Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,495
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    That's a weird framing on Colbert. And it looks like they may have tried to perfectly center his head. Could be worse though.
    Probably for center frame vertical for IGTV, etc.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    316
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Probably for center frame vertical for IGTV, etc.
    They could still position his face higher in the frame. Maybe they were fighting to keep the logo on the TV in-frame


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,815
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    They could still position his face higher in the frame. Maybe they were fighting to keep the logo on the TV in-frame
    100% all about the logo. And because it wasn't a real built set and they were working with what they had [a corner wall (or two adjacent objects creating one) and shooting high to low for the face], that's most likely the best balance they could achieve.

    ___

    On the note about productions scaling back and/or looking at this new normal as a viable option for the future, I hate to say it but it should have been done a while ago. Everyone wastes way too much money on production. You of course should still have high-quality, big money value - but a lot could be saved on lots of content that truly doesn't need it.


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    468
    Default
    I ran a few tests today to broadcast myself and it's easy when you have all the gear at home and used used to work with it. But for someone not technical savy I'd say it quickly becomes to complicated.


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,196
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    On the note about productions scaling back and/or looking at this new normal as a viable option for the future, I hate to say it but it should have been done a while ago. Everyone wastes way too much money on production. You of course should still have high-quality, big money value - but a lot could be saved on lots of content that truly doesn't need it.
    Had a similar conversation yesterday with a friend who has been in the business 10-20 years longer than me and we both said that when this is "over", neither one of us think that it will be 'business as usual'. They're going to see what they got away with that cost them almost nothing to do, compared to how it was done, and that people still watched. There are a lot of us that used to make a nice living doing a whole lot of Live Shots/talkbacks for the networks, but those really started to disappear about 4-5 years ago when they figured out they could use Skype. And this is at the network level, not local. I used to probably do at least 1-2 LS's a week, almost always as a two-man crew. I was probably doing 50-100 dedicated talkbacks/LS's a year(meaning that was it. we weren't covering an event or anything else. we showed up, did the LS with the person and left), plus all the countless ones from events we were covering. Now, if I do a LS, it's usually from an event we are there covering(like a football game). Dedicated talkbacks/LS's are few and far between, now. I'd probably be surprised if I did more than 10 in a year, now. And I'm probably being generous with myself at 10.

    Now keep in mind that was BEFORE all of this started happening.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,815
    Default
    The thing about basic video production is exactly that...it's basic. Most people can be taught the main fundamentals rather quickly.

    Are people going to start shooting Hollywood films? Of course not. But a camera on a tripod with a mic plugged into it, decent framing, and throwing some light (any light) on what you need lit up is mindless for these types of productions in question.

    In the old days when camera operation was compared to rocket science by some, it was a luxury service. But today you really don't need to pay someone $2500/$5000/$10,000 to do it not only because it's a waste of money but it's not necessary with modern, inexpensive technology.

    In a lot of these cases, most people are only interested in the information; they do not care how you look. (That doesn't mean Colbert should have a show in his living room, but just saying.)

    As soon as phones get really, really good (where you don't have that compressed look), it's really a wrap.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    316
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    On the note about productions scaling back and/or looking at this new normal as a viable option for the future, I hate to say it but it should have been done a while ago. Everyone wastes way too much money on production. You of course should still have high-quality, big money value - but a lot could be saved on lots of content that truly doesn't need it.
    I think you're probably right, although production value never hurts. Why do news anchors have to be good-looking if all the viewer cares about is the information? But everything is cost/benefit and keeping up with what the competition does.

    But yeah I got hired in February by a UK-based app to shoot lit straight-to-camera interviews with experts in NYC. Their idea is to present a video library of informational videos with a nice, consistent look. My immediate reaction was - how are you going to compete with YouTube? I watch hours of experts on there and I don't care how it looks, most of the time I'm just listening anyway and the audio quality is way more important.

    We were scheduling the 2nd shoot when covid shut us down so I haven't found out if their business model is sustainable.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,815
    Default
    Production value should always exist - and sometimes it's more special when you're not saturated with it so much - but a lot of content doesn't need the best-of-the-best, at all times. (YouTube is a great example.)

    As far as looks, I meant more for video production than attractive appearances. Naturally, usually good-looking and good-sounding anchors have those jobs, but I meant people won't care if some content is presented from a phone, or there is a microphone in the shot, or you're a little underexposed, or overexposed; not everything has to be perfect.

    Especially in a world where more and more and more is needed everyday.

    Before you finish one video, you're already being fed the next one.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    316
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    As far as looks, I meant more for video production than attractive appearances.
    Sure but aren't these interrelated? You can make somebody look a lot better with good lighting, even if they look good to begin with. And the quality and the style of the set and graphics imbue the anchor with an aura of power and knowledge.

    But definitely I agree that there are a lot of places where it makes sense to cut corners. But if the production is flush with cash, you can spend some money there. Cost/benefit.

    Apple is spending a ton on Apple TV programming. But they have a ton of cash and the competition for that lucrative market is stiff.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,815
    Default
    ha...not everyone looks the same to everyone even with all of the $$$ in the world.

    But as mentioned above, just hitting them with some light is usually good enough (and will eliminate the undesirable shadows). One soft panel, even a small one, does so much.

    ___

    The current big production value of the news is nice, and it's been done that way forever and that's another reason why it hasn't changed in so long (just works and is ingrained in our minds that that's how it's supposed to be).

    But slowly over time - whether it's for cutting back costs directly or indirectly - as people watch less TV and continue reading online or watching videos on their phones, or tuning into major broadcasts only at certain times less and less (evening news), the way content is delivered could also continue to change into the future based on smart homes and holography.

    Picture waking up and having a robot/voice tell you what's going on in the world (like Alexa but more advanced) as you get ready for your day. Just audio coming out of every room, screens forming and disappearing as you walk through your house. It's in your car, in the stores, etc.

    Everything is connected.

    I know it's science fiction for the most part for now, but it won't be forever.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •