Ding Ding

[nguyen.jason]

Round Two, Let me know what you think.

[b-rollTV]1055[/b-rollTV]

 

[Deft Depth]

Win-

Maggie told me how good this was, and I must agree! I'm so proud of you man. Great job all around. To get nit-picky, I would have liked to see some more tight shots of hands for anyone working inside (hands and faces!!!) Also, the two-cut standup I thought wasn't needed, but I think that's just a stylistic difference.

 

[Corporate Management]

Nicely done.

The thing that sticks out the most to me is how crisp the nat sound is, especially with the wood noises. How'd you do that?? I can't imagine the shotgun or a wireless lav picking it up like that, and somehow I don't think you'd have a sound guy.

I agree with what Deft says about the tight shots...I swear by the super duper tight shot. They'll get you out of most any editing jam. Also, there were probably some good opportunities for sequencing there, since there were so many repetitive actions.

A couple of things I hated, which you may not have had any control over:

I despise having video in a monitor behind the reporter...I find it terribly distracting, and more often than not, it gives away things that should be saved for the story.

I also hate having an "introductory" shot of a person sitting there for an interview. If you have to, get a generic shot of them doing something--but on the whole, I've never seen the problem in showing something else over a line like that, as long as you're not showing someone who could be mistaken for the person being mentioned in the track.

I also didn't care for the shots of the signage on the wall. If you had to show it, again--tight shots would have been better. It struck me as just being too much to take in at once. I wasn't sure what to read.

Didn't like the ending, either...but that's just me. I don't like incorporating the reporter into the story unless there's a good reason for it.

Sorry if this comes off as negative...I don't mean for it to be. On the whole, it was a really well done piece. Something like this could have come off as very bland and generic, but it didn't at all. If anything, I would have liked to have seen more of the blind guy, but the way the actual workers were shot & put into the piece was great.

But again...how'd you get that audio to sound so nice?

 

[nguyen.jason]

I got the audio from my lav, placing it in places or on the person. I also blast my ch 2. it just happened to work out when I was really close. If you notice in one of the shots you'll see a warn out area on the floor. Thats where I aimed and it just happened to work out. As for the women in pink I just got really close and blasted the nat in edius. But the blind guy really hit the stakes really hard

 

[valkbilly]

I wanted to hear more about the blind guy! Future story??

 

[nguyen.jason]

I wouldn't have minded that too but that wasn't really what the story was about. This was not a feature story, its just a group our morning anchor is passionate about. Bottom line she wanted to do the story and she did.

 

[Chicago Dog]

I wanted to hear more about the blind guy! Future story??

I agree! This goes along with the personalization suggestion I brought up in your other post, Jason. He was the guy this package should've centered itself around. The surprise aspect lies in the fact that he's blind. I thought that part was pulled off well.

I liked this story. It's a good example of your eye for shots, your ability to sequence, and your editing. You're clearly headed in the right direction. Keep those elements solid, and always look for ways to improve.

I do have just a few complaints, though:

Holy length! It was an interesting story, but not 2 minutes and 20 seconds worth! I'm guessing you felt like you gave birth after editing that piece together. Was this a sweeps piece? Does your station generally allow story length of that magnitude?

Work on the framing of your interviews. As with your Memorial Day package, you tend to cut people off in strange places. For instance, in the interview with the guy who runs the shop. He was cut off about mid-thigh. It would've looked cool if you'd put him near the back of your framing, putting all the busy work in front of him. Or, put him in the middle of all the bustle. Anything but cutting him off mid-leg.

I also agree with the comment above about the two-shot stand-up. Hell, it wasn't even worth one shot. That stand-up fits into my "goes without saying" file. "If there's no work, there's no paycheck?" Duh! That's not very informative writing. I hope the reporter doesn't think throwing herself into the package with writing like that is a good idea for her resume tape!

The ending shot didn't work for me. It was cute, but didn't really serve a purpose.

 

[nguyen.jason]

This wasn't for sweeps. Like I said before she (the anchor) wanted to do it. I believe she had a 3 min window in the block to use, not 100% sure though. Sometimes we cut long pkgs at our station. When I come into any type of situation, I just remember before every shoot to shoot everything I possibly can in the amount of time that I have and look for nats, and blast my ch 2. I put the anchor in at the end, because I felt with that sot, that her being a public figure and them wanting to be apart of society worked well, showing our talent does care. From what people are saying here I guess not.

The blind guy is great, he's a story by himself, and I'll bring up that we should do another story on him. But the focus was having companies out source to this place where people with disabilities can do a job for less and still feel that they were apart of the society. They don't make much but they don't care about that.

Thanks for your comments I really appreciate them, and please keep them coming.

 

[Chicago Dog]

Sometimes we cut long pkgs at our station. When I come into any type of situation, I just remember before every shoot to shoot everything I possibly can in the amount of time that I have and look for nats, and blast my ch 2.

I'll say this: the package didn't lose steam. You kept it running straight through to the end. Good job.

The blind guy is great, he's a story by himself, and I'll bring up that we should do another story on him. But the focus was having companies out source to this place where people with disabilities can do a job for less and still feel that they were apart of the society.

Right. But while that's a point, it's not the story, if that makes any sense. Personalizing it makes it a story. In this case, there were too many people involved that didn't have to be (even the reporter with that uninformative stand-up).

This is not a "one or the other" story. James was the perfect opportunity for your reporter to personalize the story. The surprise worked out great: he tests the stakes by how they sound, because he's blind.

After introducing James, she should've gone into what the organization does. Why is what the organization does important to people like James? What does James get out of it?

Obviously, it's very fulfilling to James that he can work, despite his disability. Closing with James' satisfaction would've been perfect, and would've capped the personalization on an informative story.

Ultimately, you don't have control over what the reporter decides to write. Personally, I think this story wasn't very well written. The only reason it was watchable was because of your shooting and editing. In that respect, it's almost like you carried the team.

 

[nguyen.jason]

Thanks that means a lot. How do you suggest getting around that and trying to get a reporter to write to someone like James?

 

[Chicago Dog]

How do you suggest getting around that and trying to get a reporter to write to someone like James?

That's the million dollar question. I suggest you point the advice out indirectly by saying, "Check out all the great feedback I'm getting from the guys at b-roll.net!" Let her stumble upon it herself! Make us look like the criticizing jackasses instead of you.

You probably won't, and I don't blame you.


In reality, consider dropping lots and lots of hints. "What about that guy? He seems to get a lot out of this program. I think it would be cool to wrap the story around him." Or, "I think we can work a surprise out of this guy for the story, I'll shoot some video to end the story with him as well."

If your reporter is oblivious to those hints, shoot your video of someone like James. On the way to editing, say something like, "I got a ton of video of (James or whoever); I thought he/she seemed pretty damn interesting." Tell them what video you shot of the subject. Tell your reporter why they were interesting to you. Tell your reporter what captured your interest. The video's already in the can; emphasizing it before the reporter logs it will hopefully get their gears turning.

Of course, you shouldn't have to sell reporters' own story to themselves, but it happens. Before you get to the story, talk up the reporter. Remind them: you're not just giving facts, you're trying to tell a story.

 

[Lensmith]

I thought you did a very good job.

Lots of sequencing that flowed.

The only minor part I thought was kind of a waste of video was the small segment of words on the wall that you cut several shots together. It didn't add anything to the piece and I kept waiting for the reporter to mention the words to justify seeing them in the story.

I didn't think it was too long. In fact, it's much shorter than some of your other stories we've seen!

Yeah, maybe keeping it to just one person to "put a face" to the story might have helped focus everything more...but you did have a lot of different characters and they all added up to the "big picture" which, to me, is the real story. Not just one person with a disability. Many! The only way to prove a person was disabled was to see and hear them...which you did!

Last nit-pick from me. A lot of your shots of people at the table were identical. All from the same height. All framed alike. All messing with the plastic ties. A change of angle, even a camera move from face to hands or vice versa would have broken it up better.

Oh yes, maybe a very nice shot of the company sign instead of just a wide shot of the building?

Good job!

 

[Sore Shoulder]

The blind guy is great, he's a story by himself, and I'll bring up that we should do another story on him. But the focus was having companies out source to this place where people with disabilities can do a job for less and still feel that they were apart of the society. They don't make much but they don't care about that.

The crux of course is getting the reporter to go along with focusing on one guy. If you can; you can show some of the the other things the company does in small bits sandwiched between the main/blind guy.

Hated the dancing at the end of the PKG--just look like face-time for the reporter. No reason for it to be there--I don't believe dancing is one of the job this company does.

This is personal preference; I hate the shot style of starting in the sky and tilting down to show something. As stated by others you could get a nice close up of the signage or you could do a CU and a wide shot back to back.

Great job with NATs. Good tights and movement with guy and his stakes. Felt shorter than 2:20, good sign.

 

[Horonto]

Reporter is quite attractive.

Love the audio.

 

[nguyen.jason]

I can see how the words are distracting. When I shot this I thought I shot it wide enough for 4:3 tv sets, cause were are in 16:9. I thought the words went along with what the reporter had to say about the learning experience.

Thanks a lot for the input guys. I'm sure I'll post something else soon

 

[NEWSSHOOTER3]

Sounds Good

I wrote an extensive critique on this at some point and I don't see it anymore, so I'll just say nicely done & GREAT sound...

 

[nguyen.jason]

Ya, I remember it. I've noticed on a couple of forms peoples posts sometimes end up missing.