more VJ trash

El Guapo

Well-known member
I plucked this off of Rosenblum's blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujY4i8tP_p4

I thought it presented a pretty poor argument for why VJ'ing is a superior form of newsgathering. In short...their logic is as such: with VJ's and small handycams...you can get the lens closer (because no one ever got close to anything with an ENG camera before)...oh, and best yet! You can edit at Starbucks! HORRAY FOR VeeJay!!!!
 
I plucked this off of Rosenblum's blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujY4i8tP_p4

I thought it presented a pretty poor argument for why VJ'ing is a superior form of newsgathering. In short...their logic is as such: with VJ's and small handycams...you can get the lens closer (because no one ever got close to anything with an ENG camera before)...oh, and best yet! You can edit at Starbucks! HORRAY FOR VeeJay!!!!


I will admit this...with the smaller cameras SOME people tend to act a LITTLE more natural. I've seen it happen and can tell a difference. But that's certainly not a reason to throw away our "dinosaur" (as MR likes to call them) cameras.
 
I'd like to see someone try to walk their vjcam up to the podium right in the middle of a presser!!

"No! Wait! It's alright! I'm a VJ!"

I've heard of "zoom with your feet..." but come on...
 
Last edited:
So what do we learn about VJ’s? Well the shooting style comes straight from the “Mr. Beans Holiday” school of shooting. She doesn’t bother zooming or focusing or any of that technical stuff, she just waves her magic camera and pictures happen.
But actually we all knew the shooting was going to be crap so let’s move past that.
The thing that Michael said would make VJ’s better was the ability to get out there and tell stories that matter to people. The big stories that the public can connect to… and by golly she went out on the mean streets and tracked down the biggest story she could find!
A story about the local tattoo parlor. I bet everyone at home never knew their life was so empty until they saw a 1:40 advertorial on the local guy with a needle.
Is this really as good as they can do Michael?
 
KGTV made the video Stephen, not me, so you will have to ask them. However, I would think that you could imagine applications beyond tattoo parlors, no? In so far as the 'big' v. 'small' discussion, the real driver here of course is price. For the cost of one large camera you can outfit your station with perhaps 10 small ones. In which way is the viewing public better served? One really high end piece of gear in play each day or 10 admittedly lesser yet still adequate pieces of gear each day? Perhaps in search of quality it would be better to hire Steven Spielberg for the entire budget of the station to produce just one incrediblyl stellar news story a year and just rerun the thing endlessly. Quality? Can't be beat. Awards? Every one in the book! Panavision? Looks pretty good.
 
Round and round we go. If we get you on quality you claim it’s about content. If we get you on content it’s about price. If we get you on price it’s about… fish or something… just keep moving, and shouting out big names, a shark dies if it stops moving ;)
 
The most annoying part of this (to most of you who find it abhorent) is:

It's doable. It works. It makes good business sense, and worst of all, it's catching on. Share holder value is all that matters. Michael is making a bundle on this VJ idea and for good reason. It works. Does it threaten the old school way of news aquisition, you bet it does. Does it show how people with far less talent and experience than any of us who have been in this business for more than a dozen years can do what we do for 1/10th the cost, yes it does. There in lies the rub. There is a defense to this onslaught of inexperienced people swarming in to do what we do and you better have that defense in your arsenal of gear. It's called MOTIVATION. VJ'ing isn't the end of an era it's a era in transition. Find a way to make money on it or some kid fresh out of college at 1/3rd your money is going to be doing what you do today, tomorrow. And rest uneasy knowing Joe Bob and Mary Sue sitting at home isn't going to give a rats ass who, how, or with what, something is shot.
 
I usually try to stay out of the VJ arguments, but this line caught my attention...

It's doable. It works. It makes good business sense, and worst of all, it's catching on. Share holder value is all that matters.

Yeah. It's not the journalism that matters.

Murrow must be rolling over in his grave.
 
Round and round we go. If we get you on quality you claim it’s about content. If we get you on content it’s about price. If we get you on price it’s about… fish or something… just keep moving, and shouting out big names, a shark dies if it stops moving ;)


Stephen,
Quality, content and cost. All part of the same continuum.
You are at one extreme. The High School sports VJs above (or now below) are on the other.
We all pick our spots, but the continuum has gotten a lot bigger.
I have no doubt that both you and I will continue to earn good livings in our respected positions on the spectrum.... (but only one of us gets to enjoy it in NZ).
 
Sorry Mike but the 10:1 little cameras to big camera ratio is hyperbole. If it's a DVX100B you're talking about, you can buy three or four to one SDX900, or the equivalent. 10:1? That's for the sales pitch. It just isn't a real world number.
 
There is a defense to this onslaught of inexperienced people swarming in to do what we do and you better have that defense in your arsenal of gear. It's called MOTIVATION. VJ'ing isn't the end of an era it's a era in transition. Find a way to make money on it or some kid fresh out of college at 1/3rd your money is going to be doing what you do today, tomorrow. And rest uneasy knowing Joe Bob and Mary Sue sitting at home isn't going to give a rats ass who, how, or with what, something is shot.

Lake 4 now joins the ranks of the streetcorner mentals with their "The end is nigh" signs. Our chance for salvation: MOTIVATION. Have it, or the youngsters will take your job with their enthusiasm. WTH? You sound like a fortune cookie or horoscope. You haven't told us anything that couldn't apply to any occupation.

Does it show how people with far less talent and experience than any of us who have been in this business for more than a dozen years can do what we do for 1/10th the cost, yes it does.

No, it doesn't. The cameras, once you have all the accessories, does not cost 1/10 of a typical "pro" camera similarly equipped. Nobody is going to work for 1/10 of an average photog's pay.

You are talking out of your sphincter. Light a match.
 
It's doable. It works. It makes good business sense, and worst of all, it's catching on. Share holder value is all that matters. Michael is making a bundle on this VJ idea and for good reason. It works. Does it threaten the old school way of news aquisition, you bet it does. Does it show how people with far less talent and experience than any of us who have been in this business for more than a dozen years can do what we do for 1/10th the cost, yes it does. There in lies the rub. There is a defense to this onslaught of inexperienced people swarming in to do what we do and you better have that defense in your arsenal of gear. It's called MOTIVATION. VJ'ing isn't the end of an era it's a era in transition. Find a way to make money on it or some kid fresh out of college at 1/3rd your money is going to be doing what you do today, tomorrow. And rest uneasy knowing Joe Bob and Mary Sue sitting at home isn't going to give a rats ass who, how, or with what, something is shot.

Lake4 you are absolutely right, Michael is making millions and so are the shareholders, and what are you making? Do you have a family? Do you own a house; could you buy a house tomorrow if you want to? Could you pay for your kids education? Could you go on vacations anywhere you choose? If you fall in love with a BMW could you buy one? Could the average VJ or any VJ do that?

Last November, before Michael made one of his famous periodical disappearances, something that he usually does after he is not able to answer questions, he claimed to have helped hundreds of cameramen on this and other board, I asked him to produce some, after all he has been on B-roll claiming that his system works for over five years now and with over 4000 members of B-roll, mostly cameramen there must be at least a dozen that are making a decent living by following Michael’s doctrine. Do you know how many responded or how many Michael was able to produce? NONE, ZERO, NADA. Have you ever heard Michael telling how much the average VJ makes? That should tell you something. Yes the VJ system works for the chiefs but how well are the Indians doing, when push comes to shove there’s only one reason to have a job, and that’s to make a decent living, out of all the BS that Michael has been spreading there’s only one reason for the VJ movement, and that’s cost cutting, VJ being so easy to do that everybody can do it, how much seniority and raises do you think that you’ll get before they replace you with some minimum wager, or by cell phones? Think about it, once you are replaced, and be assured that you will be replaced before the next raise comes due, with your level of VJ knowledge and skills what are you going to do, weddings and birthday parties? Use your brains man, don't let Rosenblum screw up your life so he can make a bundle at your expenses.

Quality shooter don’t make much noises, most good shooters that I know and work with don’t even know that B-roll or other board exist, and they have no clue what a VJ is or who Michael Rosenblum is. They are busy making money and I can assure you (being one of them) that with their equipment they make more in one day that the average VJ makes in one month, perhaps you should also know that most of these freelancers were once working for stations, probably just like you, but they felt the need for quality work and took the plunge into freelancer, and now they do very well financially, how do they do it, they constantly work to improve themselves, they know the value of quality for themselves and for their clients.

I started my web site EFPlighting.com to expand people’s knowledge and create awareness of quality, because quality will always win over quantity. 2 million hits and hundreds of e-mails in less than four month be assured that people knows what it takes to make a decent living.
 
Does it show how people with far less talent and experience than any of us who have been in this business for more than a dozen years can do what we do for 1/10th the cost, yes it does. There in lies the rub. There is a defense to this onslaught of inexperienced people swarming in to do what we do and you better have that defense in your arsenal of gear. It's called MOTIVATION.

Not all of us have far less talent. :D But we are all pretty well motivated.

Back in the 1980s when I made my first cuts-only edit in junior high school, I thought I wanted to be a photog. I thought this even when I got in to college, but at some point I changed my mind, and my career path took me into video games. Just over three years ago, by chance, I ended up at a newspaper.

I'm "the video guy" at the paper. My boss, the photo editor, actually comes to me for video critiques. Sometimes I get to hang back and work as a photog while a reporter does their thing, but often I'm the one asking the questions. So that would make me a VJ.

I don't mind that the camera is so cheap because I still get 2 lavs (one wireless) and a handheld, and XLR inputs, and it's the nicest camera I've handled since using a DXC-537 back when I was in college. (And lighter, too...) I just wish I had more and better lights and a less flimsy tripod.

I find that as a VJ I can insist on quality as long as I can see the viewfinder. So that makes it harder to do cool artsy stuff like backing the camera 20 feet away and zooming all the way in to reduce DOF and get a soft background, since I am also holding the mic and asking questions. But I can force myself to keep a steady shot; I can demand that I give myself enough footage to edit from. And I can refuse to offer video that contains a jump-cut or doesn't flow, or raises more questions than it answers. And I can instill the same production values in the print newsies I train, and rap them on the fingers with a ruler when quality slips.

I am also finding that I begin most assignments cold and have to figure out how to tell the story (as well as what the story is really about) while I'm on-site. But that's probably more a function of working as a VJ in a newspaper than anything else.

Oh, and I offer something like 25 to 50 still photos for publication a week, with captions. And I write columns... and stories...
 
I'm wondering why the system's not producing the wildfire of inevitability Mike prophesized over a year ago?

Let's review:

  • WKRN failed. Both the ND and GM are out. The station is using two-person crews more now than its OMB/VJ system.
  • KRON continues floundering. Despite Mike's claims that the station's ratings would pull an about-face, the station's got nothing to show for it. They did produce that one memorable story: the numerologist and the address. Man, what a great story.
  • The VIOS system is still non-esixtent. The planned "launch date" passed over a month ago. Nothing.
This plan is a failure. There is nothing to show for it. The promises Mike made about the system have not come to fruition.

Dismissed, Mike. Thanks for playing. I'm sure you're going to consider this a win because of the nice, fat checks you bilked out of these companies, but your system -- in a word -- sucks.

You are talking out of your sphincter. Light a match.

Most stringers do.
;)
 
Last edited:
I think you right. 10:1 is off.
It's far too conservative.
A quick call to B&H gets me the following quotes:
Sony HDW750 without lens 74,195.00
Canon HJ21 lens 36,809... but if you don't wanna go that high, Canon YJ19x7 goes for 9449.00

On the other hand, Panasonic P2 (all in), 5195.00

So it looks like it's closer to 20:1, but we'll keep it at 10:1
cause I hate to over promise :)

In answer to Nino's question about shooters I have helped, I cannot obviously list all of them - I have been doing this for 20 years, but here are two: Why don't you talk to Kyle Majors at KGTV, who came in as a cameraman and is now the best VJ they have there, and maybe one of the top I have ever seen. You might talk to Dirck Halstead who runs The digital Journalist and give the NPPA classes on shooting video. He was in one of my very first VJ bootcamps in 1992. Finally, in so far as pay is concerned, I pay my top VJs more than $3500 a week. For those who can do this, there is plenty of money to be made.
 
I think you right. 10:1 is off.
It's far too conservative.
A quick call to B&H gets me the following quotes:
Sony HDW750 without lens 74,195.00
Canon HJ21 lens 36,809... but if you don't wanna go that high, Canon YJ19x7 goes for 9449.00

On the other hand, Panasonic P2 (all in), 5195.00

So it looks like it's closer to 20:1, but we'll keep it at 10:1
cause I hate to over promise :)

Actually, most local stations are moving to the XDCam-HD. I'll use the high end version, the F-350 for an example. That camera with a good lens goes for about $36k. So based on your P2 camera that's actually a 6.53:1 ratio. Now the F-350 is the HIGH END of the XDCam-HD line, you can get one without some of the bells and wistles for less, something like $20k w/ lens. That brings it to something along the lines of 3.84:1.

Warren
 
Well Warren,
Like everyone else you seem willing to compromise on quality because of cost. There is nothing wrong with that.. we all do it. You and I are in exactly the same place. All we're discussing now is price.

And now of course, we can talk about edit suites vs. FCP on a laptop..
 
Back
Top