"LIVE" via I-Phone

b-roll

Administrator
Staff member
KOB Reporter does iPhone LIVE Shot



From: Al Tompkins Poynter Online

“Reporter Jeremy Jojola filed a live video story last week for KOB-TV in Albuquerque, N.M., using an iPhone and the Web site Qik.com. Jojola is one of many journalists who have begun experimenting with new ways of recording live video reports using their phones and free video-sharing Web sites.”

Tompkins has an interview with Jojola. Watch the video and let us know what you think.



KOB-TV’s story can be found at: http://www.kob.com.

Jeremy’s blog can be found here.
 
Last edited:

iHD

Well-known member
So, this guy does a live shot on a cell phone but does a story about these guys who develops apps but DOESN'T explain what app he's using to do the live or how they're doing it? Seems to me like he didn't answer the biggest question every viewer must have been asking. Pretty crappy story if you ask me. If you're going to do a live shot with a cell phone, you better explain how you're doing it.
 
We tried something new......

So, this guy does a live shot on a cell phone but does a story about these guys who develops apps but DOESN'T explain what app he's using to do the live or how they're doing it? Seems to me like he didn't answer the biggest question every viewer must have been asking. Pretty crappy story if you ask me. If you're going to do a live shot with a cell phone, you better explain how you're doing it.
Oh well...you can't make everyone happy....:)

We chose not to explain exactly how we did it because not everyone in our audience works in television. The point of the story was to SHOW our viewers how the iPhone and other smart phones are changing the way people work, even us reporters and photogs.

As far as how we did that iHD, let me help you out.....

If anyone is interested...here's what I wrote-up for tvspy.com. It will appear tomorrow morning.

While the technology is too crude to replace our conventional equipment, I believe cell phone video is only going to improve and become standard once frame-rates and audio improve.

The future is here!

Jeremy Jojola
KOB
 

roliveira

Member
I see the point of the live shot from the i phone.. but why did you hold it so close? Was there someone around to hold it farther away? You chopped the whole bottom half of your face off. Would have been okay if they didnt leave the CG up the whole time! Yeah its cool that its a live shot from an i phone.. but if it doesnt look half way decent then the only thing the people watching will notice is how crappy it looks.. and pray they dont see another live shot from an iphone again... I know im being harsh but come on... it really does look bad. Maybe you had to keep it close because of audio issues???
 
I see the point of the live shot from the i phone.. but why did you hold it so close? Was there someone around to hold it farther away? You chopped the whole bottom half of your face off. Would have been okay if they didnt leave the CG up the whole time! Yeah its cool that its a live shot from an i phone.. but if it doesnt look half way decent then the only thing the people watching will notice is how crappy it looks.. and pray they dont see another live shot from an iphone again... I know im being harsh but come on... it really does look bad. Maybe you had to keep it close because of audio issues???
I made the mistake of not thinking about a headset or a Bluetooth device before the live shot. Yes, we had to have the phone close to my face because of audio and ambient noise. An audio headset will no doubt clear things up the next time.

Also, for some reason, when we routed our computer into the TV switcher, it zoomed in on the full screen image of the video feed. I don't know why it does that...but the next time, I'd like to have something better.

I know I'm in a den of wolves here/under a hornets nest in this forum when it comes to video quality. After all, we are paid to be critical and its our nature...so I welcome it.

But in my station's defense, anytime something new is attempted, it's never going to be perfect or clean-cut. At least we are taking a risk and trying something new.

I'll be happy to answer any other questions about how we did it.

JJ
 

iHD

Well-known member
We chose not to explain exactly how we did it because not everyone in our audience works in television.
They might not work in television but just take a peak at ustreamtv and look at how many people are streaming live these days. I'm sure there are plenty of non-TV viewers out there that would have liked to know how you did the live stream from the iPhone. I personally don't care how you did it because I have no use for it. However, if you're going to do a story about the iPhone and the apps, at least tell your audience the app you're using to do your shot. Just seems like a no brainer.
 
They might not work in television but just take a peak at ustreamtv and look at how many people are streaming live these days. I'm sure there are plenty of non-TV viewers out there that would have liked to know how you did the live stream from the iPhone. I personally don't care how you did it because I have no use for it. However, if you're going to do a story about the iPhone and the apps, at least tell your audience the app you're using to do your shot. Just seems like a no brainer.
Those non-tv viewers likely already know how it's done...especially if they have the iphone and use ustream.
 

bokchoy

Member
Jeremy,

It is great that you understand the 'future' of media. The critiques about your story/live shot come from two sources: first the fact that this makes alot of people, people with families to support nervous. Second: you ARE in a hornets nest full of people whose jobs it is, is to make sure video and audio look and sound good. We get paid to do that, and when we see poor quality for the sake of saving a station a buck, many of us scoff at the idea. I don't think anyone here is unrealistic about the future of news, but please show some sensitivity because your package is not about YOU.. it is about all of us.

I'm not here to knock you as a person or your package, just please understand fully where we are coming from.

Thanks and best wishes.
 

Chicago Dog

Well-known member
Second: you ARE in a hornets nest full of people whose jobs it is, is to make sure video and audio look and sound good. We get paid to do that, and when we see poor quality for the sake of saving a station a buck, many of us scoff at the idea. I don't think anyone here is unrealistic about the future of news, but please show some sensitivity because your package is not about YOU.. it is about all of us.
Ding, ding! Bonus points to you for explaining it with tact and civility. Willingly avoiding technological advancements in this profession is suicide for your career. However, cutting employees -- especially in this profession -- because of so-called "advancements" like grainy iPhone video is station suicide.

As Nino rightly pointed out: "The problem is that the industry has been listening to the wrong people."

The future is here!
First off, kudos to you for grabbing a screen name and participating in our forum.

Sure, it's neat that you were able to hold up a cell phone and go live from wherever it was you were going live. Unfortunately, the technology to achieve that ability on a regular, professional basis is pretty far off. The fact that a normal camera was used in shooting the story should tell you that.

I'm all for new technology, don't get me wrong, but we have to be patient. Showing viewers grainy, shaky, poorly-shot video is not the answer to attracting viewers. Has this same set-up been used since this liveshot? Is the station paying for it? I'm guessing the station isn't parking its livetrucks for liveshots with iPhones anytime soon.

I'm looking forward to the day that Sony or Panasonic hit the market with a camera that'll let us go live from virtually anywhere. It'll blow all this consumer crap out of the water. Hopefully, the profession will still have viewers when that day hits.

... An audio headset will no doubt clear things up the next time.
... but the next time, I'd like to have something better.
Viewers don't stick around until the "trial and error" phase works itself out. Constant cost-cutting burps and glitches will tire them out and push them away. Unlike employees in the news business, viewers don't get paid to sit around and ride out the rough waters.

The iPhone liveshot and its purpose in this story was a nice novelty, but its output is far from professional.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy,

It is great that you understand the 'future' of media. The critiques about your story/live shot come from two sources: first the fact that this makes alot of people, people with families to support nervous. Second: you ARE in a hornets nest full of people whose jobs it is, is to make sure video and audio look and sound good. We get paid to do that, and when we see poor quality for the sake of saving a station a buck, many of us scoff at the idea. I don't think anyone here is unrealistic about the future of news, but please show some sensitivity because your package is not about YOU.. it is about all of us.
Thanks for the civil reply. You make a strong point and I agree with you. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic or disrespectful to anyone's profession although I can understand how some photographers can see my written perspective as abrasive. For those who feel offended at my live shot or anything I write, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Of course the PKG is not about me.....another reason why we focused on the iPhone developers in the story rather than the technical aspects of the live shot.

But I do hope you see where I'm coming from too. We chose to do something new and we took a risk. It wasn't perfect, it was quite crude and some may see the quality as sloppy....but don't write-off this live shot without acknowledging the attempt or the risk of trying something significant.

It's quite clear the live shot was effective enough to the point where it's being talked about on industry websites like this one.

As for saving the station money. I'm not responsible for the budget. I did it to try something new.

I do think viewers will find the video/audio quality forgiving, but only in situations where they know a live truck can't go or during breaking news....as for those who shoot video for a living...I don't expect much forgiveness.

Hornets nest!

JJ
 
Actually I'd be careful about assuming viewers won't care about quality, especially with the situations one sees stations actually using this sort of video for. Much of the viewing public won't complain directly to the offending station, they'll just change the channel.
I do agree. I think until this technology is on par with 30 frames per second and can stream in HD (which is a looooooooooooooooooooong way off), it should not be used for daily live shots.

I do support it's use now when there are no other options available, like on top of a mountain during a rescue operation where a live truck can't go or during breaking news when a live truck is a long way off.
 

AlexLucas

Well-known member
The thing I've learned is that the basics don't change...

Jeremy, you have stepped into a hornet's nest here. The truth of the matter is that your idea for an iPhone liveshot is solid for the story. However, people have a tough time applying the TRUTH of things to the rest of the world.
The truth is, quality. Period. You can't fake it. And quality on all cylinders. That means prep, story, photography, ideas, writing, and overall execution.
Anything less is failure town.

If you push the envelope, you hand it out there to them, they'll take it, make money off of you for it, and you endanger yourself into the land of STUPID MANAGEMENT MANDATES that destroy content in the name of SUPER-COOL-CAPABILITIES. I'll give examples in a sec.

I was one of the original VJs. I suffered through the painful changes, and learned a basic rule: when game changers arrive, they often don't actually change the game because management is too stupid to understand what to do with them, and they just cause failure. Most people are too shortsighted, and ultimately, too stupid to see that in free television, quality is the most important commodity. Reducing the quality of what you're doing, at any time, is a turn off. All of us old fogeys now realize that. We fear our managers in newsrooms (except my current one) and know that most are really not smart enough to see how a tool should be applied.
I learned this the hard way.
Sure, it was appropriate, and it worked for the story.
The problem is, that you give your managers enough rope to hang you with.
They're at a loss for ideas, and when you give them one, even a half-baked one, they'll run it into the ground until failure. And failure in television is literally weeks away.
Managers are, no matter what podium of higher thinking we put them on, just as stupid as the rest of us, and less connected.

Examples:
1. We had a Magid consultant tell us at one of my stations that we needed to 'use the live trucks more.'
Solution: Live shots on every story. Required. (Soon, the Magid consultant said, "Hey, really, um, you didn't have to do every story with a live shot. No. Seriously. Calm down.) It was too late to change. It was AUTO-MANDATED.

2. I was at a Fox station on Sept. 11th.
Solution: We love America more than you. Point casting for specific political parties. It was a political move instead of a tech one. Yeah, that worked out. STUPID-AUTO-MANDATED.

3. Newer cameras come out, the station group is bankrupt, and the web has just been discovered by an old fogey at the glass corner office at the top of the building... sooo...
Solution: Go VJ. Everyone gets a small camera. No more assignment desk (direct suicide with the public). Everyone shoots and edits. Don't worry about the details, just finish a story. STUPID-MANDATED.

Those are just my bonehead management mistakes that I was privy to. Many suffer on offices where, every night, regardless of how good a story is, the nightsiders must do a four, five, and six, and then start a new one for ten... MANDATED. Say, the governor was busted at four, five, and six for bribery.
This is a conversation those stupid shops get into:
"Why can't we do the governor?"
"The anchor is doing the governor as a VOSOT. It already ran as a package."
"But not everybody watches the 4 through 6! It's my story. Pack the governor!"
"Look, you have to change every night. You're the off-B lead. Cat show. It's a rule."

What I am saying is this:
Just do yourself a favor and when the next stupid twentysomething producer says, 'We don't have a live truck working, could you go live from your iPhone?", you lie to them and make some technical 'matchstick man' routine about quarks and such, so that they can't use it.
You're embracing being the guy at the bar with the parrot on his shoulder, if you keep it up.
(Hot chick comes over at the grocery store) "Hey! You're the parrot guy, right?"

In short, would you be proud enough to put an iPhone liveshot on your resume reel?
Think about it.
Technology doesn't change content.
Don't let desk sitters destroy your content, which they will, almost invariably, the moment they discover new, AMAZING-SUPER-COOL capabilities.

That being said, interesting, and appropriate live shot.
 

bokchoy

Member
Jeremy,

to clarify when I said your pkg wasn't about "YOU", I didn't mean there were an excessive amount of 2-shots or a stupid stand-up. Simply meant the pkg had greater implications for news as a whole. We are in a time where quantity is often mistaken for quality. Some members of management believe if you smother a market with vj's you can cover more stories (to equal depth). In my market a competing station is trying to do just that. Yet while their reporter is setting up the camera and trying to figure out composition (ok this is rare), the reporters I am with are asking questions and getting background information. The reporters I work with have time to do more digging. Adding live-shots to the duties reporters already have can only take away from time spent doing well-rounded reporting. Toss in poor audio/video quality and you have to scratch your head, especially here on hornetsnest.com.

Kudos to the innovation and your thinking. No one is knocking your effort. I even think the idea might be okay for smaller market stations that lack resources. However there is a price in whatever market this current technology is used and that could mean viewership or worse: quality of reporting.

I think what can be summed up from this discussion is that folks who work in journalism are a caring, hard-working and proud bunch. That being said the journalist in all of us has to question this step and whether or not is a betterment for jounralism and the public at-large.

Thanks to everyone for getting the brain juices going. Sometimes I can't have discussions like this in the newsroom without sounding like a geek.
 

Mike@kennedys

Active member
Well done Jeremy. You're a messenger bringing bad news. I won't shoot you. I think the use of the iPhone in the production of the piece was instructive without being gratuitous. It spoke for itself. There has to be a fleet of Sat truck owners/operators, and tv station op's managers who are very nervous by what you've illustrated. Yeah..the quality isn't there. But it's a stone's throw away. The Sat Truck is the Bacon Cheeseburger of television news. (Did I say that out loud? God help me.) It tastes great...but how long can this go on?
 

adam

Well-known member
Neat idea, two thoughts after reading the forum;

Jeremy I think that streaming HD isn't as far off as you think. A lot of cities are seeing WiMax and extensive 4G systems build in, it's a matter of time and demand. As the saying goes "good, fast and cheap... pick two" and in this case we've already got fast.

I actually think local news is behind the curve in terms of streaming video. A lot people are used to Skype or Google video chat. We need to be careful not to get over zealous in pointing out that we're just now figuring it out. Most of our audience doesn't realize what a pain it is to seamlessly sync up a remote video signal to the board in the control room.

None of that is to diminish what you did, because I'm a fan of poking technology with a stick. Now, having opened the box, you need to help make sure that you're always pushing, pushing, pushing to improve the quality... lest the hornets come for you ;-)
 

Mike@kennedys

Active member
Opening a Can

This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular:

I see a lot of responses in this thread from people who are near my age or older, who are reacting negatively to the revelations apparent from the original post. I see people writing out of fear. And I understand that. But the fact is that at some point the viewers and “news management” will be willing to sacrifice quality to get the story.

Look: Nobody…but nobody shoots news at the top tier of the technology available. Otherwise we’d see news photogs shooting with the $250k cameras they use to shoot feature “films”. I’m in a top 5-10 market. We have a network O&O using toy P2 cameras costing in the $5000 range!

We’re living in a time in which technology is moving faster than a defacto standard can be established for news acquisition. And we’re enduring an increase in the image quality of acquisition available to the general public. That competes with our skill set. Dads shooting dance recital have the same basic technology that we do.

BetaSP is dead, and no one standard has replaced it. There will never be another standard as there was with BetaSP. Tons of new formats are emerging and developing. If the recession gets deep enough, manufacturers will have to roll back their R&D to allow the marketplace to catch up and consume the new products. After all, what good is technological advancement if no one can afford to adopt it?

Introspection: One of my favorite all-time soundbytes is: ‘If you’re a hammer; everything looks like a nail.”

Translated into old photographer speak: If you’re an old photog; everything looks like it needs an old photog. Old photogs don’t want to hear that imperfect images are becoming acceptable. Guys, you have to get past this. You’re not the first to endure this transition.

News used to be shot in 16mm film. I never shot film. My first camera (hardly a first generation video camera) was an Ikagami ITC-730AP. I haven’t compared specs., but I’m willing to bet any 16mm film camera would beat it hands down from a technical standpoint. But those “new” cameras from the ‘70’s and 80’s afforded new economies, and new methods of news gathering, which we all embrace now as standard operating procedures.

Old photogs protect old photog jobs. I get that. I understand. But did you really think that nothing would ever change? Do you go through life thinking that you’re entitled to an easy path? It’s your choice to wrap up the last decade (or two) of your career as a pioneer or as a pathetic old curmudgeon who will only look back in time.

Remember: You have a good eye, or you’d be on the other side of the lens. The thing to do as an individual is: To maintain a commitment to the highest quality newsgathering technology made available to you as a photog. To gather news using the highest standards of production that time and budget will allow. And, more importantly, to uphold the highest standard of journalistic integrity. (That means no cardboard cut-out bears). If you do those three things, you’ll still be relevant when technology shakes itself out.

Or you’ll get a job in Sales.
 

Mike@kennedys

Active member
Opening a Can

This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular:

I see responses in this thread from people who are near my age or older, who are reacting negatively to the revelations of the original post. I see people writing out of fear. And I understand that. But the fact is that at some point the viewers and “news management” will be willing to sacrifice quality to get the story. And we have to come to terms with that.

Look: Nobody…but nobody shoots news at the top tier of the technology available. Otherwise we’d see news photogs shooting with the $250k cameras they use to shoot feature “films”. I’m in a top 5-10 market. We have a network O&O using toy P2 cameras costing in the $5000 range!

We’re living in a time in which technology is moving faster than a defacto standard can be established for news acquisition. And we’re enduring an increase in the image quality of acquisition available to the general public. That competes with our skill set. Dads shooting dance recital have the same basic technology that we do.

BetaSP is dead, and no one standard has replaced it. There will never be another standard as there was with BetaSP. Tons of new formats are emerging and developing. If the recession gets deep enough, manufacturers will have to roll back their R&D to allow the marketplace to catch up and consume the new products. After all, what good is technological advancement if no one can afford to adopt it?

Introspection: One of my favorite all-time soundbytes is: ‘If you’re a hammer; everything looks like a nail.”

Translated into old photographer speak: If you’re an old photog; everything looks like it needs an old photog. Old photogs don’t want to hear that imperfect images are becoming acceptable. Guys, you have to get past this. You’re not the first to endure this transition.

News used to be shot in 16mm film. I never shot film. My first camera (hardly a first generation video camera) was an Ikagami ITC-730AP. I haven’t compared specs., but I’m willing to bet any 16mm film camera would beat it hands down from a technical standpoint. But those “new” cameras from the ‘70’s and 80’s afforded new economies, and new methods of news gathering, which we all embrace now as standard operating procedures.

Old photogs protect old photog jobs. I get that. I understand. But did you really think that nothing would ever change? Do you go through life thinking that you’re entitled to an easy path? It’s your choice to wrap up the last decade (or two) of your career as a pioneer or as a pathetic old curmudgeon who will only look back in time.

Remember: You have a good eye, or you’d be on the other side of the lens. The thing to do as an individual is: To maintain a commitment to the highest quality newsgathering technology made available to you as a photog. To gather news using the highest standards of production that time and budget will allow. And, more importantly, to uphold the highest standard of journalistic integrity. (That means no cardboard cut-out bears). If you do those three things, you’ll still be relevant when technology shakes itself out.

Or you’ll get a job in Sales.
 
Top