A-Roll/B-Roll

[swing-low]

At my current station the reporters A-roll the packages and then the photographers come in and B-roll it. Recently I took a new job and am in my final weeks here, and was talking to a reporter recently about how it will be different to have to both A and B-roll my packages again. He asked if I had ever heard of any other stations that do it this way. So, does your station or have you heard of any station where the reporter does the A-roll and the photographer does the B-roll?

[1911A1]

I used to work at a place that sometimes did it that way. Sometimes the reporter A-rolled the pkg and the photog did the rest and sometime the reporter edited the whole story. It was pretty rare for a photog to edit a whole story. It's still that way at that station and a few others that I know.

[Lenslinger]

Perhaps I'll get blasted for being naive, but that's the goofiest thing I've ever heard of. Are we talking non-linear? What's the reasoning behind it? Is there an upside? Do these pants make me look fat?

I'm reminded of my first shop so many moons ago, when reporters edited their entire packages while photogs chased fender-benders. The desire to control ALL of my work led me to pursue the one-man-band route and today I still emply those same methods by choice - not necessity. I realize there are shops where shooters do just that, handing off their footage to editors - but I want no part of it. I much prefer taking an assignment from a three word scribble on the dry-erase board to a finished package - without a lot of unneeded horsesh!t and interference from someone with hairspray in their run-bag. And no, I'm not knocking reporters. We got some great ones, but I'd rather watch their stories than shoot them. Why I can't really say ; I just know I never curse in the edit bay when I'm editing to my own script, which I wrote to my own video, which I shot any damn way I chose. Maybe I just don't play well with others.

Anyhoo, eager to hear others experience with this seemingly goofy-ass way to produce news.

[cameradog]

We did it that way when I worked in Tallahassee. I discovered that I could usually finish editing faster if I did the whole thing myself. Most of the reporters were bad editors, and they would do stupid things like leaving an extra syllable on the end of a soundbite that would have to be shaved off, or clipping off the ends of words, or leaving huge unnatural gaps, or butting bites together clumsily, or having audio levels all over the meter. Some of them would leave holes for nat breaks without any particular sound in mind, expecting us to fill it with a noise that just magically fit there. I spent more time cleaning up their messes than actually editing.

I went against station procedure and started asking the reporters to track to a voice tape. The immediate jump in quality got immediate notice and immediate feedback. A few of the reporters were reluctant to give up ownership of what had become part of their jobs, but most were more than happy to have a better looking product, and a few actually started asking to work with me to make their own work look better. You know you're doing something right when people ask for you. It also pissed off a couple of our lazier photogs who were afraid it would catch on, and they would actually have to do some work in the afternoons.

[Land Rover]

I have to say that I've never heard of that before. The only two forms I've dealt with are either the reporter or the photog cutting it. I don't think I'd like it either.

[cameradog]

Perhaps I'll get blasted for being naive, but that's the goofiest thing I've ever heard of. Are we talking non-linear? What's the reasoning behind it? Is there an upside? Do these pants make me look fat?

No, your ass makes you look fat.;)

As for the reason behind this practice, there are actually a few reasonable justifications for it. Probably the best one is that, with some new reporters especially, editing this way helps make a better transition between bites and track. The way it worked with us is that the reporter tracked directly to the edit tape. She would lay down track, set an in point and lay in a bite, set a new in point and lay in track, etc. She was supposed to listen to the last part of the bite during the preroll for her track. Actually hearing the interview's cadence in those last five seconds would affect the way she would start speaking, so that the transitions were better. Reporters who learn to track this way tend to take those natural transitions with them when they edit conventionally, hearing the bites in their heads while they're tracking and matching the cadence accordingly.

Another is that IF the reporter is a good editor, it can be a pretty fast way to work. Rather than logging tapes, the reporter takes good notes and already knows what bites she's going to use. Instead of writing down timecodes for the photog to go find later, she just lays them in herself. We had a few reporters who were speed demons. The problem was that they just weren't very good editors.

And doing it this way can be an advantage in a smaller shop where the reporters might have more experience than the photogs. In the shop where I did it, it was generally a second or third shop for the reporters, but a starter market for photogs, and most of the reporters had one man banded in the past. It's sad to think about, but it wasn't unusual for the reporter to be the better editor. That probably made the newsroom as a whole faster, since the reporters could lay out the spine in much shorter time than some of the photogs.

Personally, I don't think the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

[swing-low]

I'm told it's suppose to be more efficient, but just like you pointed out Cameradog most of the reporters are bad editors. There are some that I end up cutting 10 to 15 seconds of extra stuff out of the package, but there a few who are really good at it and make it easy to come in and drop shots in in a crunch. So, as far as being more efficient I don't know that I could agree with that most nights.

[A Step Above Productions]

I was the Chief Editor at one of those 24-hour news stations back in the late 90’s– I will not mention the name of the station but they are in Central Florida.

Anyways the reporters were and from what I hear still are one-man bands – but they didn’t edit their own stories the editors would cut them. The problem with the system they had in motion was that the reporters would not only time code the sound bites but they would time code each and every shot they wanted.

What’s the point of having editors?

They were editing their PKG’s with out actually editing them. I put a stop to this by making the point that in the time it took the reporters to time code every shot they could have cut the story them selves. Management loved it – Reporters were afraid that the editors would screw it up and the editors were afraid that they had to think.

After a few weeks and little to no clitches my system (a normal system for the most part) worked and still is working.

[David R. Busse]

I've seen this done in several markets large and small. Cameradog pretty much nailed the positives and negatives with one exception.

The product often looks (and sounds) like illustrated radio. I watched a reporter/photog team from a big (non-union) market work this way a few years ago. The funny part was, before I saw the way this guy worked, I got a 30-minute morning diatribe from the reporter about how unfair the business is and how he's sent zillions of tapes to news directors and agents, trying to get to a top five market.

Then I saw this guy's work...very little writing to pictures, tired copy and no breaks for natural sound. It was compelling radio. The hapless photographer jumped in to add the pictures and his editing appeared to be much the same as one of those big asphalt pavers you see on highway construction projects...uniform in thickness, no lumps or creases. No journalistic input at all--just a paper-hanger, with the seams nice and tight against the sound bites.

Ugh.

I had the answer to his career dilemma, but I quickly discovered this guy probably wouldn't want to hear my opinion. Then it became very clear that he didn't want to hear anything from his photographer, either. It was a one-way street with this guy and it showed.

I mentioned this fellow some time later to a couple of news executives. They cringed and winced when they heard the name. "We've seen his work..." they said. Enough said.

Doing television news stories isn't brain surgery but, to do it correctly requires the most unique journalistic collaboration between a reporter and a photographer, with plenty of give-and-take and an ultimate goal of telling a compelling story in an entertaining and truthful manner. With that goal, the reporter may offer suggestions about how to edit (or shoot) a particular sequence...and the photographer may offer suggestions on how to write to a certain sequence...or how to structure the story for maximum visual impact. No ego problems here--the true professionals in this business look forward to the taffy pull as part of the journalism process.

The folks who see it as a one way street? Well, the only ones who suffer are the viewers...and the reporters who are trying to make their product impress a prospective employer. They tend to NOT be upwardly mobile.

I had this discussion many years ago with a new reporter at a station where I formerly worked. He was a very good reporter but came from the "one way street" method of doing things and it showed. One day, we did a long-form piece and I suggested we try something different...we edited the piece, together, before the track was ever written (as taught to me by Leigh Wilson, Darrell Barton and others more than three decades ago). Most of the writing was done (later) in a manner to fit between natural sound and simply move the story along. Had an afternoon to do this but it changed this guy's whole focus on how good news stories go together..and suddenly this guy started cranking out stunning TV copy rather than radio scripts delivered on TV.

[must-c-tv]

To throw in another way of editing --- (and I think this was mentioned on the board a few years ago by Cameragod and others) --- there is the 'British' style of editing by ITN, BBC, and Sky News.

Sitting together the reporter and editor (who is 90% of the time the shooter) find a sequence in the b-roll and write a sentence, track it, and lay down the video. Then on to the next sentence/sequence. Find it, write it, track it, lay down the pictures.

This may seem slower than having the reporter write the entire piece and bring a script into the editing bay. But if the team is good it's pretty fast - and in my opinion - generally ensures the best video is used. I know many American reporters write a script with barely a glance at what the cameraman has done.

Without being too arrogant, I think in general British news and current affairs is of quite high quality.

The down side with this method is that it is a little tricky to know in advance your total run time.

Now, I work primarily for an American news network out of their London bureau - and while this is the UK, in the bureau we edit using American style - reporter views video, writes script, picks bites, and comes into the edit bay with a printed script.

The reason we do in this way is because the legal department in NY has to approve any reporter script before we edit it.

But the BBC, Channel 4 etc all edit in this 'British' way.

Just my two pence....

[cameradog]

Sitting together the reporter and editor (who is 90% of the time the shooter) find a sequence in the b-roll and write a sentence, track it, and lay down the video. Then on to the next sentence/sequence. Find it, write it, track it, lay down the pictures.

That sounds like trying to put the doors, tires, interior, engine, transmission, rear axle and paint on a car all at the same time.

[cameragod]

With a good reporter the “British” method is a dream. With a less than good reporter it is a nightmare. Seriously done right with a skilled team the “British” has very few limitations and delivers a superior documentary feel, but it is like a trapeze act with no net. Get it wrong and you don’t just fall you splat!
The voice and then edit is safer and faster and a good editor can make a below average reporter seem tight and coherent.

[LuccaBrazzi]

I've never heard of that setup, either (been in the biz 22 years).
I'd rather cut everything myself. Especially when doing linear or "Old school" editing...because when I lay down the A-roll I'm always looking to sneak-in little :01 or :02 natsound pops several times in the PKG.

If someone else lays down the A-roll, then that nat-pop stuff doesn't get laid down.

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

According to Les Rose, Steve Hartman used to edit almost all of their "Everyone Has A Story" pieces. Granted it wasn't the most flawless editing, and in fact it is chock quite full of jumpcuts...but their stories are the blueprint for Substance over Style. Good storytelling wins out over all else.

[David R. Busse]

I've never heard of that setup, either (been in the biz 22 years).
I'd rather cut everything myself. Especially when doing linear or "Old school" editing...because when I lay down the A-roll I'm always looking to sneak-in little :01 or :02 natsound pops several times in the PKG.

If someone else lays down the A-roll, then that nat-pop stuff doesn't get laid down.

I've never heard it called "British style" but it's a good name and believe it or not, the editing before writing works. Try it the next time you have a chance. The old NBC correspondent Jack Perkins used to edit a lot of stuff this way...

I did a couple of 30-minute (non broadcast) shows in that manner a few years ago and when I finished the editing and writing, I just leaned back and said "...wow.." The pictures and sounds took center stage and the words were there--sparingly--just to help the story along here and there.

(One of these projects, btw, was shot just up the road from you near Chama).

I had a German TV crew in my sat truck a few years ago editing a long piece in this British style and the editing process seemed unorthodox but the correspondent did an excellent job of marrying the few German words I understood with the pictures.

[NEWSSHOOTER3]

According to Les Rose, Steve Hartman used to edit almost all of their "Everyone Has A Story" pieces. Granted it wasn't the most flawless editing, and in fact it is chock quite full of jumpcuts...but their stories are the blueprint for Substance over Style. Good storytelling wins out over all else.

It is amazing how well it works for them, even from a purist point of view!

Having said that, this whole I A-Roll & you B-Roll thing, is just plain queer! :eek:

[Turdpolisher]

I worked with the whole reporter a-rolls, photog b-rolls many moons back in Mobile, AL. We did it that way because reporters cut their audio in the edit booth, directly onto the story master tape. They left holes for nats that rarely fit, and clipped a lot of sound bites, but that's how they did it.

Stupidest thing I ever saw.

[Clutch City]

Sometimes our reporters will do it that way because we are out shooting or editing something else. With non-linear it's not that big of a deal. We can move around tracks and bites and get our nats in where we see fit.

I don't have a problem with it, although sometimes I'll have to tweak the bites because they cut off the bite a fraction too soon for some reason.

[bassetf5]

when we actually HAD a and b roll on film... we'd write a script, cut reporter audio on carts (looked kinda like the old 8-tracks) and cut silent film to fit it. then you'd cut your bites out of the sound film... and hand the whole thing to an editor who'd assemble an a roll (sound) and a b roll (silent) for the whole newscast.

those would go onto a double projector with a video camera on the other end and a pivoting mirror in the middle. in a perfect world the director would start the silent film and the cart at the same time, they'd end together just as the soundbite started and the mirror would flip from b to a roll. end of the bite, back to cart and silent film.

as you would expect there were all kinds of ways for that to go wrong, splice failures and bad punches the most common among them.

my stomach still turns over when I think of the time I was producing and anchoring weekends and realized five minutes before the show that I had not put the a and b rolls together and everything was still on pegs up in the editing room...

[Ecks76]

I would think that having the reporter A-roll would be giving up too much creative control... Aside from the fact most reporters are horrible editors, even few probably know how to backtime a bite or keep the edits tight, creating awkward gaps bewteen tracks and bites... Even if I worked for a shop like that, I'd probably insist on just editing the whole thing myself... Screw station policy, the name of the game is to make sure the thing looks great on air, isn't it? Most reporters are focused on content, and not the overall flow of the finished product...