VJ Series on Nat Geo [Archive]

Michaelrosenblum

07-10-2003, 06:51 AM

I appreciate the open mind, but lets talk about money. What makes you think that the VJ is poverty TV? Some good VJs command up to $3500K per week. That's pretty good pay where I come from. But its still much more cost effective than sending the whole media circus, when you factor in airfares, hotels salaries, ,etc. Know what I mean? Suppose you tried to pre-pro a series like this. send a producer to each of 43 locations around the world for a week at a time to do a site survey. (while they're there, no shooting at all. Anything good that happens is lost). Then, send the crew and the producer back to the same place to spend 3 weeks. Do the math. Its much better to pay top dollar to a really great person who shoots and can make a story and can move fast and light. This technique is not a question of throwing stuff up on the wall to see what sticks. It is a different way of getting good journalism, however. Make the analogy to print. Say this were for Nat Geo magazine instead of TV. Would you send an editor to all the locations first to set it up before you sent out the reporter with th pencil? I don't think so. You send the writer (and nat geo writers get paid pretty good), and if the story is there, they go with it. If its not there, guess what, they pick up the phone, say no go, and they're off to the next location, which is how this works. The centerpiece of the VJ thing is building in the ability to fail sometimes. This does NOT mean to shoot bad material. It does mean the ability to say, hey, not here. Not today.

NewsMan

07-10-2003, 09:44 AM

Nino

07-10-2003, 11:21 AM

Michael, I saw part of the premier episode and I wasn’t going to write anything about it, but you asked for it. I’ll try to be more bit more diplomatic, although HDTV’s analogy about the brown stuff on the wall accurately describes what I’ve seen on the tube.

It has been a curse of mine, or call it occupational hazard, but in my 30 plus years career I was never able to watch any program for what it is, I was trained from early schooling to see things in the way they could have been, or better, recognize wasted potential. This goes for my work too, as I’m my own toughest critic.

These types of documentaries are cinematographer’s dreams. All the elements of human drama are there, but your VJs missed the boat. I guess your basic style is to roll tape wide and keep zooming in and out in hope that something will show, just keep on rolling that darn tape, or like HDTV put it “will stick to the wall”. In every wide-angle shot that you had on the show I saw dozens of potential cuts that would have greatly shown the drama, not to mention create continuity, but the cameraman never got to it. I never thought that in my career I would see a double zooming make it to the screen, that is zoom in, stop and frame it, “no good” zoom in again and re-frame it. But I’ve seen it in the Doctors without a border. I’ve seen scores of useless camera movements and zooming starting and going nowhere just eating away precious time that could have been taken instead by some great footage. Are your VJs blind? It was right there in front of them. It really hurts seeing the waste of such a good potential material. The only drama here is what National Geographic has been reduced to. Close ups of eyes and nose (no mouth) while the person is talking? There were no tears there to make a dramatic shot, except to those in my eyes of course after seeing what you have done to cinematography. What I saw last Wednesday at nine PM was 3 minutes of documentary that took 15 minutes to show, and I changed channel after that, just couldn’t take it

Everybody know about poverty and misery in that part of the globe, and that there are scores of organizations worldwide trying of bring relief to the suffering, it was the cinematographer’s job to put tears in viewer’s eyes, but he didn’t. The show is a long, very long news report about old news that has been shown many times before.

Probably Ivan will be 18” taller for what I’m about to say, as his hair will go straight up. Michael, you keep bringing up the budget factor, but format and budget has nothing to do with all this, is the cinematographer’s eye, training, experience and most important the understanding and recognition of potential images, non-existing qualities in your VJs. Let me say it again, the camera is nothing more that a really dumb tool at the mercy of the person using it. I can assure you that if you put an ad on any trade magazine offering $3500 a week for a true professional to work with the same resources as your VJs, your phone will ring off the hook and the show will be hundred times better, there are lots of talented people out there dying to do these types of shows, but your goal Michael isn’t quality, your goal is to show that your 3 weeks VJs can do the job, and in reality they can, as long as you are willing to accept a much lower standard of quality for the same price.

I’ve also seen 15 minutes of Trauma on TLC.

Nino

07-10-2003, 11:52 AM

Damn Michael... next time have your wife send me along with... I promise I won't let you down!! Come on... I have no kids yet... get me outta here! I even have mobile editing capabilities. I even pay a finder's fee!
www.13weeks.net (http://www.13weeks.net) NewMan, this is embarrassing. Let me give you a fatherly advice. I do a great deal of crew hiring for my client. My first call is always to the crews that turned me down the most because they were already booked. The crews that beg for work are not even on my scope. Get the hint?

PS. Redoing your website is a step in the right direction.

NewsMan

07-10-2003, 12:17 PM

Cool man, point taken. Any other fatherly advice on how to get on the screens you're not already on... doing the things I like to do? Criticism is fine, solutions are better. Didn't mean to embarass myself... Guess that's the problem with text, it's hard to feel one's emotion. If you look back at some of my "begging", it truly is meant tounge in check, fun like. I do apologize if it's not taken that way. Even when under attack, I try to keep humour and maturity about it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just looking for leads that are not available in a small town. The internet and my work is my ticket to work. Success is a trail of failures, and I've had many, will have many more. I enjoy my life, enjoy my work, and am as dedicated in the field as anything one would see. One more thing, don't assume I have no broadcast experience... I have nice collection of fun awards that include AP's, an Emmy, an Emmy nom, and a couple of Regional Murrow's w/ National Noms. It's not a brag and it's not half as many as most of you, but it does show that I have paid many sets of dues in this business and my credentials are valid.

dhart

07-10-2003, 03:33 PM

You guys have nailed it. What's missing in all these VJ "productions" is pre-production planning and more importantly "the vision thing" as one former US president put it. Good documentary production is not about rambling all over the world and rolling endless badly composed footage of meaningless material hoping you can come up with something worth watching.

It's about having the discipline to set down before the shoot and plan what you're trying to say and how you're going to say it. If you've spent some time doing that (which is really hard) you're probably not going to risk your production to a bunch of amateur production people.

It's sad to say, but many many of the young producers I work with these days never take the time to do the kind of really hard pre-production work that is necessary for a good show. I feel sorry for how lost they are on location. Instead of knowing exactly what they want and communicating how to get it to the local crew, they're reduced to trying to figure out how to avoid getting yelled at by their supervisors when they get home. They have no idea what they are trying to say or how they're trying to say it. In fact I would argue it's this lack of preparation that leads to this type of VJ thinking, let's deploy a whole army of shooters and hope one of them comes up with something we can use.

I don't need to see a ton of VJ footage of hundreds of overseas doctors, but I would like to see their story told in a well thought out storyline. It's not really the quantity but rather the quality, both in producing and shooting that's important. This all reminds me of the old guerilla video of the early 70's when roving bands of hippies with b&w VTR's and cheap video cameras were going to change the world. Well, they didn't and neither are any of the "VJ's"

The people I most feel sorry for in all this are the poor editors who have to wade thru all the crap trying to cut something together. The other sad thing is I remember when NG was noted for it's excellent, well thought out high end documentary work. I rather watch one of those "old" shows than 10 of these "new wave" productions. To wit I'd rather watch a show produced a shot by a crew of 4 or 5 people who knew what they were doing rather than a show shot by a hundred people who didn't. But hey I'm an older guy and when we're all gone Micheal can have his perfect new VJ world.

cameragod

07-10-2003, 04:37 PM

I didn’t see the programme but I did see a show called Crittercam were they put a camera on a shark and let it go. I thought, a shark with a camera… hello Michael.

imported_blank

07-10-2003, 09:39 PM

Michael, thanks for once again livening up the freelance forum. Sorry I missed your show - let me give you a viewers perspective as why I missed your show - strictly speaking as a viewer (cable subscriber) only.

I don't subscribe to the digital national geographic channel - it would cost me $2 a month more for my cable fee - just for that channel!! The only reason I got digital cable is because they took all the movie & PPV channels off the analog cable and moved them to digital cable --- I like watching blockbuster movies on tee vee.

Let's break down the numbers on what I have, shall we?

Analog full service package
On my full service analog cable service, I have roughly 65 channels
this includes but is not limited to
(roughly 65 channels)
1)) all local network affiliates
2)) all local indies
3)) all Canadian analog specialty channels like discovery, history, sports channels, music channels, CTV-headline news, CBC-newsworld, etc.
4)) 6 network affiliates from Seattle (abc nbc cbs fox upn pbs)
5)) many other US services like TLC, PBS from Boston, TBS, CNN, CNN-HN, CNBC, etc.
Roughly 65 analog channels

Digital basic add-on
For 4 dollars a month more - I get the basic digital package on top of the full analog package
1)) Roughly 12 channels including BBCworld, Canadian sport channels from three time zones - meaning I can now watch hockey from almost any city in the NHL!!!
2)) Interactive TV program guide.
3)) Available PPV movies & events (100 or so) with a simple click of the remote control

Movie Channel package
As I said - this is the reason I have D-Cable. For $10 a month more I get
1)) Four movie channels that play Hollywood blockbusters (shot on panavision or better} plus hbo and showtime specials.
2)) Four US channels included (wgn - wsbk - wpix - ktla}
3)) They just added into the package eastern time zone US network affiliates (four channels)

-------------------------------------------------------
You do the math Michael, from all my channels I get to see a "REAL" National Geographic" program at least three times a week. I just saw one last night, it was in some remote African location documenting one of the last primitive tribes of the world. Shot by a real crew using real gear.

Michael, I do subscribe to one extra $2 a month channel on the digital spectrum. MSNBC, I know its an analog channel but my cable company did put it on as a extra digital service. I tried watching one or two of those VJ produced "NG on assignment" shows, see previous threads on this subject. Someone (not me) posted they saw an NG dog show special - they claimed no lights, no external sound was used - they claimed it was shot on auto focus. I saw a preview to one just before the Iraq war started, with P Arnett - total auto everything hack-crap. NO THANKS, I'll PASS ON TRYING TO WATCH ANY MORE CRAP LIKE THAT!!! I subscribe to MSNBC for shows like hardball - shows shot a proper way using proper gear, if they ever change that then I will cancel my subscription - you can be sure on that...

See?? More channels doesn't neccesarly mean better. Just more competition

imported_blank

07-10-2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Nino:
Probably Ivan will be 18” taller for what I’m about to say, as his hair will go straight up. ...format and budget has nothing to do with all this, is the cinematographer’s eye, training, experience and most important the understanding and recognition of potential images, ...the camera is nothing more that a really dumb tool at the mercy of the person using it.What Nino claims is partly true, but I'm afraid it's only PARTLY true. A perfect example is the NG show I saw last night - to capture some of the images they captured would be impossible to do with a handycam - you need PROPER TOOLS to pull it off - sorry Nino but this applies to even a brilliant photographer like yourself!!! For instance, on the NG program I saw a shot just before a sunset - the cinematographer used a really long lens and zoomed in from far away on the tribe - the shooter needed at least 1)long lens, 2) rock steady tripod to pull this off. Nino, even your D600 would have trouble pulling this shot off without either washing out or being to dark or without having over streaking - even your D600 Nino!!! This you can only do with film, I bet even a 1 million pix per CCD IMX unit with an almost perfect S/N ratio could not do that shot without distortion.

Nino, I'm a big fan of pro motor sports. Last Sunday I watched both the F-1 from France and the CART from Cleveland. The Cleveland race was for the first time done at night. They lit up the track with massive monster lights. You could barely watch the "in car camera footage" because the powerful outside lights streaked everything in its view to hell. Remember Nino, no cameramen in the cars - just handycams rigged in the cars - quality of shots strictly based on "GEAR" and it sucked big time!!! On the other hand the track cameras that were manned by cameramen did not streak at all - that was pleasant to watch except they had one camera outside that looked like a small chip unit - that one sucked - same streaking like the in-car cams, very hard to watch because of the DISTORTION. True facts Nino - it was carried by CBS SPORTS, talk to them if you doubt my word.... And please don't let me dig up your previous posts were you claim that it is impossible to do proper work with only a handycam, please Nino the posts are here at the forum...

----------------------
:D
It has been a curse of mine, or call it occupational hazard, but in my 30 plus years career I was never able to watch any program for what it is, I was trained from early schooling to see things in the way they could have been, or better, recognize wasted potential. This goes for my work too, as I’m my own toughest critic.

Me too Nino, in fact I got chewed out by Mr. Anonymous for saying that in the past

Other then that peace my friend. :)

Austin Reeves

07-10-2003, 10:17 PM

Franky, I think you're both right. I think you need the skills and you need the tools.

I have no problem with you utilizing your VJ's. I'm sure it gets you cheap tv, but the professionals will always spot the reasons behind the viewers' reactions of "well, I didn't think it was that great."

When you decide you want QUALITY tv at a fair price, THEN give me a call.

Liveshot

Lensmith

07-10-2003, 11:57 PM

Let's see...

Three weeks at US$3,500 a week.

That comes to US$10,500.

Multiply that by 43 and you come up with US$451,500. Of course this assumes you are paying that "top dollar" per week which...well I'm pretty sure you weren't after seeing the show.

You say you didn't pay to fly anyone anywhere? You paid for no food or hotel? You were lucky enough to have VJs in every place already and didn't have to feed or house them?

What were your edit costs? I agree with an earlier post. I feel sorry for the editor that had to wade through all that tape...and then what aired was the best? THAT is really sad ;o(

Michaelrosenblum

07-11-2003, 07:47 AM

no no no. Of course, they all get housing and airfare and meals. And insurance. Don't be ridiculous. They all are from the US. The difference in cost is between airfare, hotels, meals etc for 3-4 people vs. 1.

NewsMan

07-11-2003, 09:04 AM

I travel alone often... I do understand Michael (not the safest way to go, however). All makes ense to me. Bottom line is the bottom line is always being redrawn. I just wonder if the crew size is scaled back, what's left to chop to save?

Nino

07-11-2003, 11:11 AM

Ivan, my dear northern friend, read my post again. I’m not talking about equipment; I’m talking about human skills. And one of the most important skills of a good cinematographer is to know the limitation of the equipment and work within those margins. Not a single day goes by that my eyes see something that would look really good on video, I also know that equipment has limitations and will not see it the way I did, therefore, as far as I’m concerned there’s no shot there. Having said that, I can assure that if the shot is important to the show, I make it work.

If I had the choice to send on an assignment a 3 week VJ with a top camera or an experienced cinematographer with a PD150, I take the last one. I’m a strong believer that with all this chaos in formats, the human factor is still the most important element. In my 33 years career there’s been a revolving door of mediums to record images. I’m a nuts n’ bolt guy while you are a bytes n‘ bits fellow. I don’t get very involved with formats because I know it will change. Whatever my customers want me to use, I get myself quickly educated and sign a check, done it many times over the years. One constant over the years however has been the cinematographic skills that I learned in film and photography school many years ago, the very same skills that are used on top film and television shows today. Like fine wines, they’ve been slowly improving with time, adapted and re-adapted to work in harmony with whatever technology is there, but the visual is still the same. Something that too many in the television business today (like those VJs), unfortunately will never have the pleasure to know.

National Geographic did not gain its fame from documentaries; it did it with the magazine. During an era dominated by larger formats photography, skilled photographers took the then considered amateur 35mm format and came back with those memorable photos that are still the trademark of the pre-VJ glorious era of National Geographic. Remember Ivan, the human factor.

For $3500 a week, Michael could have hired some top-notch cinematographer and even with the limitation of the equipment, those shows could have been deserving of the old NG instead of long boring news reports. Michael’s objective is not the quality of the show as much as being able to show that his own VJs can produce programs for a well-respected name like NG and therefore help to jump start his VJ program that right now is stranded somewhere off the US shores. The way I see it, Michael’s wife is the producer of a company that supplies shows to cable networks like NG and TLC and Michael supplies the shooters (VJs). Most likely if you want to work for them you have to be one of his VJ school graduates. Even if you are a good cinematographer and run circles around their VJs, you don’t stand a chance unless you take the three weeks course and become part of his cult. Nice little thing they got going there.

imported_blank

07-12-2003, 01:18 AM

Hi Nino.

I guess my real meaning was that there should be some kind of minimum standard for shows like National Geographic --- not just in quality of personnel but also in quality of equipment used.

You said it yourself Nino

One of the most important skills of a good cinematographer is to know the limitation of the equipment and work within those margins. Not a single day goes by that my eyes see something that would look really good on video, I also know that equipment has limitations and will not see it the way I did, therefore, as far as I’m concerned there’s no shot there.

That is my point exactly. A class act show should not be limited because the cinematographer doesn't have access to the tools to pull the shot off. The same principal applies to class act motor-sports - a driver should not be limited to the performance of the car - he should be limited to his own skill level - he skill level should not be ten fold above the car's performance level alone.

It just makes me sad to see class act programs like the """OLD""" National Geographic be reduced to some home video - like it is now. We all agree (except Michael) that the """NEW""" National Geographic is indeed limited to home video skills. We all agree that the show lost it's appeal it once had.

I guess this is were me and you [Nino] disagree.

I say: The show should have class act cinematographers and class act gear used by those cinematographers.

If I understand you correctly, (correct me if I am wrong)

You say: The show should have class act cinematographers but class act gear used by those cinematographers is not really necessary.

Your way reduces the cinematographers capabilities drastically. As I mentioned in my previous post about that "pre sunset shot" the only way to pull the shot off is to be in possession of the proper gear required thus the cinematographer's abilities are limited without the tools. In my opinion those type of shots are needed to make a program truly shine. NG in the old days used to be full of those types of shots - now it's just silly home video.

---------------------
Would you send a qualified surgeon without surgical tools to the field???
Of course not!

Would you send an unqualified surgeon with surgical tools to the field???
Of course not!

Then why would you send a "QUALIFIED" cameraman without a proper camera to the field?

There is "NO" real choice between the two, you either do it properly [qualified surgeon with proper tools] or you let some other company handle the task. There is no other choice if you want the job done right....
---------------------

No matter what you people claim -- in reality the difference between a class program and home video is separated by the use of READ-two factors 1))professional staff """AND""" 2))pro tools like jibs, light accessories, lens accessories, sound gear and all kinds of other devises along with a pro format camera. NOT just pro staff versus amateur staff. I wish you people would stop saying things like If I had the choice to send on an assignment a 3 week VJ with a top camera or an experienced cinematographer with a PD150, I take the last one. Nino my sub tropical buddy ---- I always claim that you need both good staff and good gear - there should NOT EVER be a compromise of one over the other for a class act show -- NEVER!

:D But I need not to remind you of this
http://www.tgproductions.com/equipment/page3.jpg
Judging by your own support package I am well aware that you realize this.... :D Oh my

Getting back to NG and the attraction of ordinary folks to watch NG. Numerous times I have watched shows with non industry related friends and when ever they see a shot like the "pre-sunset" shot mentioned they do indeed 'ahhh and oohh and say "WOW" Those type of shots stand out along with proper research and writing and pre-production, production and post-production. It is all very important - the staff doing the "THREE P" along with the proper gear used separates class act professional broadcasts from VJ produced home video.

I hope Michael won't try to claim that you can't carry all that stuff out there cause they have been carrying all that stuff out there for decades - you need to do that to make the show shine, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Michael, it's not that the technology is getting smaller. They didn't need to haul in all that heavy stuff in the old days - they could of brought in a super8 film cam without a tripod right???? BUT>

To produce that kind of a pre-sunset shot and other quality shots - you need a long lens and you need a HEAVY tripod/camera combo so the shot won't jerk around - you also need a camera that can handle that kind of contrast ratio so it won't distort to hell. NG is not supposed to look like a one time aired 30 second stringer VO -- NG is supposed to look like a class act documentary. It used to but now the NG rep is being killed I'm afraid by people like Michael R.... :mad:

Nino

07-12-2003, 12:14 PM

Ivan,

Did you notice Michaels’s absence? He instigated this post then he seats back and wait for the critics so he can learn how to do it better the next time. He’s a smart fellow.

I guess my real meaning was that there should be some kind of minimum standard for shows like National Geographic --- not just in quality of personnel but also in quality of equipment used. Of course this is the correct way to produce a show, and this is also dreaming. Michael is right, you have to feed the 24 hours beast. Back in the 70s I used to set my alarm clock to make sure that I don’t miss the weekly hour shows like National Geographic or Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom. Also back then in the NYC area we had eight channels for about 11 millions people. Today back in NY they have over two hundreds channels for less people. The money to produce high quality shows is not there any more. What I’m saying (again) is that given certain unavoidable budget limitations as in the Doctors series, the least that can be done in order to make the show viewable, is to use high quality people. Using your surgeons analogy, given these two choices I would much rather being operated on by a good surgeon with limited tools than by a plumber with state-of-art medical equipment. Again, the human factor.

On the other hand, I worked last Monday on a 4 cameras location live ABC/GMA show with a crew of 18 people, one full set up day on Sunday, two trucks plus a grip truck. Those live 15 minutes cost more than 4 episodes of the doctors. This prove that if the program is good it will pull-in the audience and the money will be available. Trash only makes more trash.

This “get only the best equipment for the job” is really a new thing. When I started as a still photographer in 1970, we had four-camera format to work with, 8x10 and 4x5 sheet cameras, 2 ¼ and 35mm. Budget and other needs dictated what equipment to use. We knew what we could and could not do with each format. Later when I started doing film work we had 35mm, 16mm and yes, also super 8mm formats. And on occasions we also had 70mm. The same thing again, we had to know the limitations in order to get the best out of each piece of equipment. Then, tube video cameras came out, and I can’t begin to tell you about the limitations.

Having said all this, the NG channels still have high quality shows, but most of these programs are produced with a consortium of money coming from various educational private and public grants, and there are plenty of those available for those with worthwhile ideas. The money generated by the individual channel’s revenue is just not enough, that’s reality. I’m sure that if the doctor’s show was a worthwhile idea Michael could have found plenty of money to make it a good show. His objective again was not to produce a good show but to prove that his VJs can do it on a shoestring budget. My answer to that is that you can do it hundred times better by forgetting about the 3 weekers and get some real educated and talented people, results? Less VJs and better programming, something that Michael doesn’t want to hear. Also, those editors got to go.

But I need not to remind you of this

Judging by your own support package I am well aware that you realize this.... Oh my
And what’s on that cart is only my basic interview package. You’re right about my equipment, I’m spoiled, I paid my dues and I do the job the way I want to do it. Luckily I have clients that want me to do it my way. And BTW the silver gray case on the top left, next to the Porta-Brace with the 600 in it, has a PD150 outfit in it. Nobody can accuse me of not keeping my options open.

Thomas

07-12-2003, 01:45 PM

I can't get it up to debate this topic any longer. It cannot and will not be solved by words. Also, it isn't going to be the PD150 standing alone in the end or the IMX or HD cameras vanquishing the smaller ones.

The entire range of formats will survive. The question is, how will you be able to stay employed? Will you have to accept work with a smaller camera because opportunities dry up for you and your big rig? Or will you find a niche and survive shooting upper-end video with "better" equipment.

Rosenblum is a threat because others might come into his camp and REDUCE the gross available work for people who now own cameras akin to the SONY D600. Also, we all know that we will need to invest in new gear to stay current. Change IS coming. Which road will we go down?

I just watched the documentary called "Comedian" about Jerry Seinfeld putting together a stand-up act following the ceasation of the "Seinfeld" show. It was a great movie. Not a good one, a great one. One of the better documentaries I have ever seen. Why? Because it was entertaining and not a numbing assault of dogma and principle.

It was also shot with PD-150s or something like the PD-150.

"Comedian" demonstrates the tremendous efficacy of these small, fast, cheap and stealthy video cameras. It shows what the CBS "9/11" doc could have been with a competent shooter working the rig. "Comedian" isn't art and it is manipulative in that it makes value judgements and unrealistic time-edits to heighten drama. And, it had the 24 fps "look" added to the final cut to ake it look "filmic". Still, it's a great piece of video and it looks fantastic. In fact, I think the shooting was somewhat amateurish at times -- at others, superb. The head room and framing is odd but sometimes very effective. The shooters had great instinct about catching "moments". But even that may be attributed to sheer shooting volume. The editing should have won an Oscar. It is THAT good.

All of it shot with PD 150s. Or something like them. For me, there is no argument you can make against these cameras in this situation. They were the best choice possible. And they work great.

If you watch the movie or rent it again, make sure you have your DVD play the commentary feature with Seinfeld and his buddy Colin Quinn riffing on the movie as they watch it played back. At some moments, Seinfeld (who was involvd as Executive Producer and in the edit room) has very interesting things to say about the process, the filmmakers and the cameras.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough particularly in light of this ongoing struggle over formats here at B-Roll. I would have to say it is one of my favorite films of the past five years. Maybe even the best I have seen. Certainly it is the best documentary I have viewed in a long long time. And again, it was shot with PD 150s, or something like them.

Hope all is well with everybody. You guys are great.

Thomas

07-12-2003, 03:39 PM

Note: I meant the best I have seen in five years. Thinking more about that, one word comes to mind: hyperbole. It's great, but in its own type of niche. It ain't "Secrets and Lies" or "The Sweet Here After" by any means.

T

imported_blank

07-12-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Nino:
Given certain unavoidable budget limitations as in the Doctors series, the least that can be done in order to make the show viewable, is to use high quality people

For $3500 a week, Michael could have hired some top-notch cinematographer and even with the limitation of the equipment, those shows could have been deserving of the old NG instead of long boring news reports.With all due respect Nino but in this case, why sacrifice on the gear budget????
With Michael's budget you could use "BOTH" high quality people and high quality gear. I'm not implying that a 13 week series can have those enormous budgets of the old National Geographic days but...
You do not need to send 43 Video journalists to the field, this is ridiculous.

I wish Michael would be "straight" with us on the budget details. He said and I quote

Some good VJs command up to $3500K per week... they all get housing and airfare and meals. And insurance.

Michael, are you implying that all 43 VJs got paid $3500K per week plus ALL expenses?

$451,500 + airfare + accommodations + meals. + post production costs.

If Michael is being totally honest here then I have to say one could produce a reasonable show from the above budget. Granted, it would have to be shot on video and not film but you could use real beta crews with that budget. You do not need 43 people all armed with cameras spraying at nothingness -- in my opinion THREE REAL CREWS would of been more efficient. But if planned right you could pull it off with one FIVE MEN CREW>

You can and you will get good deals on real beta crews if you have a proven plan - especially a plan that focuses on some kind of charity work like Doctors without Borders. In fact if Michael shares the REAL work budget with us and if the real budget is anything close to paying 43 VJs $3,500 each per week + expenses including airfare, housing & meals + the budget for the main producers (Michael and his wife) then I myself will come out with a working plan and post it here on B-ROLL. I won't even cut into Michael & wife budget since it's their idea and their project.

Planning out the airfares and accommodations for less people would save enough money to use beta gear. Having the producer produce, the DP plan the shots, the sound tech concentrating on sound would save TONS of money. A lot less wasted time, more efficient production.

That's one way of cutting the fat. And it certainly will be a hell of a lot more profesional looking FINAL PRODUCT.

For Post & EDITING - not having to wade through countless hours of 43 cameras home video will save costs enough to edit and post on digi-beta or IMX gear. Remember Michael the game plan is "QUALITY & EFFICIENCY" not "HOARDS of LOW QUALITY QUANTITY"

That's another way to cut the fat.

Sending 43 VJs to the field is ridiculous - how the hell can you plan anything with so many cameras???? --- Without having some organized pre-plan??? You can't!!!! You just end up spraying everything - wasting money.

In fact I bet I could pay a couple of "FULL" crews "FULL" wages for beta gear, DP, sound-tech and producer, Even a correspondent. I could fly in all this gear and even hire local extra hands to help with minding & carrying gear and I would still be under Michael's "claimed" budget. Granted this would NOT be like an old FILM NG production but it would look close to most NETWORK docu shows produced today...

Remember --- Just the savings on the EXTRA AIRFARE, HOUSING, & INSURANCE would probably pay for the BETA GEAR including SUPPORT GEAR.

My point to Nino is "You don't have to sacrifice GEAR quality if you pre-plan everything the right way.

My point to Michael is "You don't need to have millions of cameras rolling off at the same time --
It is very important to have the DP concentrating on photography, have the sound tech concentrating on sound, have the producer concentrating on producing etc. Michael this is a PROVEN way to do things in a very efficient way --- all you need is a pre-plan and the right people.

But I'm afraid Nino is right about one thing.
Michael’s objective is not the quality of the show as much as being able to show that his own VJs can produce programs for a well-respected name like NG and therefore help to jump start his VJ program that right now is stranded somewhere off the US shores

But I guess we all have a couple of hundred channels on the dial for a reason - so each and everyone of us can choose what to watch and what NOT to watch - only time will tell what will happen with beta crews and what will happen with VJs.... I know what I watch... :P

Nino

07-13-2003, 12:55 AM

Ivan,

This is an entirely new topic and you are absolutely right. My entire discussion was that if you must use lesser equipment at least use good people.

When it comes to budgeting a production Michael has some very strange way of doing it. Many times I tried to do the math and things came out very screwy.
The numbers are very puzzling. 43 cameramen on location for 3 weeks make a total of 129 weeks of labor. If each shoot 5 tapes a day five days a week we have 3225 tapes to make 13 hours of TV. Incredible.

Okay Michael, these questions are for you, let see if your VJs and methods of productions really save money.

Why do you need 43 cameramen to produce 13 hours of TV?

Why do you need 3 weeks on location per cameraman? Based on 43 of them you had 3 on each job plus 4 as spare. This is a total of nine weeks of labor for a 60 minutes show.

How many tapes each cameraman used during the 3 weeks?

Who reviewed and made the footage decision and how long did it take to do it.

Level with us.

cameragod

07-13-2003, 07:52 AM

But it’s not about saving money, it’s about selling a lame idea to the channel by dressing it up as an exiting new concept. Instead of trying to sell a worthless over done concept about, yawn, Doctors again, you blind them with dramatic sounding stats, 43 cameras go low profile over 3 weeks to discover the hidden, never before seen story behind the story beneath the facts that are yet to be unearthed!!! (The three exclamation marks are vital at this point.) See a much easier sell.
It’s not about the technology.
It’s not about the craft.
It’s not even about the story.
It’s about selling the same old crap in a bright shiny new wrapper. VJ’s are a new selling point for now, but they are just a one trick pony. Their use is limited and so is their future.

Terry E. Toller

07-17-2003, 05:57 PM

Two weeks ago, I was fired by a Chicago production company to shoot a pro woman's football game. I don't know if these ladies on the production crew are graduates of the VJ school but in talking to them, they seem to think like Michael. They all shot with PD150's, no extra audio, just point and shoot...

I set two of the cameras up with shotguns with fishpoles and gave some quick audio lessons. The girl doing fan interviews was given a folding reflector. She used it to throw fill light into the faces of the crowd that was back lit.

After the game, we looked as some of the video in the parking lot. The producer was amazed at the quality of the audio with the shotgun mics. Here is someone who has been shooting for several years and has never used a shotgun!

She was also impressed at the image quality by using a reflector on the interviews. Again, she has been walking around the past few years just shooting things as they are. Sort of VJ style?

Anyway, the ladies left Sacramento with some new ideas on how to make their images and audio better. there is a major difference between a VJ and a professional.

Thomas

07-18-2003, 11:12 AM

I the word "fired" instead of "hired" a Freudian slip? Or just a typo?

F and H are separated by G on the keyboard. Interesting.

cameragod

07-19-2003, 01:12 AM

Yeah that’s almost as bad as forgetting to put the letter “s” in “Is.”

Thomas

07-20-2003, 11:42 AM

Hardly the same level of ressonance.

Its one thing to be hired. Quite another to be fired. Opposite circumstances separated by one letter on the keyboard. Ironic how close they are.

Conversely, there isn't a bit of irony in the typo of I and Is. If you can find it, let me know.

Plus, ironic or not, if Terry was offended (and why should he be, the comment was made with humor intended) he could answer for himself. No need to be protected from down under. He seems capable of the task.

cameragod

07-20-2003, 06:37 PM

I felt it was ironic that you made a typo correcting a typo. I took no offence, I’m sure Terry took no offence and I meant no offence.

A guy sat and watched as two thieves stole a gate. When his boss got there he asked why he didn’t stop them
“They already had the gate I didn’t want to say anything in case they decided to take a fence.”

:)

Thomas

07-20-2003, 08:09 PM

Sorry, I didn't know you guys were a team.

Rosenblum

07-21-2003, 07:33 PM

Terry,
Just to be clear, ALL my VJs work with Sennheiser ME64s on the cameras along with Sennheiser RF Evolution series 100 radio mics. This is standard issue. Audio is very important to us. We do NOT point and shoot. Just because someone has bought a PD150 and learned to turn it on, it does not make them one of mine.

omni43

07-27-2003, 11:55 PM

It's a shame to see these days the hacks out there that claim to be cameramen, so 20 something year old running around with a PD-150. What is really sad is that the networks are beginning to hire these people; pushing aside experienced, knowledgable people for the sake of saving a buck. The video is blu, who gives a ****, run it any way. These people care little about quality. If some kid will stand behind a camera for 20,00 a year, they'll hire them.

By the way nobody in there right mind would pay a "VJ" 3,500 a week after taking a couple of classes. That's pure fiction.

cameragod

07-28-2003, 02:37 AM

I’ve worked on a lot of reality shoots and nobody has ever had to use subtitles because the sound is so bad. Something we are starting see a lot of lately.
Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Terry,
Just to be clear, ALL my VJs work with Sennheiser ME64s on the cameras That is exactly the wrong type of mic for reality type shooting. The pattern is too wide and you end up with too much background noise. If that’s the sort of advice you are peddling on the three week Dojo then you are ripping them off.

imported_blank

07-28-2003, 04:54 AM

The problem with not properly trained VJs is they don't know the difference between patterns. They think pointing the camera with any type mounted mic is all that's required for all situations.

That is exactly the wrong type of mic [ME64] for reality type shooting
Cameragod, you are absolutely right - - - for situations following around subject(s) but if
1))I'm not just following around subjects
or
2))If the subjects are wired,
or
3))If we have a soundman
I prefer having a wider pattern mounted mic for "nat sound" only.
4)) Of course if OMB to gather bites I pop out the external for ANY bite gathering.

The benefit of having a wider pattern mounted nat sound mic would be -- if say some important but not overly loud sound source should happen just off line of pattern view. I may want to pan the camera into the source. With the nat sound already into the shot it will seem smooth and natural to the viewer. With a narrow nat sound mic you wouldn't hear the sound until it would be in the mic's line of view. The only way that shot (with narrow mic) would be usable (in my opinion) would be with a video cut. Could use an audio insert, which of course would be unethical for some programming and too time consuming for certain other programming.

Of course I would never think of using a mounted wide mic for "line of view" only sounds, certainly not for any speakers. You get no argument from me CG, for Rosenblum's OMB one mic only interviews that is the WRONG type of mic. just thought I'd explain a reason for a wide mounted mic even for reality TV - of course for any quality 1) 2) 3) and 4) above requirements have to be met.

Make any sense?

Michaelrosenblum

07-28-2003, 07:44 AM

all interviews are done with a wireless.

cameragod

07-29-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Michaelrosenblum:
all interviews are done with a wireless.Oh right so if a grieving mother quietly sobs out the story of how her daughter was dying you would say; “Wait I need to get a wireless on you.” Or “speak up old woman I can’t here your mumbling over the wurr of the life support machine.”
Or just not worry about it and have the voiceover tell us what she said.
Why not use the right mic and just have it as it was? I mean it is supposed to be reality TV.
I know, why bother sending out VJ’s at all. You could save a bucket by showing photos with a voice over telling us what happened.

Rosenblum

07-29-2003, 11:50 AM

yes
that is correct
first you wire the subject, then you let them talk. In TRAUMA, LIFE IN THE ER, (TLC) which is still running after 9 years, the FIRST thing you do is select your characters, wire them, and then stick with them. Sometimes we shot for 3 weeks or a month.
Do you think that making any of these shows is simply a matter of showing up and shoving a camera and microphone in someone's face? or 'hoping' something will happen if we hang out long enough?
They are cast. They are directed to some extent, but they are very much produced.

The biggest point of confusion you make is that you think a VJ is a cameraman with a small camera. This is NOT the case. the VJ is a journalist (get the J part?) or a producer. they take intellectual control of the content as well as take the pictures (and capture the audio).

now, I know that the vast majority of established and successful cameramen (and women) who frequent this site are more than capable of producing as well as shooting. they might not want to, but they can...and probably do to a far greater extent than they realize.

THIS is the essence of the revolution. It is not really about cameras. You want to work in beta, be my guest. The greatest advantage of the PD150 is that it is so inexpensive that it opens the door to lots more people who want to try. No, the real revolution is combining shooting and producing. It brings a sense of authorship to your work, and marries the visual to the thought. (Yeah yeah, I know/ You work with this producer and you understand each other so well, blah blah.) Well, great. Keep it up. Have a great time. but if you ever want to do your own work, have your own vision for something....that is another story

cameragod

07-29-2003, 10:04 PM

Ok Michael now I know exactly what sort of crap you peddle. Rather and hear the “character” you have cast interact with people, because you cheap camera set-up isn’t up to it, you get a bunch of directed/staged mini P2C’s from the character telling the audience what they think just happened here.
It’s bad journalism and frustratingly bad TV. Why tell when any halfway competent cameraman could show?
This isn’t a revolution. The NPPA have preached story-telling shots forever. You know those reporterless stories we love so much, well they are done by just the cameraman, no really watch some good TV.
So none of what you say is new. A lot of it is just armature night with spin.
Yes I can and do produce, I don’t need a producer or reporter hanging over my shoulder, I can be as J as you like, but I don’t limit myself by making dumb equipment choices and then kid myself I’m part of the revolution.

imported_blank

07-30-2003, 02:09 AM

Michael.
You used to preach on here how "COMPELLING" your stuff is, COMPELLING because your people don't have to fumble for/with equipment. You used to say that "WE the CREWS" miss the shot because by the time we "SET UP" the shot is ovuh! Now = exactly what you state here. ...first you wire the subject, then you let them talk... Do you think that making any of these shows is simply a matter of showing up and shoving a camera and microphone in someone's face? Didn't you say before that TRIPODS, LIGHTS & EXTERNAL MICS just get in the way???? I am hoping that ONE DAY you will post here """"YES WE DO SET UP ON TRIPOD AND LIGHT OUR SUBJECTS""""

-------------------------------
Hey cameragod,
I think you're a brilliant guy CG - Michael should take all the free advise you are willing to give him.

A story for you CG,
The other day I had an OMB shoot inside a crowded mall. One day B-ROLL only. Establishing shots of how busy the mall was. Many cash registers opening - closing in one wide shot -. etc I wanted all kinds of "being busy noises" and visuals to be picked up in wide shots. I decided to go with an on-board wide mic. I like to call it "on the fly live sound reinforcement". Remember, a mic like the 64 is still a " cardioid" and it limits most noise after L 270 degrees - R 90 degrees (or so) off axis.

The purpose of this day's shoot was to show the "cash -cow" business to future investors. I find a highly directional mic like the 66 a little too limiting for this type of shots.

For close-up shots of say the cash register opening - clerk's hand putting bills inside etc - I used a second mic (narrow) on a floor mic stand. I rolled off both tripod and handheld shots. I find a highly directional mic like the 66 mounted on board without having soundman would be "shifting" even for some closer shots with wide-mode camera movements. That's why (time permitting) I place a stationary narrow mic (off shot) in my line of field for the closer shots. Camera movement - yet no sound shifting. OMB fun eh?

On a different day (for the same shoot) I was sent OMB to the airport to gather planes coming and going. I found the wide mic to be too wide for this - since there was way too much jet noise off camera. So I swapped the wide mic for a narrow shotgun. Perfect sound on the headphones.

In case you're wondering this was a limited budget "real gear" corporate shoot. No real budget for audio over lays or jibs n stuff or even soundman or producer for b-roll days.

Again CG, I think you're a brilliant guy - Michael should take all the free advise you are willing to give him. Just wanted to share why a mic like the 64 can have purposes even in reality TV. Oh wait - that was corporate, but I think you know what I mean. Anyway I use shoulder cams and always have a narrow external with me, 2 seconds away....

Michael should of purchased switch able "Normal": Unidirectional "Tele": Supercardioid mics but the VJs probably wouldn't know when to use what mode.... :D