians, actors, and other
participants is called a green room, but in my experience they are
usually not green. Although they certainly can be green.
I like to see the host at one end so he is always looking in the same
general direction no matter which guest he is speaking with. Otherwise,
he has to look back and forth like he is watching a game of ping-pong.
If you expect to cut it down, it is good to always have a shot that is
fairly tight on the host. Even if it has to be a lockoff shot. That way
you can cover any edit with a shot of the host. Some people try to
use a wide shot for cover, but then you can have an issue with the
positions of participants heads and hands that can cause jump-cuts
if you edit anything out, or rearrange the time. Easier is to keep one
camera tight on the host, and then have the other camera pull out to
a 2 or 3 shot, and then push in once they figure out who is talking next.
This is not the most elegant approach, but it is a lot easier if you don't
have good camera operators and an excellent director, and it is safe.
Try to avoid having much of the light come from the same direction as
the camera. It will always look dull.
Usually it is safest to keep all of the mics hot all of the time. Otherwise
you will loose stuff while you are trying to figure out what is happening.
The safest thing is to just drop them down a bit, and then sneak each
mic up when the person talks.
Just my opinions on the cheap and dirty aproach to a panel. Many of
the sugestions I've seen here have been good, but some require a fairly
experienced crew to pull it off well.
David
DK
> "DK" wrote:
> > You have some good ideas there, but it may get a bit more
> > complicated than you imagine. Find a way to have all 4
> > participants sitting in a "V" shape, with the cameras at the
> > open end of the "V". You'll be a LOT happier with the results.
>
> Well, we pulled away the elongated dining table and popped in a square
card
> table. A "tad" bit tighter seating. Taking out all the inserts on the
> dining table still have it too elongated to be visually acceptable for a V
> set-up. The square table puts the camera-side person closer to the
cameras
> though. On the other hand, we could just go to a lumber yard and have a
> triangular board cut, drape it with a table cloth, and then be able to
raise
> it so we could use barstools. It would give more room for the guests,
could
> have different table sizes for different numbers of guests, and the
> camera-side person would be further away from the cameras thus block less
of
> the guest side. And instead of "V", how about a half-moon shape to the
> table?
To get the guests facing each other, you'll want it to have a rather tight
curve. How tight depends on how much you want them facing each other. Your
idea should work just fine, IMO.
> > Also, I again refer you to Politically Incorrect, which is set up
> > very much like you describe.
>
> In visiting their website, it says the show "has ended its run".
Unfortunately, they have. I wonder if there's any copies available out
there - there aren't pictures on the website?
DK
Just a note - the bit about painting the room green was meant as a joke.
Although I have seen a couple that actually were green.
"David McCall" <david....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7u1gb.694269$uu5.113645@sccrnsc04...
MSu1049321
hotel room, I didn't keep track) and is called "Equal Time", or something like
that with Bill Mahar. Anyhow, it's basically the same show...
David McCall
"DK" <to...@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> wrote in message news:vo1r2kd...@corp.supernews.com...
> Great input, David - and some things that we've missed.
>
> Just a note - the bit about painting the room green was meant as a joke.
> Although I have seen a couple that actually were green.
>
people take the term "green room" quite literally.
So, I just thought I'd mention it :-)
And Thanks
David
Scott T. Jensen
> > > Also, I again refer you to Politically Incorrect, which is set up
> > > very much like you describe.
> >
> > In visiting their website, it says the show "has ended its run".
>
> Unfortunately, they have. I wonder if there's any copies available
> out there - there aren't pictures on the website?
Nope. None.
Scott T. Jensen
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Scott T. Jensen
It's on HBO and called "Real Time with Bill Maher". Just FYI.
Scott Jensen
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> If you're the moderator or host, you SHOULD be sitting in the
> middle, IMO. Personally, I don't see too much problem with
> the crossed 3-shots.
What do you think of David McCall's suggest of one camera fixed on the host
and the other covering the guests?
> Also, if you watch a lot of talk shows, you won't always see
> the person talking on camera.
If using David McCall's suggestion, the camera on me (the host) could just
show me giving some body language..
> That's a lot of variety. I would go with something moderately
> neutral - that is, avoid the brighter colors that really stand out.
> pastel shades are good, and a deep umber shade might work
> OK, too. Although with incandescent lighting, you may want
> to lean more to the blue or green side. Pastel earth tones are
> almost always safe.
Hmmm. A green color light might be nice. I think I'll give this color a
try.
> Of course, there's also duvitene - if lit properly, it's a pure
> photographic black. [snip] It may be more expensive than
> you can afford, though.
Initially, but I'll keep it in mind for the future.
> Of course, another fix for that is to set the cameras far
> enough back that you can zoom in quite a ways, and
> putting the background as far from the guests as possible,
> thereby reducing the field of focus, which would throw
> the background out of focus.
Or wouldn't the opposite also be true? Moving the discussion table as far
away from the background wall as possible. The problem with this though is
I've got one good wall. The other either goes into a hallway or shows
windows (with Venetian blinds ... though these are the same off-white of the
wall).
Scott T. Jensen
> Sorry for jumping in the middle of this.
Welcome aboard, matey!
> I have not been following this thread very closely, but
> thought I might offer some of my opinions.
Thanks.
> I like to see the host at one end so he is always looking
> in the same general direction no matter which guest he is
> speaking with. Otherwise, he has to look back and forth
> like he is watching a game of ping-pong.
Yeah, that's was my thought too. I've also seen panel shows with the host
in the middle and them looking almost frantic in trying to follow the
discussion that's taking place on either side of her/him. I'd like to look
like I've got a cool head and not jumpy.
> If you expect to cut it down...
"cut it down"? Do you mean having two lines of footage and editing between
them?
> ...it is good to always have a shot that is fairly tight on
> the host. Even if it has to be a lockoff shot.
"lockoff shot"? A camera that once set up doesn't have to be messed with
again or the go-between shot? That would help keep down the number of
camera operators. And when the camera operator has a three-shot (all guests
in view), s/he could take a quick peek to insure the fixed camera on the
host is still fixed on the host.
> That way you can cover any edit with a shot of the host.
> Some people try to use a wide shot for cover, but then
> you can have an issue with the positions of participants
> heads and hands that can cause jump-cuts if you edit
> anything out, or rearrange the time. Easier is to keep
> one camera tight on the host, and then have the other
> camera pull out to a 2 or 3 shot, and then push in once
> they figure out who is talking next. This is not the most
> elegant approach, but it is a lot easier if you don't have
> good camera operators and an excellent director, and
> it is safe.
It definitely sounds worth trying. Unless DK, MSU, or others can explain
why not to do this, I think I'll attempt this layout first. Going this
route, I'd have the elongated dining table done "V" style. The host seated
on the short side and the guests seated on the long side. Adding and
removing table inserts based on number of guests. The camera side person
(part of the show's gimmick) would be pretty much invisible which is fine.
And if I went this route, I think I'd try to always limit my guests to
three. It looks like a good number for the set up. Going beyond three only
for a reason like a six-person sports team.
As for position of the table, after fooling around with it, pretty much
everyone has a sold off-white wall behind them which I can color with green
light.
> Usually it is safest to keep all of the mics hot all of the time.
> Otherwise you will loose stuff while you are trying to figure
> out what is happening. The safest thing is to just drop them
> down a bit, and then sneak each mic up when the person talks.
A friend just emailed me that he's got a four mixer I can use. My thought
now is to click in the lav mics of the guests into it and then it into the
camera focused on the guests and then doing a single lav mic without mixer
on the host (me) and clicking it into the camera focused on the host (me).
Doing it this way would probably make editing easier too.
> Just my opinions on the cheap and dirty approach to a panel.
And thank you for giving them!
DK
news:vo35b4n...@corp.supernews.com...
> "DK" wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote:
> > If you're the moderator or host, you SHOULD be sitting in the
> > middle, IMO. Personally, I don't see too much problem with
> > the crossed 3-shots.
>
> What do you think of David McCall's suggest of one camera fixed on the
host
> and the other covering the guests?
Not a bad suggestion at all. THAT is one you can certainly see used on "The
Tonight Show". It gives the editor a good, usable cutaway at any time needed
during the show.
> > Also, if you watch a lot of talk shows, you won't always see
> > the person talking on camera.
>
> If using David McCall's suggestion, the camera on me (the host) could just
> show me giving some body language..
>
> > That's a lot of variety. I would go with something moderately
> > neutral - that is, avoid the brighter colors that really stand out.
> > pastel shades are good, and a deep umber shade might work
> > OK, too. Although with incandescent lighting, you may want
> > to lean more to the blue or green side. Pastel earth tones are
> > almost always safe.
>
> Hmmm. A green color light might be nice. I think I'll give this color a
> try.
Again - careful about too bright a color. Keep to more pastel greens if you
go that way, anything darker will probably be distracting. With an
experienced DP and set designer, you could play with deper colors, but for
now, I would avoid them
> > Of course, there's also duvitene - if lit properly, it's a pure
> > photographic black. [snip] It may be more expensive than
> > you can afford, though.
>
> Initially, but I'll keep it in mind for the future.
I think it's "Inside the Actor's Studio" - it's on PBS and there's just the
interviewer and the actor sitting at a table with totally black background
behind them. There are cases where it could work - again, it depends a lot
on the show. If you're happy with what you get initially, don't be in a
hurry to change it.
> > Of course, another fix for that is to set the cameras far
> > enough back that you can zoom in quite a ways, and
> > putting the background as far from the guests as possible,
> > thereby reducing the field of focus, which would throw
> > the background out of focus.
>
> Or wouldn't the opposite also be true? Moving the discussion table as far
> away from the background wall as possible. The problem with this though
is
> I've got one good wall. The other either goes into a hallway or shows
> windows (with Venetian blinds ... though these are the same off-white of
the
> wall).
You need both.
A camera at wide angle has a much larger depth of field. The depth of field
gets smaller the more you zoom in. Wide enough of an angle, and everything
within 20-30 feet of the camera will be in focus (or barely out of focus),
and anything farther away will be only slightly out of focus. Most
camcorders I've seen will have a fairly clear focus on the person standing
15 feet away and the mountains that are 15 miles away at the wide setting.
At extreme telephoto (don't bother with the digital zoom - disable it if
your camera has it), the depth of field gets much smaller. But you'll have
to move the camera back away from the table in order to have the ability to
zoom in that far. And you'll also want to set the table as far as you can
from the wall to give enough separation for depth of field to have any
effect.
Do a search on "depth of field" and I'm sure you'll get more information
than you ever wanted about it. I suggest using a literal search (use the
quotes) to narrow your search some - that's a specific photography term. How
depth of field applies to film and still photography is just about the same
as it applies to video, so whatever info you get will be useful. I would
suggest a site or two but I don't know of any offhand
DK
>
> It definitely sounds worth trying. Unless DK, MSU, or others can explain
> why not to do this, I think I'll attempt this layout first. Going this
> route, I'd have the elongated dining table done "V" style. The host
seated
> on the short side and the guests seated on the long side. Adding and
> removing table inserts based on number of guests. The camera side person
> (part of the show's gimmick) would be pretty much invisible which is fine.
Sounds like a good plan.
> And if I went this route, I think I'd try to always limit my guests to
> three. It looks like a good number for the set up. Going beyond three
only
> for a reason like a six-person sports team.
What you can do there is have three of them sitting in lower chairs in
front, and the other three on stools or something a little higher (maybe
even on a riser) just behind them. That way, you still cover just about the
same area in the wide shot.
> A friend just emailed me that he's got a four mixer I can use. My thought
> now is to click in the lav mics of the guests into it and then it into the
> camera focused on the guests and then doing a single lav mic without mixer
> on the host (me) and clicking it into the camera focused on the host (me).
> Doing it this way would probably make editing easier too.
Sounds like you've just about got things ready to go!
David McCall
"Scott T. Jensen" <s...@charter.net> wrote in message news:vo38g4h...@corp.supernews.com...
> "David McCall" <david....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If you expect to cut it down...
>
> "cut it down"? Do you mean having two lines of footage and editing between
> them?
>
then editing it down to 20 minutes. If you are keeping the whole thing,
in the original order, then jump cuts are not an issue.
A jump cut is when you see a person in one shot and his hands are up,
but in the very next shot his hands are on the table, or his head is in a
slightly different position, etc.. In some cases even a cut between 2
different people, but the shot is so similar that that the cut looks
awkward or jarring.
If you use the "nose pointing at the center of the screen" trick, then you
can often get away with a cut between the host and a guest, even though
the shot is similar. This is because the host will be looking toward the left
and therefore most of his head will be in the right half of the screen, while
the guest will be looking to the right and his head will be mostly in the left
half of the screen (assuming that the host is on the right :-).
> > ...it is good to always have a shot that is fairly tight on
> > the host. Even if it has to be a lockoff shot.
>
> "lockoff shot"? A camera that once set up doesn't have to be messed with
> again or the go-between shot? That would help keep down the number of
> camera operators. And when the camera operator has a three-shot (all guests
> in view), s/he could take a quick peek to insure the fixed camera on the
> host is still fixed on the host.
>
That is exactly what I meant. Of course it would be better to have an operator
on every camera, but this camera is the best candidate for a locked-off camera.
> > Just my opinions on the cheap and dirty approach to a panel.
>
> And thank you for giving them!
>
You're welcome.
Martin Heffels
<david....@comcast.net> wrote:
>A jump cut is when you see a person in one shot and his hands are up,
>but in the very next shot his hands are on the table, or his head is in a
>slightly different position, etc.. In some cases even a cut between 2
>different people, but the shot is so similar that that the cut looks
>awkward or jarring.
You missed the trend of the "morphing jump-cut"?
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor,
Sydney, Australia
"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground."
SpamPal keeps my mailbox spamfree :) (http://www.spampal.org)