DSLR News Report on CNN.... aweful.

Svart said:
nah, a lot of these reports are planned, shot and edited by the interviewer/newsperson. They don't even get a PA or cameraman anymore. They just set up the camera and do their thing.
Click to expand...


Yep. And, you have to ask - Is it "good enough" for the intended purpose? A piece like that, being seen at 576x324 on a webpage by maybe a few thousand people in the end, is just content for the site and one more page to put ads on.
 
kgimedia said:
This happened to me years ago. I quoted $2000 for a $6000 project and instead the client went to Best Buy and spent $1600 on a HD camera and supplies. He called me 4 weeks later. His girlfriend had shot the footage almost entirely in portrait not landscape. I charged him $1500 for just the "fix" edit.
Click to expand...

I do audio recording as a second job. I have spent years of time honing my craft and spent huge amounts of money finding and acquiring the best gear for the job. Time and time again I'll run into people who say they want to be recorded but when I tell them how much money it would take or the enormous amount of work it actually takes for the band to be properly prepared, I usually get "oh, well our friend will record us in his home studio for free!" or I'll get "well for that price I can just go buy some mics and XXXXX recording interface from XXXXX music store and do it myself." Their end product, if they even get there, is usually less than poor quality. The only problem is that the artist typically thinks it sounds great, wholly because of their ego and pride.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Yep. And, you have to ask - Is it "good enough" for the intended purpose? A piece like that, being seen at 576x324 on a webpage by maybe a few thousand people in the end, is just content for the site and one more page to put ads on.
Click to expand...

It conveyed the story they intended to. In that respect I would say that it did the job.

There is something to be said for production value though. A little bit of interesting footage or simply just making things look prettier can get your audience much more into what you are reporting. That's just a fact of life.

I've seen some good (single reporter) newscasts that were much better than the one in this thread and they made it a bit more entertaining to watch.

Hopefully the person who put this together will learn from the experience and continue to improve. Everybody makes stinkers once in a while.
 
Svart said:
Hopefully the person who put this together will learn from the experience and continue to improve. Everybody makes stinkers once in a while.
Click to expand...


Trust me. They don't give a rat's ass. It's "content". They're not trying to win awards with this stuff. Take a look at the other clips in that "conscious capitalism" series.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Yep. And, you have to ask - Is it "good enough" for the intended purpose? A piece like that, being seen at 576x324 on a webpage by maybe a few thousand people in the end, is just content for the site and one more page to put ads on.
Click to expand...

It would have served the EXACT same purpose as an NPR radio interview. In this case the visuals didn't show us anything we needed to know and didn't hear with perhaps the exception of seeing what people look like, which isn't important to the story.
 
The intereting part for me is that it looks like someone actually "tried" to do something creative but it was poorly executed. This tells me that either it was some intern project, or the kids they are hiring these days don't have a background in video.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
It would have served the EXACT same purpose as an NPR radio interview. In this case the visuals didn't show us anything we needed to know and didn't hear with perhaps the exception of seeing what people look like, which isn't important to the story.
Click to expand...

IMO, I'm with you Ryan... there's no excuse, and there are TOO MANY being made for DSLRs.

It's great, though, that DPs aren't mute in the fact that, after shooting with these contraptions, won't be doing it again if they can avoid it. It seems it was mostly just to experience the liberation... yet, liberation has a price.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
It would have served the EXACT same purpose as an NPR radio interview. In this case the visuals didn't show us anything we needed to know and didn't hear with perhaps the exception of seeing what people look like, which isn't important to the story.
Click to expand...


When it comes to commercial websites - traffic is the ultimate goal. The "purpose" that video is serving and every other video in that series is to just be something they can attach a commercial to that can live on yet another page in the site. More pages mean more searchable live text, more links, more traffic, and more space where they can place ads. I mean, come on, it's barely a step up from an ENG piece and that stuff has a lifespan akin to that of a sand fly.
 
Last edited:
I had to turn it off toward the end because it was pissing me off. I think the problem with a vid like this is that it distracts the viewer from the content. To people who care about cinematography it enrages but, to all others it simply distracts.

I think I take it for granted that I learned about exposure on a still film camera (all manual) and had to spend hours developing my own film. It really teaches you to not waste a shot on a guess at exposure or composition.

Problem with this vid is they could see it all in the view finder as they composed their shots and either didn't care or didn't know it looked bad. (My vote is with the latter) If they had a DVX (or similar cam) they would have been scratching their heads wondering why there were zebras all over everything. With a 7d that info just isn't there. I just can't believe they aired any footage from the field. I would have filled it with titles and more animated still pics.
 
Seems like the usually "Haters" for DSLR technology are within this thread again........ Truth of the matter is technology is getting better and cheaper. This really has "Nothing" to do with a DSLR , but more so the fact of someone operating a camera that does not really know how to use it.


On top of that the edit was simply horrible, the cuts and angles just looked totally off. Stop worrying about people with DSLRS people, your work speaks for it self. If I go and buy a RED camera and use it on a shoot without knowing I'm more than sure the footage would look bad as well.
 
A point which (most) people here seem to be missing is that if my Dad went out and bought a DSLR and a RED and tried to film anything with either, the footage would come out terrible. It's not the tool you use - it's how you use it.

Yes, this is terribly shot and edited, but the guy was using a zoom lens handheld which would look dreadful no matter what the camera (except possibly without the jello). DSLR's look perfectly fine if you work around their limitations, it's just some people don't know what they are. Just like some people shooting with RED's can come out with dreadfully dull images because they don't know how to use it properly.

There will always be a place for people who know how to shoot good video, the only 'market' the DLSRs have taken is the extremely low end which no one should want to be in anyway. Anything higher and the fact that you can shoot good video (with a DSLR or other camera) is still the most important thing.
 
Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but there's another problem in this video that makes me sick:

The lack of control of exposure.

There should have been a 20x20 diffusion up breaking off that sunlight falling on them and bounce in whatever light necessary to the darker sides of their faces. This looks like it was shot last minute and with no experienced shooter.
 
Dave W said:
Yes, this is terribly shot and edited, but the guy was using a zoom lens handheld which would look dreadful no matter what the camera (except possibly without the jello).
Click to expand...

When did we decide to ignore the scores of professional ENG shooters on shoulder mounts?
 
life4eva said:
Seems like the usually "Haters" for DSLR technology are within this thread again........ Truth of the matter is technology is getting better and cheaper. This really has "Nothing" to do with a DSLR , but more so the fact of someone operating a camera that does not really know how to use it.


On top of that the edit was simply horrible, the cuts and angles just looked totally off. Stop worrying about people with DSLRS people, your work speaks for it self. If I go and buy a RED camera and use it on a shoot without knowing I'm more than sure the footage would look bad as well.
Click to expand...


I could not agree more. It's not an issue of "DSLR being inferior" that make the piece crappy. Look at this spot and tell me it's even worth attempting to differentiate Red footage from 5DMKII footage, or that the laymen would in a million years even give a crap - but also wouldn't be able to tell the difference either. Crap technique is crap technique, no matter what you're using:

http://www.vimeo.com/12773246
 
Last edited:
Chris, even though i agree with you on the surface you forget that with certain results there are other results one might not want - in this case the credibility of the network is put in questions. Yes, one video doesn't all the sudden turn CNN into New York Post (or other laughable source of "information") but it DOES something to our perception. If the video is of such poor quality (and any layman can say that it is), then how can i trust the quality of reporting in the video? And that has serious repercussions as the whole network is loosing its trustworthiness.
 
"Harlow joined CNN in 2008 where she is currently an anchor for CNNMoney.com and is based in New York City. Borrowing on the success of Forbes.com as well as one of its stars, Harlow, CNNMoney produced 30 original video reports a day and played them on its site along with the content it gets from the CNN television network. For this initiative, CNN built a new television studio and hired Harlow and a staff of 11 people."


Like I said - It's online content, first and foremost. If your job is to produce 30 "video reports" a day (just for online use), then I'm sure you're going to nitpick about framing, exposure, and the overall quality of each video. Just the fact that they pump out 30 a day tells you right there what their priority is. And, I doubt highly that it's hurting CNN especially when you consider that it's not even their primary activity.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Sorry if whomever shot this is a member here, but golly gee, there is room for improvement on this CNN report.

Step 1) Stop using DSLR video if going hand held on a long lens.

Step 2) Get a camera operator who doesn't shake like a beaten dog.

Step 3) Hold a frame.

Step 4) Close down the aperture just a little on many shots.

Step 5) Re-evaluate cutting from a wide shot to a wide shot only a small amount off axis. Edit 101.

Yikes. What was going on in this report?

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/04/n_cc_ilitch_detroit.cnnmoney/
Click to expand...

Kholi said:
Dude... this is happening WAY too often. I mean, I guess I'm not qualified to say that but every time I see a DSLR commercial I just turn the channel. It looks TERRIBLE!
Click to expand...

With the advent of the democratization of the film industry, the lack luster and the lazy can participate.
When it was a huge pain in the ass to shoot anything, only the dedicated AND talented could have the priveledge of working in broadcasting/film of any sort.
 
TimurCivan said:
With the advent of the democratization of the film industry, the lack luster and the lazy can participate.
When it was a huge pain in the ass to shoot anything, only the dedicated AND talented could have the priveledge of working in broadcasting/film of any sort.
Click to expand...

I do agree to a point. Yes since these DSLRs can output a nice image and cost very little, means more people can enter this business...... But how long will they stay is the true answer that will last. You see while some kid might produce a descent shot or two with a DSLR, only the "real" professionals will be able to do it constantly and professionally in a timely manner and fashion. True talent will always shine, work hard and love your craft and you will always find a way to put food on the table.
 
life4eva said:
I do agree to a point. Yes since these DSLRs can output a nice image and cost very little, means more people can enter this business...... But how long will they stay is the true answer that will last. You see while some kid might produce a descent shot or two with a DSLR, only the "real" professionals will be able to do it constantly and professionally in a timely manner and fashion. True talent will always shine, work hard and love your craft and you will always find a way to put food on the table.
Click to expand...

I agree....

But you have to wade through alot of lazy before you find someone good. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top