[video] KRON breaking news coverage blows away competition [Archive]

Chicago Dog

11-01-2006, 01:40 PM

Personally, I'd like to thank them for the good laugh.

I agree with G_Roll: the slow pull was laughable. Coupled by the fact that it was a slow pull from a twenty second shot of the back of an ambulance just made it funnier. What did they cut to next? Another shot of the back of the ambulance!

It's not just the shooting and editing that's God-awful. How about the graphic off the top? "EBAY EXPLOSION INVESTIGATILIVE." It didn't end there. They did the same thing at the end of the report! Where's the quality control? Didn't anyone notice how stupid that looked? Did they cut down the number of folks running the show from the booth, too?

What about the full six seconds between the toss to sound and the actual rolling of the sound?

The reporting was incredibly bare-bones. There was nothing interesting. In fact, the reporter looked haggered and scared to death when they tossed to her.

Let's not forget the fact that this 1:45 clip is accessible on the internet -- smaller than the size of the mouse you used to click the play button.

At my station, even our worst is better than this.

LongTimePhotog

11-01-2006, 02:08 PM

The link you provided was their website with a standard live shot with wallpaper b-roll. I looked around for this incrediable video and just couldn't find it. Maybe I'm missing something.

WarBird Dude

11-01-2006, 02:21 PM

Sarcasm methinks? 30 people and they can't even turn a PKG? Horsehockey~!

FOXPhotog911

11-01-2006, 02:26 PM

I'm penning my apology now...

(what is the emoticon for sarcasam?)

That looked as if the VJ or whoever shot the video got to the scene WAY after the fact. The VJ model should have, by definition, been able to put more people there quicker than conventional photog / reporter crews. Unless I missed something, the video I saw was pedestrian.

FOXPhotog
Non-traditional union photog

FOXPhotog911

11-01-2006, 02:28 PM

Ok, I'm a little slow. Sorry Buck. I just got the joke. You can't get anything past my razor sharp abilities of observation.

...

FOXPhotog

Tom Servo

11-01-2006, 04:08 PM

"EBAY EXPLOSION INVESTIGATILIVE."

And just like that, the VJ movement gets a new slogan.

It's investigatilivetastic!

Buck

11-01-2006, 04:15 PM

Ok, I'm a little slow. Sorry Buck. I just got the joke. You can't get anything past my razor sharp abilities of observation.
FOXPhotog

Maybe you were just having a bad day and normally you would pick up on the intended sarcasm. :)

LongTimePhotog

11-01-2006, 04:40 PM

I got it too. Very long day.

Jonathan

11-01-2006, 05:29 PM

Here is an award winning story >
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=5616940

verdantFOX

11-01-2006, 05:53 PM

Yes, they did a bad job. The VJ movement is dead. The fact that they used traditional crew setups to do it proves that VJs are dead. MR should be humbled once again and apologize to everyone.

Buck

11-01-2006, 06:06 PM

Yes, they did a bad job. The VJ movement is dead. The fact that they used traditional crew setups to do it proves that VJs are dead. MR should be humbled once again and apologize to everyone.

No. It is we who are wrong as evidence of the video. Please don't rub any more salt in our wounds as we all eat crow.

pre-set

11-01-2006, 06:33 PM

Um, I just don't see your points....

It was a live VOSOT. What was wrong with it?

I think that's a typical example of a breaking news liveshot on a story where access to the scene is limited and you have to scramble to get that "first hit" on the air.

So whaddya do? Get there, shoot 45 seconds of "edited in camera raw", grab the PIO, cut a bite, feed it, and do your hit within the first 15-20 minutes.

Can't see much of the scene? Only two useable shots? Too far away? Cops won't let you closer? Producer screaming for liveshot?

Fawk it. Do a slow pull or slow zoom. Show me something, but take some time doing it so we can have video to cover the reporter. Just give me SOMETHING...... Just get it on the damn air!!!!!

I have to do stuff like that at least a couple times a month. I think they did fine.

verdantFOX

11-01-2006, 08:01 PM

You miss the point. VJs are dead. This is further proof. The world is laughing at KRON once again.

It matters not that they had a greater increase from their lead-in than any other station in the market. (1 rating point. Everyone, but ABC dropped). Clearly the audience rejected the coverage -- that's why they had the largest tune-in audience. KRON is dead, so are VJs. More proof.

Chicago Dog

11-01-2006, 09:26 PM

You miss the point. VJs are dead. This is further proof. The world is laughing at KRON once again.

Pretty much, yeah.

It matters not that they had a greater increase from their lead-in than any other station in the market. (1 rating point. Everyone, but ABC dropped). Clearly the audience rejected the coverage -- that's why they had the largest tune-in audience. KRON is dead, so are VJs. More proof.

Here's the part where I tell you to put your money where your mouth is. Show us some proof -- actual, concrete proof.

You're the one missing the point. We were fed lines upon lines of complete crap about the OMB/VJ system and its superiority to traditional two-person crews.

This spot news story was a chance for KRON to put that theory to rest. It was a chance for KRON to show other, "traditional" systems how the OMB/VJ system was superior.

One shot was thirty seconds long, followed by a near exact shot. If there were a chance to send more than one OMB/VJ to a spot news story, this was it.

Instead, there was one camera. I guarantee there was only one guy doing everything. In fact, I'm willing to bet the reporter shot that crap, and the newsroom promised her a truck and had someone drive it on over.

Why didn't one OMB/VJ take on the role of shooter, another take on the editing, another set up the truck, and another shoot the liveshot -- as the system is apparently supposed to work? Don't they have more OMB/VJs in their newsroom than "traditional" newsrooms?

Because the OMB/VJ system sucks, and it fails, sometimes in a painfully obvious manner.

Put up or shut up, vFOX -- I've yet to see proof from you.

pre-set

11-02-2006, 01:44 AM

I thought KRON DID choose to keep 4 "conventional" crews to cover breaking news. I assumed this was one of those crews....

aughtone

11-02-2006, 02:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io4Qq--L8RI

shootercub

11-02-2006, 10:02 AM

That last clip...

Dude forgot his tripod...

Screen Left

11-02-2006, 10:13 AM

I don't think that I would use a tripod in the middle of the firestorm. It would slow me down from shooting video and getting out of there.

verdantFOX

11-02-2006, 12:25 PM

From October 31:

The last quarter hour is My Net

_1.4__3_48.0 1.1 3
KRON 4 NWS@11P 2.0 5

KRON is +.9

_3.2__7_48.0 3.1 7
CBS 5EY-NW-11P 3.4 9

KPIX is +.3

_5.8_12_48.0 5.4 12
ABC7 NWS-11PM 4.6 12

KGO is -.8

_6.8_14_48.0 6.6 15
NBC11NW-BAY-11 4.6 12

KNTV -2.0

So Dog, what that means is that once everyone did their 11 p.m. teases viewers actually turned away from KGO and KNTV and tuned to KRON and KPIX. Most, however (about 1 rating point as I mentioned and you wanted the proof) tuned to KRON.

You may now talk about how KRON was last in ratings which is not point. My point was that the viewers who were making active choices, not based on lead-in, chose KRON over everyone else and they fled KNTV.

One rating point is worth about 25,000 households or about 40,000 people, I am told.

More proof. No speculation or histrionics. Laugh away Dog, the viewers aren't. They don't care about VJs they care about news.

In addition, these are the actual ratings I copied from the San Francisco overnights for 10/31/06. I changed nothing. They are available to everyone here.

Chicago Dog

11-02-2006, 12:45 PM

So Dog, what that means is that once everyone did their 11 p.m. teases viewers actually turned away from KGO and KNTV and tuned to KRON and KPIX. Most, however (about 1 rating point as I mentioned and you wanted the proof) tuned to KRON.

Okay. Basically, you're saying that the system isn't a failure because -- after well over a year of its implementation -- KRON has a .9 increase in viewership from its lead-in. The fact that it's still in last place doesn't matter.

Your proof may be actual, but your logic is hilarious.

Also, though the ratings are available to anyone, I find it interesting that you never actually posted a link to the numbers. I'm sure that's because KRON does nothing but lose, lose, lose during other time slots.

Just out of curiosity, how badly did KRON drop after the quarter hour during the 11pm?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io4Qq--L8RI

Aught, I (among others, probably) am appreciative of something to take a look at. Please understand I'm not doing any of this to piss you off. Putting something out there and leaving it to the whim of a bunch of otherwise-anonymous folks on the board deserves some respect off the bat.

That said, this felt more like it could've been a photopack than a regular package. The firefighters were quite busy, but you did a good job getting in there and snagging sound from them. The fact that most of them looked so preoccupied with fighting the fire while talking to you added to the urgency.

A tripod wouldn't hurt. If you're using the tiny cameras MR claims you're using, I'd imagine a tripod wouldn't be difficult to tote around. Probably the size of something you'd pick up at BestBuy, right? The far views were good, but making them solid would've helped, such as at :08 and :13.

Aaah! Get rid of the dissolves! You've got such a great chance at fast-paced, urgent video. The dissolves slowed it down. The 50/50 dissolve at :15 drove me nuts. I kept waiting for the firefighter to pop in full, but he never did. (At the tail end of that shot, the camera panned off very quickly. The same happened about 1:06.) With all that's going on around you, there's bound to be some nats. Let the nats do the talking and the "transitioning." Down with dissolves!

As an example, you could've used the fire truck at :06 as a nat wipe. Having it pop up last-second and then cutting to another shot was a bit jarring.

The matched video of the flag at :10 and the embers immediately after were good. However, what's the danger of the embers? That's what's causing fires to pop up in other spots, right? I'm sure a firefighter would hook you up with that bite. The package had information and emotion, but didn't really have a clear direction. You've got several good angles (the onlooking homeowners, the folks hastily packing up, the tired firefighters), but never really settle on any of them.

The guy at :24 was rushed and flustered. When I first saw him, I remember thinking, "Wow -- he's almost in a panic." Follow that guy around! He went to go find some firefighters to figure out what to do? What did they tell him? What did he do afterwards? Did he break out the garden hose and start soaking the shingles?

I noticed you've got no reservation about running up to people and firing off questions. In my opinion, that's a very genuine trait not many shooters posess. That ability alone helps to carve some of the most creative photopacks I've seen -- especially in a spot news situation like that.

As a disclaimer, I'm not saying your voice sucked.
;)

verdantFOX

11-02-2006, 01:23 PM

Your arguments are a moving target. You thought KRON's coverage was laughable. I showed you the audience tuned to it. You thought I was making ratings up. I showed you I did not. Each time you have called me on something I have turned up evidence or proof. You have provided little but opinion and speculation.

You and others like you have declared VJs dead since their inception. You and others have said they have failed. I have shown they have not. You and others have said ratings will/have fall/fallen I have shown you they have not.

Now you claim that I am saying that a .9 increase is in someway evidence of the success of VJs. It is not. It is likely a residual effect of a time when KRON was a much stronger station. It has nothing to do with VJs. Habits are hard to break. But gloating about the awful nature of KRON’s coverage is another case of everyone jumping at any opportunity to declare the stupidity of VJs so they can return to the safety of their cocoon.

In addition, you continually get what facts you try to use wrong. KRON has used VJs for under a year, not “well over”, as you stated. They announced in the summer of last year (either June or July, I don’t recall) and they started using VJs in December or January.

Dog, bark at someone else for a while. You have no credibility.

Chicago Dog

11-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Dog, bark at someone else for a while. You have no credibility.

Hm. No. I readily accepted the fact that there was a .9 increase in viewership. I gave you that.

And yet, no link to the daily ratings for the market's other shows. No answer to my question about KRON's quarter-hour. Funny, but I didn't expect them to be addressed anyway. Yet, you have the nerve to call my viewpoint a "moving target?"

"Your résumé tape sucked, but you used a tripod on the third interview of the second package. Want a job?"

That's what's funny about this whole argument. There's no "moving target" because the questions I pose are all completely and totally valid. There's nothing I haven't asked that a right-minded professional in this business wouldn't be asking.

Your logic -- in a word -- sucks. It's so bad, you have to claim a .9 gain in viewership is an example of "things to come."

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Buck

11-02-2006, 07:22 PM

Caught this on the tvspy.com Watercooler.

Waiting for NBC
http://tvspy.vault.com/images/spacer_1x1.gif
Author: Philo T. Farnsworth
Date: Nov 2, 2006 12:25 PM EST
http://tvspy.vault.com/images/spacer_1x1.gif
(San Francisco)-- KRON VJs voted unanimously today not to organize into a new union. The VJs released a statement saying they believe NBC would prefer a non-union shop after it buys KRON and takes over the troubled news operation.

At that same meeting, the VJs decided to replace Michael Rosenblum as Supreme Deity with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Nothing personal against Michael," said VJ Chip "Shakes" O'Farrell, "but frankly, his Kool Aid has lost its kick, if you catch my drift."

Other changes appear to be in store for the clue-challenged station.

A spokesmeatball for the FSM said Nielsen ratings will no longer be the measure of success at KRON. Instead, VJs will be encouraged to produce the most amateurish, non-professional, journalistically unsound reports possible in order to generate massive viral video viewings of those reports on YouTube.

"We feel we are positioning ourselves in New Media for the highest possible growth in the field of unintended comic irony," the spokesmeatball said, adding, "Besides, it's not such a big leap from the crap they're producing now."

canuckcam

11-02-2006, 07:40 PM

Yikes... that last clip... I can tell it's out of focus on YouTube! Imagine what it looked like on tv. Then imagine watching that on your brand-spanking new 50" TV! I can already tell that the camera's image-stabilization is doing the best job it can. If the IS was off, the video would be unusable. With the big push to digital, more and more people have better TVs, and even better methods of delivery to their homes. Even analog cable tv is getting better with more sensitive receivers and noise-reduction electronics in TVs. Larger markets will no doubt have more viewers on digital cable on satellite. With higher quality cable and tv sets, every camera shake, every misjudged focus rack, the viewer will notice. And the bigger the tv, the more camera shake becomes unbearable.

I can understand not carrying a tripod, but brace the camera on something! Brace your body on a tree, on a fire truck. With a handycam, get your hand off the camera because your hand shaking is transferred directly to the camera, not just the lens as in a larger camera. Use the LCD screen and place the camera on something.

But apart from the unmotivated dissolves, I thought that carrying a small camera afforded the ability of the homeowners to invite the reporter into their homes while they decided what to pack before making their escape? It might not have been that easy with a looming camera on your shoulder. Of course, the clips from the hip. That probably contributed to the ease of getting clips from people who 1. have bigger things to worry about than to talk to a camera or 2. not really thinking straight since they're scrambling to save what they can. They didn't even notice the camera aimed at them. But it just looks... wierd. Unless it's a kids show, adults can't really relate to people too well towering 2 feet over them.

To counter that, I've many times been able to clip bystanders at breaking news with a low-key (read: no mic flash) secondary shotgun mic held lower than normal. Because it's a shotgun mic, the audio is fine. At night, the toplight is what's intimidating.

" ... yeah ... good idea."

Dink

11-02-2006, 11:49 PM

Interesting. At first I thought I was watching a piece just about forest fires, but then it became apparent that I was watching a piece about how nosehairs cope with forest fires. It was great: a shot of a forest fire, followed by a shot of nosehairs. It was a study of noses.

Personally, I would have dropped the nosehair angle and put the camera up at eye level. But that's just me. Apparently VJs like nostrils.

NYC Street

11-04-2006, 10:36 AM

OK, I know I have a "different" perspective, but the nosehair issue doesn't bother me. The bad editing, shaky shooting, bizarre use of unlit shots...that bothers me.

But, the fact is, some shooters - even good ones - are not as tall as others. A long time ago, so long ago that it was shooting film, I worked with a great shooter who was all of 5'1. She ran and gunned with the best of them, and we snagged a then unprecedented interview with a government official who was easily 6'2...by literally chasing him around an auditorium...and she was carrying a CP-16 with a Frezzi.

That the shot was up his nose wasn't the issue - she was smart enough to widen out a bit to cover for it as much as it could be handled that way. That we got the interview was the key.

This guy deserves some credit for the way he stuck with his subject - but that's where it ends. Perhaps part of the problem was that in concentrating on doing two individuals' jobs, he forgot to do his...making sure the image was air-worthy.

VJs generally? They're still demonstrating on a daily basis that they can point a camera, but beyond that, they're weak-to-incapable.

Young Broadcasting? It remains a sad commentary on what happens when an owner gets in over its head financially, and won't just sell out and get it over with.

Michaelrosenblum

11-04-2006, 11:57 AM

"VJs generally? They're still demonstrating on a daily basis that they can point a camera, but beyond that, they're weak-to-incapable."

Why don't you head over to Washingtonpost.com and take a look at the work of the VJs there - Travis Fox in particular who just won an Emmy and who has won several NPPA awards. You might be surprised to learn where the standards are being set. You might also be surprised to learn that the competition for local TV news might be coming from some unexpected places. You are fortunate you are so far along in your career and that you have had such a stable run. For people just coming into the business, it serves them no good to discourage them from preparing for the change that is going to happen.

Chicago Dog

11-04-2006, 02:59 PM

Why don't you head over to Washingtonpost.com and take a look at the work of the VJs there - Travis Fox in particular who just won an Emmy and who has won several NPPA awards. You might be surprised to learn where the standards are being set.

I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt this time. I know people have done that in the past, and you've failed to prove any point whatsoever. So, I hit up Google for Travis Fox, and came across an interview with him on Online Journalism Review (http://www.ojr.org/). Here's the full article (http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/600916Junnarkar/), and here's an interesting excerpt:

I think I it will be much more integrated with traditional news reporters at the newspaper. I think we will be working much more collaboratively.

I would guess we are going work on their stories or work with them to develop their stories into video. We have had some successes with that but we haven't nailed that down as much as we really need to find the right working relationship.

We don't want them to turn into television reporters, obviously. I don't want to produce that type of video and we want to give them the time that they need to do newspaper reporting. But we want to be able to leverage their expertise into the video.

Notice how he didn't call his collaborative partner a "VJ?" He called him a "traditional news reporter." Call me crazy, but that sounds like a traditional two-person crew to me!

As for the Emmy, he did not win it on his own (as you're implying):

I did a piece in Azerbaijan with Philip Kennicott, a Post reporter, that was nominated for an Emmy. That's an example a successful collaboration. We didn't actually work together ever-- even our trips didn't overlap to Azerbaijan--but we compared notes and we shared the reporting. He went first then I went second. He wrote the script and I voiced the script and then I fed him my reporting and he fed me his reporting and we came up with something. So to me that's the kind of collaborative effort I am talking about.

If you're going to "back up" your arguments, at least try to fully understand what the hell it is you're using as back up. Surprise of surprises, you fail to prove any point whatsoever.

How embarassing for you.

For people just coming into the business, it serves them no good to discourage them from preparing for the change that is going to happen.

Have you been using that line for the last thirteen years?

I mean, you had to have been saying something remarkably similar regarding NY1.

NYC Street

11-04-2006, 05:05 PM

He was. But then NY1 dropped VJs, after discovering that the concept didn't work on anything more complicated than a flower show...and that *did* play havoc with his PR campaign.

Michaelrosenblum

11-04-2006, 06:02 PM

Dink

11-04-2006, 09:17 PM

But, the fact is, some shooters - even good ones - are not as tall as others.

The camera wasn't low because the VJ was short. The camera was low because the VJ was running around with it at waist level.

You know why they do that? Because they're lazy. They're too lazy to hold the camera up at eye level, where the viewer expects to engage the subjects being interviewed. Their little arms get tired holding it up that high.

The rest of it could have been beautifully lit and framed and steady as a rock, but it still would have looked like amateur hour. Considering how small the camera is, that kind of laziness is inexcusable.

Dink

11-04-2006, 09:34 PM

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what you think of Travis' camera work, since you guys are always so quick to critique.

I don't see his name on anything there. I did watch the first story there, a horrible piece on blessing the dorms, just to see what kind of work they were doing at the Post. The interviews were poorly lit and the camera operator was holding the camera at waist level during much of the b-roll. The audio and editing was terrible. One particularly grievous mistake was that the editor covered a soundbite from one of the students with a CU of that same student talking. You hear his voice and see his face, but the words don't match his lips. Amateur.

I found it curious that several of the pieces listed separate credits for shooter and editor. What's that all about? I thought you were showing us examples of VJs, yet the Post is apparently dividing up the work. Does your system not even work for the newspaper?

If you want to provide us a link to some of Travis' work, I might watch it. I see no point in wasting any more of my own time wading through that other crap looking for it.

NYC Street

11-04-2006, 09:59 PM

Michael:

I *do* enjoy the situation I'm in. This is a great career in a great, if changing, business.

However, pal - the problem with VJs, at NY1 or elsewhere, has never been the technology. And until you recognize that, all you'll be able to do is continue selling stations, because your promise is great, even if your delivery is bound to be constant failure, and because there will always be a manager dumb enough to believe (or want to believe) there can be a free lunch in the news business.

There isn't. Never was, never will be.
--
Dink:

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that.

Chicago Dog

11-04-2006, 11:24 PM

The reporters are print reporters. They are not television reporters. They are already out there reporting for the paper. Note how he says he does not want to turn them into conventional tv reporters. What he does is leverage off the content that the paper is already producing and paying for. This makes sense.

Mike, as soon as you begin marrying video to voice, it's not newspaper anymore. I thought you would already know that, given your extensive background involving newspaper and television analogies.

The VJs shoot, write and edit and produce the pieces piggybacking the print reporters as they work.. sometimes. Sometimes they work alone.

You've just described a traditional two-person crew. However, I find it very interesting that, even though you're willing to turn a newsroom full of television reporters into OMB/VJs, you haven't even touched on doing the same to print reporters.

The model for making television news is going to be very different from the way it is now. And the places that people will work and the way they work will be very different.

I agree -- over an extensive period of time. I seriously doubt I'm going to walk into work tomorrow and see our ratings pop up as goose eggs and our web servers under heavy requests for service.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what you think of Travis' camera work, since you guys are always so quick to critique.

Nice smoke screen, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're arguing here.

I did find it interesting that you completely sidestepped the Emmy thing. He did not win it on his own, as you pretty much insinuated he did. He was part of a two-person (see also: "traditional") crew.

As for the concept not working, I think any cursory look at local news across the US and around the world will fairly quickly show you that this is indeed gaining traction.

No, a "cursory" view would show small markets with an occasional OMB. It would also show a broadcast company trying to keep two stations afloat.

NY1 is a very old station. I did it in 1998. The technology and the model have changed a great deal since then.

But you weren't saying the same things then that you are now? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Thusly, it proves my point: this change is incredibly gradual. The technology is still too far down the road for any of this to come to fruition. It simply doesn't exist. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Again, Street and no doubt you are well established and set in your ways, but for people just starting out, the opportunities for the VJ are vastly greater and growing all the time. Enjoy the situation you are in. For people just starting out, you do them a disservice to denigrate something that is obviously a growth business for them.

Pretty much. I haven't had a problem adjusting so far, and I sure as hell am not worried about you.

Buck

11-04-2006, 11:43 PM

You know why they do that? Because they're lazy. They're too lazy to hold the camera up at eye level, where the viewer expects to engage the subjects being interviewed.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I remember MR saying they are taught to hold the cameras that way.

Dink

11-05-2006, 12:43 AM

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I remember MR saying they are taught to hold the cameras that way.

He teaches them that way because he plays to weakness. He realizes that it's difficult to get people to do the work necessary to shoot good video, so instead he redefines what good video means. For example, when his inexperienced VJs had interviews looking directly into the camera, instead of acknowledging that it looked amateur he said he liked that mistake because he thinks it directly engages the audience. When video is shaky, he says it's actually good because video should have movement.

Likewise here. Despite its small size, holding one of these cameras out in front of you at eye level gets tiring quickly, and it becomes increasingly difficult to get steady video. It's also an awkward position (unlike full sized video cameras at eye level--on the shoulder). The natural tendency is for the arms to drop. So, instead of telling his VJs to buck up, get used to the burn in their shoulders and build up their endurance, he tells them it's okay--nay, actually looks good--to lose most of the ground level detail in a scene in favor of boring shots of the ceiling behind their interviews and in their b-roll.

So, basically, they do it because they're lazy, and because MR tells them it's good to be lazy. If you can't accomplish excellence, just pretend that mediocrity is excellent.

Michaelrosenblum

11-05-2006, 06:32 AM

Buck

11-05-2006, 09:19 AM

Do you really think it is better to have the audience look at the subject's ear instead of having the subject eyeball to eyeball with the viewer? Take a clean, objective look at what you put on the air. How many times is the viewer staring down someone's ear canal? Now, if you think this is professional, go home and have a conversation with your wife and only point your ear at her face. See how engaged she gets.

Explain that to the people at 60 Minutes. Maybe they should get world leaders to stare into the camera?

And if a photog is shooting down an "ear canal" then it's too much of a profile shot, which most of us never do and you know it.

Michaelrosenblum

11-05-2006, 09:28 AM

Maybe 60 Minutes should get world leaders (they do more celebrities these days..alas) to stare into the camera. Errol Morris has done some great work by putting himself into a teleprompter and interviewing people so that he is effectively staring at people and they at the audience.

You can play with the grammar of video a bit now... and there is room for change and improvement. Most of the time, particularly in local news, you don't do 2-camera interview with your subjects. Many times you don't put in a reaction shot or a 2-shot. You just take the soundbite of the subject staring off into space.

The upshot of all his is that we have created a grammar wherein the audience is a 'fly on the wall', watching a conversation take place in front of them... or subjects looking left or right (be sure to watch those directions!). The result is that the audience is one step removed from the immediacy of what they are watching. Go to the movies and watch eye contact between the actors and the audience. It is immediate and direct. They drill into you. It works. Try it. Go ahead. Take a chance. When the mother you are interviewing says, "I was afraid my child would die" let her stare directly into the eyes of the mom sitting at home in the living room watching your report. Its a lot more powerful than seeing her profile... or the 'caring' nodding of the head of the reporter.

Buck

11-05-2006, 11:47 AM

Its a lot more powerful than seeing her profile... or the 'caring' nodding of the head of the reporter.

Again, it's NOT a profile or an ear shot, not if shot correctly.

And I do agree, using a nodding head shot is lame.

Chicago Dog

11-05-2006, 12:03 PM

Hey Mike -- why'd you insinuate Travis Fox won an Emmy as a OMB/VJ when he, in fact, won it as part of a traditional two-person crew?

This is the third time I've asked.

SEPhotog

11-05-2006, 12:05 PM

So should movie producers start shooting straight into the actor's face? You are a fly on the wall when watching a movie, and people seem to be engaged by movies. And, btw, looking up their nose really isn't looking into their eyes.

Michaelrosenblum

11-05-2006, 12:57 PM

Movie producers often do shoot directly into the actors faces. Go rent some DVDs and watch them shot by shot. Watch the grammar and construct of the film visually. Really take them apart. The work of some of the best filmmakers in the world is there for you to learn from. Then take a DVD of your local news pieces and do the same. See if you see a difference. There is no reason we can't bring filmmaking grammar to television journalism. In a film, (a really good film) the viewer is cast in the center of the action, they are part of it. They are in the room. In most TV journalism the viewer is watching from outside.

As for the Travis Fox Emmy, the following is from The Washington Post:

Travis Fox
Travis Fox is an Emmy Award-winning video producer for washingtonpost.com, where he covers international and domestic stories. Past assignments have taken him to the war in Iraq and across the Middle East, Europe and Asia. His distinctive web video and panoramic photos are considered innovative in the field of Internet journalism. In 2006, he recieved an Emmy Award for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina. The White House News Photographers Association has named him Editor of the Year three times, most recently in 2006. In 2002, he was also named Camera Person of the Year. In addition to washingtonpost.com, Fox's videos are regularly featured on television and in film festivals. He graduated from the Missouri School of Journalism and lives in New York.

Do you see the part where it says "Travis Fox is an Emmy Award-winning video producer"? Do you see why I feel comfortable calling Travis Fox 'am emmy-award winner'? Does this answer your question?

Do you see the part where it says "In 2006 he received an Emmy Award for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina"?

SEPhotog

11-05-2006, 01:29 PM

Actors don't glare into a camera; especially one that is looking up their nose from their waist line. I suppose they did in The Blair Witch Project, which by from what I've seen seems to fit your standards of good shooting...and some of the scenes in ferris Bueller where he actually speaks to the camera. Those scenes are so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend them.

Buck

11-05-2006, 01:35 PM

Chicago Dog

11-05-2006, 03:07 PM

Do you see the part where it says "Travis Fox is an Emmy Award-winning video producer"? Do you see why I feel comfortable calling Travis Fox 'am emmy-award winner'? Does this answer your question?\

At last, an answer. Yes, I do see where it says he's an Emmy-award winning video producer.

However, I don't see anything about Fox being an Emmy-award winning local news video producer. That is, after all, the context in which your "system" is trying to "save." You're comparing apples to oranges.

And there you have it. I get an answer, you get the point.

http://beware.itsmyland.com/pictures/The%20Blair%20Witch%20Project%20(Heather).jpg

Hah, I remember everyone complaining about that movie because the video was so shaky. Motion sickness sufferers, beware!
;)

Michaelrosenblum

11-05-2006, 03:39 PM

You are really grasping at straws now.
Lucky for you I am spending Sunday in an edit with b-roll as a distraction.
If Travis can do international do you think he could swing local? Do you think if I were building local vj-driven systems in a number of cities with... oh a phone company mabe... just for argument's sake.. that I might think to link up with newspapers who are doing the same (just an idea... think about that one...).

FYI, some of my systems are local news, some are international, some are just producing programming. (have you seen this season's 5takes? Looks pretty good.) Does not matter. Like you, if you can shoot (and I assume you can, though in truth I have never seen your work), you can probably handle local news, international stories or programming for cable or network. Likewise here.
Sorry.

Jax

11-05-2006, 10:46 PM

That last clip...

Dude forgot his tripod...

This coming from a guy with his picture showing him shouldering a camera...

Chicago Dog

11-06-2006, 12:42 AM

You are really grasping at straws now.

Of course it would seem that way, coming from someone who does nothing more than talk in circles. Do you ever get tired of comparing apples to oranges?

Lucky for you I am spending Sunday in an edit with b-roll as a distraction.

Thank God for that! For a second, I thought you might be punchin' away keys on a laptop while perched upon a porcelain throne, pinching off a loaf. Do you have a parole officer reading our lively forum back-and-forth banter or something?

If Travis can do international do you think he could swing local?

For the following statement, I mean no disrespect to Fox: I absolutely do not think he could swing local news, especially in a run-and-gun market like my own.

Do you think if I were building local vj-driven systems in a number of cities with... oh a phone company mabe... just for argument's sake.. that I might think to link up with newspapers who are doing the same (just an idea... think about that one...).

Re-inventing the wheel.

Freddie Mercury

11-06-2006, 02:21 AM

It's pretty obvious that the argument of subjects looking into the lens is more compelling is a convenient way to deal with that tendency when someone is shooting alone. Convenient, but false.

Any time I end up with a soundbite where the person is looking at the lens, there is a decided awkwardness about it. It's far from intimate. It feels more artificial and emphasizes the presence of the camera and photographer.

In movies, outside of narration this is sometimes used as a point of view or a comical aside. It's an exception to how most films are shot, and is rare. I can't see that tranlating to a news story unless it's a cutesy feature.

I don't mean to discourage you from preaching this kind of shooting, though. You keep training the home video style, and the rest of us will look even better by comparison.

Dirge

11-06-2006, 06:31 AM

In movies, outside of narration this is sometimes used as a point of view or a comical aside.

ALL HAIL THE KING!

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/930/17761TinkerBell.jpg

Dink

11-06-2006, 12:57 PM

See what I mean? When his drones make a mistake, he repaints it as intentional and says it's a "new style."

In reference to movies, MR is just plain wrong. Actors rarely talk directly into the camera. When they do, it's almost always because they're talking directly to the audience. Usually, however, they're looking slightly off screen at another actor. There are a couple of directors who have their actors talk directly to the camera during conversations (Jonathan Demme comes to mind), but they are rare, because the practice is awkward.

I found this comment really funny:

Movie producers often do shoot directly into the actors faces.

The only time a producer is shooting a movie is when it's an amateur micro budget "film," shot on video, that has very little chance of ever being finished or seen. I doubt Michael has ever set foot on a real movie set, where a cinematographer shoots the pictures and works with a director to block the scenes. A film producer rarely has anything to do with that; and even when he does, it's because he's producing AND directing, and thus has the director's hat on at that moment and wouldn't be referred to as the producer.

MR shouldn't try to draw examples from something he knows nothing about. But when has THAT stopped him?