Interview techniques - the television kind

One of the most difficult things to do well when you are a one-man-band reporter is an interview. If you are doing news, there are a variety of different types of interviews that you will probably need to do over time. If you are working to produce corporate videos/VNRs then, more likely that not, you will be mostly doing sit-down interviews. They are easier, but can still pose problems if not done properly.

The biggest difficulty I find - and this doesn't mean it's the most difficult thing for everyone - is concentrating on what I should be asking the interviewee while also setting up all my equipment. If you are a reporter who is shooting their own interview, I would recommend thinking ahead of time about what I am going to ask the interviewee. As a reporter, I hate to write all my questions down - I much prefer to see where the conversation takes me. But if you know you are going to have to focus on set-up when you arrive at the interview location, it doesn't hurt to have at least some notes jotted down so you are not completely unprepared when the interview begins.

The other problem with having to spend time doing set-up is that you really don't have any time to chat with your interviewee before you start interviewing them. Always try to chat with them while you set-up to get important information that they might not give you when you're rolling. But if you're the type of person who needs to focus on one thing at a time to avoid mistakes, definitely focus on your set-up and have some questions written down.

Take a look at these pointers. There are a variety of different types of interview you might be required to do, so I have listed some tips that I find useful for each one:

1) Vox pop
Doing vox pops is one of the toughest things to do when you are operating solo. It's hard to make them look good, and it's hard to get people to talk to you.

If you are standing on your own with your camera, people are less likely to believe you are a legitimate news gatherer than if you have a shooter there with you. Therefore, I find it is much more difficult to get people to talk to me. Also, because you are on your own, you cannot stray from your equipment to find people who don't mind appearing on camera. So the only pool of people you have are those who walk right by you. To maximize the number of people who will agree to talk to you, you should do a couple of things:

a) Look presentable. Don't look like someone just dragged you out of bed.

b) Use a mic-flag. Even if you don't intend to get the mic in the shot, I would always place a mic-flag on the mic. This enhances the perception that you are a legitimate news gatherer. People are suspicious of anyone who stops them, let alone someone who is trying to point a camera at them.

c) Be very polite. I always find I have much more success with getting people to talk to me when I am over-the-top friendly. I personally hate it when people are like that with me, but others seem to find it appealing. Always say, "I'm sorry to bother you" and immediately identify the outlet you are shooting for.

d) Target middle-aged and old people. They seem to be much more inclined to talk to you than younger people. If you want young people, men seem to be more willing to appear on camera than women in my experience. Also try to grab people who don't seem to be in a hurry. If they are just ambling along, they don't really have the excuse that they're in a rush.

The technical aspect of shooting the vox pop on your own is a nightmare. First you have to decide whether you want to use a tripod of go off the shoulder. I would always recommend using a tripod, just to get the steady shot. When you come to lace your voxes together, a bunch of shaky shots is just going to look woeful.

Also, if you are holding the camera yourself, it is going to be very difficult to check that the subject is still in frame if you are going off the shoulder. Always emphasize to the person that they need to stand fairly still. Some will, but others will often sway around. Therefore, you should keep the shot fairly wide. If it's too tight then the subject is likely to sway out of frame, especially if your piece is going to end up in 4:3.

If you need to shoot off the shoulder with a small camera like a Z1U, try to hold in such a way that it doesn't move too much. What I do is jam the battery pack into my shoulder and use the view finder (not the pop-out screen) to stabilize the camera against my cheek. When you want to get voxes on the other side, switch to the other shoulder. If you do this, the pop-out screen should be just far away enough from your eyes that you can see what you're shooting. Try to make eye contact with the person you are voxing as often as you can. If you keep looking at your screen, they are likely to start looking at the camera too. You want them looking at you.

Always remember to focus each time before speaking with each person. You may have knocked the focus out of position or the person may be a slightly different distance from the lens. Do not use auto-focus. That is just a recipe for a lot of blurry faces, especially when using cameras that do not focus well on darker skin tones.

Make sure you check where the sun is and have the subject face it. Keep changing up the backdrop. You don't want a bunch of voxes all with the same background. Using a tripod will make it easier to just spin the camera around to a different background. Keep track of how many useable voxes you have on the left and right of the screen. You don't want all of the best material on one side.

2) Scrum.
I have covered a lot of stories where I have had to film in a scrum - most recently while following the candidates around the country in the 2008 Presidential election.

If you are just shooting b-roll, you need to find the most comfortable way for you to shoot footage with the least amount of camera movement. Usually in a scrum, I use auto-focus. There is often just not enough time to manually focus. Only use manual when the conditions are such that you simply can't get a well focused shot on auto.

I usually jam the camera into my shoulder as I described in the vox section. If the camera needs to be high to shoot above people's heads, I raise the camera, locking my arms straight to minimize shake. Consider using an image stabilizing function (set to minimal) if you have one. Assuming you have a flip out screen, angle it downwards so you can see what you are shooting.

If you are trying to get a soundbite from the person at the center of the scrum, it's actually easier than doing a vox. The subject will probably be speaking to lots of other cameras at the same time, so all you need to do is hold out your mic and concentrate on keeping your image stable and looking good.

3) Standup interview.
Doing interviews while standing up is always tricky for many of the same reasons that it's tricky to do a vox. People often rock back and forth, or sway from side-to-side when they talk, making it very difficult to keep them in frame. Consider having them lean on something that allows you to still get a background. An interview shot in front of a wall just looks crap. Get them to lean against a post that is short enough that it doesn't intrude into the shot. Even if the thing they are leaning on is in shot (like a tree), I think it would still look better than the person moving too much.

I would always do a stand-up interview using a tripod. I would also always use a lavalier so I can stand back near the camera to make sure the person is still in shot. If you are in front holding the mic, you give up control over what the camera is filming.

4) Sit down interview.
This is my favorite type of interview to do when I'm working solo. But there are ways it can go wrong, believe me! Here are some ways to make your sit down interview look good.

a) Use as big a space as possible.
Do the interview in a big room or outside if conditions are suitable. Make sure your interviewee is sitting far from the background. If you are inside, make sure the air conditioning is turned off. A/C has a habit of coming on mid-soundbite - and always during the best soundbite of the interview.

Set the camera to achieve the shallowest depth of field to blur the background. It will give the interview a much more polished and professionally produced look.

b) Use lighting correctly.
Do not rely on overhead lighting to light your subject. Florissant lighting will look particularly bad, especially if you are, say, shooting in PAL in North America and are using the wrong shutter speed for the frequency of the lighting. This will cause strobing. I always kill the overhead lights in all interviews I do.

I always use two lights - an Omni and filter to light the interviewee, and a Lowell set low to the ground with an white umbrella to light the background. If your background is far away, you really need to light it unless it just looks dreadful.

c) Sit next to the camera.
Even if your subject is a few feet from you, always sit next to the camera so you can glance up from time-to-time to see that all is well with what you're shooting. Make sure the camera is at the right height for the interviewee so you are not staring up their nose, or looking down on their bald spot.

d) Position the lav correctly.
I am bothered by lavs in shot. I just don't see the point. Most of them are powerful. If you are doing a head-and-shoulders interview, you can position the lav on the interviewee far enough down that you don't see it. If you are indoors, do not use a wind shield with the lav. It'll muffle your sound.

e) Don't use swivel chairs!
Use chairs with four legs, and ones that do not move around on wheels. Swivel chairs will cause people to swivel around when they speak, and wheels on the chair will mean they will move. Always ask if there is a chair available that has four normal legs. It should also have a high enough back that the interviewee is unable to lean to the side too much causing them to go out of frame.

There is a lot to think about when shooting your own interviews. It is another challenge that solo TV reporters encounter all the time. There is a lot to think about, and much of what you learn is learned on the job through trial and error. I hate looking back at some of the interviews I have done over time. Some just didn't work out how I intended. But we learn from our mistakes.

Watching TV go down the tube

According to a new Pew Research Center poll, only 52 percent of Americans believe that having a television is a necessity.

Here is a link to the study:

"Just 52% of the public in the latest poll say a television set is a necessity -- down 12 percentage points from 2006 and the smallest share to call a TV a necessity since this question was first asked more than 35 years ago."

The report makes the finding in a broad study of how Americans view technology. It seems to suggest that people have become more thrifty, and points to various reasons why this might be the case - for example, the proliferation of cell phone adoption.

However, I think you can take many of the examples of technology that is being shunned - or at least not viewed as a necessity - by many people, and give case-specific reasons why. But in terms of television, I think it's particularly interesting for those of us in the media that are responsible for producing television content.

Here are a couple of reasons I believe that people see television as less of an essential than they used to:

1) Bad news.
The drop in quality of news is a big reason why people no longer watch. They simply don't trust the nightly newscasts on the big three networks to deliver the news properly. There is no-one that they view as "the most trusted man in America" anymore.

It's a great example of how people are not interested in dumbed-down news, as many network executives believe they are. They actually want substantive news about world affairs and important issues, especially in difficult times.

2) Partisan news.
Many news organizations have lost their credibility as straight-down-the-middle reporters of current events, thanks mostly to cable outlets.

People find right or left wing slanted news pointless. It's not news, it's opinion dressed up as news. People already do not trust the TV news organizations to tell them what is happening in the world.

3) Too much television.
Too much choice just turns people off. It's just too time consuming to find something on television worth watching. Scrolling through hundreds of channels is just a mindless waste of time, like driving around-and-around trying to find a parking spot. Stupid. Why do that when you can go out and do something interesting, like maybe even talking to someone?

4) Expensive.
It's expensive to buy cable TV service, and it's expensive to buy a TV! Who needs a gigantic television set? No-one, that's who - especially when people are now worried about energy consumption. As people view the advances in TV set technology as unnecessary, so to do they view TV itself as unnecessary.

4) Other sources of news and entertainment.
Lastly, and maybe most obviously, people have other places to go for their entertainment. The internet provides people the opportunity to gather as much news as they want, whenever they want it. That is why so many of us are now turning our attention to creating video content for that medium as well.

I think many of us in television have ourselves to blame for the lack of enthusiasm that Americans seem to have for TV. If we put on programming that is necessary, people will view television as a necessity. It's as simple as that.

Music to your ears

Angela Grant over at News Videographer writes an interesting article about the use of music in news packages. I must say, I agree with her on almost all her points.

She also links to another useful piece on the subject.

I hope I can add to the discussion with some of my own points here:

1) My main objection to the use of music in a news item is that it's just plain distracting. If it doesn't add to a story, why use it? Well the reason most would use it would be because they cannot convey what they want, in terms of mood etc, using just words and pictures. That means the reporter is doing something wrong. As Angela writes, it's a crutch.

I don't need sad music to tell me a story is sad. I don't need happy music to tell me a story is a happy one. And if I do, then the reporter is not getting that across sufficiently in his or her script.

2) Using music also clashes uncomfortably with other items in a newscast. If no other stories are using music, then a piece with music that suddenly comes on will sound strange and out of place.

3) You rarely get time in a news item to allow the music to make sense. Most of us in the news world only have about 90 seconds to tell a story. A little snippet of music somewhere in such a short piece will just sound strange and confusing to the viewer.

5) However, music is ok on a fast-paced show with a constant music track. For example, Access Hollywood. There is no reason why you can't use music in a piece if there is a music bed playing all the time, even under anchor reads. It wont clash with the overall tone of the program.

6) A news story is about facts, not superficial appearance. Sure, you can use good production techniques to make a piece look smooth, but you just don't need to go as far as using music to achieve your results.

7) I agree that music is somewhat more acceptable in a longer feature, but it's still annoying. Rather, I would say, it is more suited to documentaries. You wouldn't think twice about hearing music on a Discovery Channel documentary. But you would if you heard it on the NBC Nightly News.

8) The use of ambient sounds and tones can be ok. I used some ambient tone to lay under some NASA animation in a story about the Kepler Space Telescope recently. I think in this case it sounded good under b-roll of the vast depths of space. It also sounded better than complete silence. I ran tones under must of the rest of the piece so it didn't jar too much with the nat sound.

But generally speaking, I would agree with others who have written on this issue. Stay away from music in news at all costs.

N Korea, Iran both hold US journalists

In a development which has worrying echoes of the story of my former colleague Roxana Saberi, jailed in Iran, two US journalists arrested in North Korea are to face trial there according to state media.

Euna Lee, a Korean-American, and Laura Ling, a Chinese-American, who work for Current TV, were detained on 17 March.

Gotham Chopra has written an interesting piece over at The Huffington Post about what can be done to help all three women:

The good, the bad and the exhausting

While many of us who work as reporters and videographers actually enjoy operating solo, there are many disadvantages to doing so.

Many news organizations are starting to implement the model into their newsrooms. While smaller US outlets, and many overseas networks, have been doing it for years, it's only now becoming more common in the United States.

It was back in 1997, when I was working in radio at Independent Television News in London, that the organization began employing Video Journalists. However, these reporters did not appear on screen. They simply acted as producers with cameras - shooting b-roll and interviews for inclusion in correspondent packages. Things have changed, and such video journalists are now very much part of the on-air talent pool.

So if you are considering introducing video reporters into your newsroom, or you are a journalist looking to move into this field, I have drawn up what I see as the pros and cons of one-man-band reporting:

PROS:

1) Independence.
You can operate how you want, within the rules of your employer. There is no possibility of conflicts between members of a crew on how to do things. You do what you think is best.

2) Efficiency.
It is much easier to move around quickly, especially on breaking news assignments, if there is just one person. A large crew can be a hindrance to mobility.

3) Cost.
Employing one person is cheaper than employing more than one! In a traditional crew you may need a reporter, producer, shooter, sound engineer and editor to put together a finished story. It's obviously less expensive to have one person doing all tasks.

For organizations who want to use a one-man-band reporter located somewhere as a solution to a bureau, it dramatically cuts costs. I coined the term "pajama bureau", meaning a reporter working from home rather than an office, significantly reducing the cost for the employer.

4) Speed.
Not necessarily the speed of getting around, rather the overall time it takes to get a project done.

Having the same person responsible for shooting, writing and then editing a story makes things much quicker. For example, as a journalist, you should have in your mind how you would like the story to go in terms of pictures. You are therefore in a great position to shoot the pictures you know you are going to need. When you come to write your script, you know exactly what b-roll you have because you shot it! Similarly, when you come to edit the piece, you will have a better idea where the pictures you shot are, than you would if someone else shot them. This will save time viewing rushes and so on.

CONS:

1) Lack of company.
Sometimes, everyone needs a colleague to shoot the breeze with. As a one-man-band reporter you don't have that.

2) Large amount of work for one person.
There are certainly benefits to having one person responsible for all the elements of putting together a story. But that can also have its drawbacks, in that it means one person has to work very hard. It's sometimes tough to have to think about the story you are covering while also shooting b-roll. Dealing with the technical aspects of the job means a solo TV journalist may have less time to interact with the people they are doing a story about. The 'news gathering' element is harder to achieve. Being a one-man-band can be exhausting.

3) Technical problems.
Reporters are often not trained shooters. While many of us do our best to educate ourselves on what looks good and what doesn't, not much can replace the expertise of a seasoned, quality videographer. In reverse, a shooter is not necessarily a journalist by trade. But in a solo operation, they will need to ask questions and gather the story. Often the one-man-band reporter is a jack of all trades, and a master of none.

When you're learning by trial and error, obviously errors occur. And that is never good.

4) Idea sharing.
When you operate alone, you are entirely responsible for the creative input. You are the only one responsible for the story. It's often nice to have someone else to bounce ideas off, or a fresh pair of eyes to help with, or look over, a script you have written. Not having that can put the one-man-band reporter at a disadvantage.

I'd like to hear what readers think of this - anyone who is a solo TV journalist and can add their experiences to the ones I have here.

Focus on yourself! Shooting your own standup

In a world where many of us are now shooting our own material and interviews, TV reporters are being called upon to shoot their own standups, often with disastrous results.

Shooting a standup is an art in of itself. But shooting your own standup, ie., trying to be in front of and behind the camera at the same time, is challenging. The key is to get the basics right so it doesn't look/sound woeful - and check the results before packing up and leaving the location.

Here you can find a few pointers on shooting your own standup - based on my own experience:

1) Find a good backdrop facing the sun.
If you're shooting your own standup, it's very easy to forget the basics of shooting as you worry about what you're actually going to say. Just throw the camera up, stand in front of it, and then talk, right? No. If you do that, you'll screw it up.

Pay attention to what is behind you. If you don't have a shooter to check for objects that appear to be protruding from your head or sticking out of your arm, you have to check yourself. When framing yourself using your flip-around view-finder (common on most modern professional cameras) look carefully at the screen to check for comical things. Stare at the screen a while because sometimes they're not obvious. Check for things that are moving in the background and could be distracting to the viewer.

Also, make sure the backdrop is actually interesting. It's something else to think about, but it's important. Make sure you are facing the sun. You need to be lit properly and you have noone to hold a reflector for your. It's a shooting basic, but easy to forget while worrying about other things.

If the sun comes out and goes in during your standup, start it again. Nothing looks worse than a standup that starts out brightly lit and ends up dark.

Framing. It's difficult sometimes to see whether or not you're centered correctly when shooting your own standup. Be sure to take time to check you are framed in the way you want. A badly framed standup looks crap on television.

2) Stay with the basics.
Your camera probably has a lot of settings and I would normally recommend using them. But when shooting your own standup, it's going to be very difficult to make many adjustments past the ND filter and focus. I usually try to put my camera on auto except for basic things like those I just mentioned.

Make sure you are in focus. If you are shooting your own standup using auto focus, your camera could easily focus on something else happening in the background if it tends to do that. Figure out where you are going to stand, then place an object, such as a bag, there. Go back to the camera and focus on the object. That should mean you will be in focus when you stand in that place.

Check your audio. Read the script into the mic while watching the levels. Make sure your levels are set correctly before you stand in front of the camera to record. You wont be able to listen to the standup on headphones as you deliver it.

If you are happy with the basic settings you can play with other things to make your standup look better. You can play with the depth of field, for example, but keep an eye on the view finder between takes to make sure it looks ok.

3) Don't look shifty.
Your eyes may wonder without you even realizing it. When you have a shooter helping you, they can tell you if you're doing something daft. Make sure your eyes are on the camera lens at all times. In fact, check your appearance in general. You can't see yourself without a mirror, so take a mirror with you.

4) Don't stand too close to the camera.
Standups just don't look good if you are too close to the lens. Carry extra cable with you when you go to shoot a standup so you can stand a good distance away.

5) Use a lav unless you need to have a mic-flag.
Sometimes you have to use a mic-flag in your standup. If you don't, use a lavaliere. If you're holding a mic, it's a recipe for strange arm positions to creep into frame. A lav lets you keep this possibility to a minimum.

6) Ignore idiots.
For some reason, shooting your own standup seems to bring morons out... a bit like how crickets come out when the sun goes down, or raccoons when you put out the garbage. Suddenly a group of people appears - staring, pointing and often laughing - while you do you thing. Don't engage them or they will stay. Try to completely filter them out and focus on what you're saying. Worrying about an audience of idiots will make you fluff your lines. Sometimes staring back menacingly at them helps. Try not to lose your temper when people blast their car horns as they drive by. Just tell yourself that you have a much better life than that person, and you hope they die soon.

7) Check your results.
When you're finished, go back though the tape to make sure you have a useable take. There is nothing worse than getting back to your desk and realizing there are no takes without issues. It doesn't take long to check. You will be glad you did.

All in all, shooting your own standup is quite difficult. But many of us do it these days. With a little bit of practice and patience, the results can be quite good. But without taking time to ensure quality, the results can be a total catastrophe.

Roxana's Parents Visit Her in Jail; Iran's Judiciary Orders Review

The President of Feature Story News, Simon Marks, has written the following on the company's blog. Below find links to download footage of Roxana Saberi on assignment in Iran:

Roxana Saberi's parents were permitted to visit their daughter - and our former Tehran Bureau Chief - at Evin Prison today. They report that she "seems to be OK", despite the fact that she continues to face an 8-year jail sentence following her conviction on trumped-up charges of "espionage".

Following President Mahmood Ahmadinejad's intervention over the weekend, the head of the country's judiciary has ordered a full investigation into Roxana's case. Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi issued a decree in Tehran this morning ordering that the "different dimensions of this case ... must be considered at the appeals stage in a careful, quick and fair way".

While welcoming these developments, we note that the Ayatollah's decree implies that fairness and equity do not usually lie at the heart of the Iranian judiciary's appeals process. Roxana's fellow inmates at Evin Prison deserve nothing less as well.

As for President Ahmadinejad, he's just prompted a walkout of delegates at the UN's Racism Conference in Geneva. We hope that behind closed doors, his Swiss hosts and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon are urging him to take immediate action to free Roxana.

If you'd like to see some of Roxana's reporting from Iran, you can find it here:
http://www.featurestorynews.com/freeroxana/freeroxana/roxanareporting.html

And if you're a broadcaster covering Roxana's story, you can download the video footage here:

MPG4: http://64.26.15.101/video/RoxanaSaberi-Broll.mp4
(To download: Right-click on the above files and select "Save Target As....")

Roxana Saberi's jail sentence

This morning I was dismayed to discover that my former colleague, a person I worked closely with while she was at Feature Story News, has been jailed in Iran on charges of spying for the United States.

Roxana Saberi was a regular contributer of material while I was radio news editor for FSN, supplying broadcasters worldwide with newscast audio. She has also filed radio as a freelancer for NPR, Fox News and the BBC.

Iranian authorities suggested her initial arrest was the result of her buying a bottle of wine. She was then held in jail, accused of operating as a journalist in Iran without credentials. Finally she was put on trial in secret on charges of espionage.

Her plight highlights the dangers faced by reporters who strive to provide balanced coverage of events in unstable parts of the world. There are thousands of people who put themselves at extreme risk daily to conduct their work in a professional manner.

When uneducated debates are held in the US on the integrity/bias of journalists in the "mainstream" media, one need only look at the work of journalists like Roxana, to see that high quality, neutral and unvarnished reporting still exists on US outlets.

I refer to the statement of my current employer, Feature Story News:

Feature Story News has issued the following statement concerning the 8-year jail sentence handed down to our former Tehran Bureau Chief, Roxana Saberi. For further information, contact FSN President Simon Marks on + 1 202 210 1631:

Feature Story News is outraged and appalled to learn of the 8 year jail sentence imposed on our former employee, Roxana Saberi, by a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran following her conviction on a charge of "espionage".

FSN's President and Chief Correspondent Simon Marks issued the following statement:

"Roxana's conviction is an appalling miscarriage of justice - or what passes for justice in modern Iran. We note with concern that independent observers of the legal process - including immediate members of Roxana's own family - were not permitted to attend her 'trial' or the court session at which her sentence was imposed.

Roxana moved to Iran in February 2003 to offer global audiences balanced, objective coverage of news developments in the Islamic Republic. Since then, she has always honored journalistic principles of the highest professional standard.

We note that no evidence to support charges of espionage has ever been furnished by the authorities in Iran. We can only conclude that absolutely none exists.

Our thoughts and sympathies go out to Roxana and her family at this extremely difficult time. We once again urge the Iranian authorities to release Roxana immediately into the custody of her family, so that she can make plans to return to the United States where she was born and raised".

A close-up look at wideshots

I hate wideshots! I just do. I think they make news stories, or any other kind of video, look bland and boring to watch. I know this goes against the conventional wisdom for news shooting, but I would much prefer to establish something using an interesting mid-shot or close-up than a tedious, empty wideshot.

So many pieces I see on the local news begin with an infuriating wideshot of a police car with its lights on and nothing happening. The problem here is, not only is nothing happening, but it looks just like every other package on the local news. An editor could use the same picture every single night and noone would notice (not that you should do that because it would be unethical). And when a story is actually interesting (not a gas station shooting or home invasion), then why spoil it by using boring wideshots.

If you're not shooting a news story or VNR, and your video is for a corporate client, then you are somewhat freer to use more imagination and less vacuous wideshots. But if you're a news shooter, here are some tips I've compiled on how to liven up your work:

1) Don't open with a wideshot.
OK, so wide shots are meant to establish something - a building, a location, whatever - and let the viewer see the big picture of what is going on. But that doesn't mean it should be the first thing the viewer sees. Take, for example, a story I did recently on turtle harvesting in Florida. Would you start with a wideshot of non-descript lake in Florida (and they all look the same), or tight close-ups of cute turtles writhing around? Of course, you'd pick the turtles! No question. If you want to use a wideshot of the lake to establish where you are, do that a few shots into the story. Script the piece so that you don't have to open with it. Open with the story (ie., turtles), not the lake.

2) Keep the wideshots to a minimum.
In addition to not opening with wideshots, just keep their use to a minimum. In a 90 second news item, I don't want to see more than one or two wideshots in the entire piece, assuming there is actual interesting subject matter to film. If there isn't, then I think it's probably not a story worth doing for television. Close-ups make for much more compelling shots most of the time.

3) Make the most of the wideshot.
Do something with the wideshot. Put in a move of some kind to keep the viewer engaged. If there is something happening, make sure it's happening when you're rolling.

4) Don't keep the wideshot up for too long.
If I see another news package in which a wideshot of a police car is kept on the screen for two full sentences of VO, I am going to kill myself. I would recommend holding a wideshot for maybe three seconds before cutting to a close-up. The close-up you cut to doesn't have to be fascinating. It can just be something within the wideshot - just don't keep the wideshot up there for longer than absolutely necessary.

5) Don't close with a wideshot.
This is the easiest crutch to use. When you've crafted your beautifully written closing sentence, don't screw it up by laying over a crappy picture. Keep the viewer interested until the last second of the piece. Slow close-ups of your interesting subjects (turtles or whatever it may be) right up until the end.

6) Use a tripod!
I dislike wideshots at the best of times. I dislike wideshots that are shaky even more! If you're going to bore me with a wideshot, at least shoot it holding the camera still.

7) Make your close-ups beautiful.
You don't have long to tell the story. You'll probably have to use some wideshots, so make the most of the rest of the time you have to show really stunning close-ups. Again, keep them steady - no shakycam. Take time to frame the shots well, don't use automatic focusing, and try to make the depth of field as large as possible by opening the iris to the maximum and adjusting the light intake using gain, shutter speed and ND filters. It really makes items shot close-up pop out of the screen.

You may think I'm overreacting a little in my distain for wideshots. But I just think far too may shooters use them as an excuse to not have to do any real work while out on an assignment. That don't impress me much.

Shoot in HD when producing SD movies

An interesting digital video nugget I discovered recently has to do with down-converting HDV material to SD.

I had some feedback from a client news agency which transmits in standard definition regarding the quality of footage I provide them versus the quality of footage shot by their own videographers.

The final files I provide the client are standard definition DV-PAL Quicktime movies. The original footage is shot in HDV NTSC and down-converted to SD NTSC while digitizing from the HD deck via firewire. Apparently, the quality of footage shot in HDV and converted to standard DV is better than footage shot in standard DV and kept in standard DV.

The client in question shoots their footage in SD 4:3 DV PAL. I shoot in HDV 16:9 NTSC and down-convert to SD during digitization using edge crop to achieve the 4:3 aspect ratio, before converting to PAL using MPEG Streamclip. The latter achieves a higher quality final SD 4:3 DV PAL file than shooting in that actual format in the first place.

So my recommendation here is to always shoot in HDV widescreen, even if you client doesn't require something that high quality. The final result appears to be better. It also helps to have an archive of footage in HD rather than SD, simply because if you need some library b-roll for an HD project in the future, you're more likely to have it - no crappy up-converting necessary.

Covering the real economic downturn

Many correspondents have been busy covering the issues facing the global economy. The US role in solving the crisis facing world markets is in the international spotlight, especially following President Obama's trip to Europe to attend the G-20 summit in London. Most are across all the latest developments at the White House, The Treasury, and on Capitol Hill.

An often overlooked element of this story is how the slowdown in the United States is impacting everyday life. To many people who have been to a mall on the US recently, the recession doesn't look as bad as it's made out to be. People seem to be shopping. So currently I am working on several stories for various broadcasters that illustrate the effects of the recession on average Americans.

Right now, I'm working on a story about the booming pawnbroker industry in Florida. The story will air on AFP TV (Agence France Presse) affiliates worldwide in the next couple of weeks. Pawn shops are, for obvious reasons, fairing well now that people are hunting for bargains, as well as looking to sell belongings to make extra cash.

Other stories reflecting the current US business climate that I've put together include the impact on agricultural workers, tourism, America's wealthy elite, and US relief organizations.

To take a look at some of the stories I've produced for VOA, visit my VOA archive page at http://stevemort.com/voice-of-america-stories/

Why people laugh at video resumes!

I have a theory as to why people laugh at job applicants who submit video resumes - because the video resumes are laughable! It's really quite simple. Check out this video resume I found online:



You can find many more like this if you search YouTube.

The horrifying thing is, people are still making these diabolical things and are actually sending them to employers. That's completely insane. I'm all in favor of a video resume, just not one that will make prospective employers cringe. Sites such as Careerbuilder.com are allowing people to upload video resumes for the consideration of employers. But the general populous does not know how to make a quality video. Has anyone watched America's Funniest Home Videos?

An average person will position their camcorder (or even worse, their iPhone or Flip Phone) without bothering to plug in an external mic, sit in front of it, and then talk to 5 minutes about themselves - maybe even reading their paper resume. That's a complete waste of time. No one wants to see that. There is even a website that lists video resumes for employers to look at: www.videoresumes.com

Whoever is doing the hiring at a company has, more likely than not, watched television sometime in their life. They are used to seeing things on TV. They know in the back of their minds what looks good and what looks crap. They know what commercials look like on TV. People are used to consuming highly produced material even if they don't think to themselves "wow that was highly produced." And that is where my idea comes in. Why not give employers something that combines a video resume with production values. Check out my website on this: EXECUTIVE VIDEO RESUMES

"In today’s economy, it’s never been more important to stand out from the crowd when applying for executive positions. Companies will often receive thousands of resumes for top openings, and most will barely get a look in. Don’t let your resume get lost in the mountain of rejected applications.

The solution - an Executive Video Resume - a one minute biographical film which can be included on a DVD with your application package, positioned online for prospective employers to see, or emailed as an attachment. Those in charge of hiring the next leading executive for their firm will actually get to see you before they even call you for an interview. It’s a perfect chance to shine, to standout from the crowd, to show your passion and enthusiasm for business. A paper resume could never do that!

A small number of people are already putting together their own EVRs, but they often look substandard - poorly produced with low sound quality, bad photography, and non-existant production and editing values. Why not consider a professionally produced Executive Video Resume?

We will not only come to your location at a time of your convenience, but we will also shoot a highly produced, polished and professional video. Our mission is to make you look as impressive as possible to employers. An experienced television journalist and videographer will spend quality time with you talking over how your video will look. We will coach you on your delivery and presentation as we shoot the video, discuss what pictures to use to make your video stand out, and ensure your EVR hits all the key points you want to make.

Video biographies give modern executives the edge they need to command respect and attention in today’s job market. Help capture your unique selling points and position yourself for success.

An EVR is not for everyone. This is for modern executives that understand you can’t put a price on the power of a professionally produced presentation. If you’re serious about setting yourself apart from the crowd, schedule a free, no-obligation consultation"

Here is a sample of an 'Executive Video Resume' I produced for an entrepreneur:



Now compare that to the first video I showed you at the top of this post. The idea is to make a sort of corporate video for the individual, using editing techniques, interview snippets like you would see on television, graphics and music. The basic elements of the resume can be adjusted according to the person you are making the video for. The length can be varied, but should not be longer than 90 seconds. While people are used to watching TV, the average TV viewer has A.D.D. No one will sit through a video resume longer than 90 seconds. It needs to hit all the points, use very short sequences of pictures, and sell the person right off the bat.

If you're shooting a video resume, shoot it like you would any other high-end video. And use your skills as an on-camera talent to coach the subject on how best to come across.

Market these videos to executives who have money to pay for such things. That way you can charge premium rates. You'll never get your average Monster.com job seeker to pay good money for a video resume. It's just not going to happen. Video resumes do not need to be maligned anymore. Videographers just need to bring their professional expertise to the field. And if you're also a TV reporter and editor, you're in an even better position to know what people are going to expect to see from the finished product.

Listen up, PAL - I shoot in NTSC

If you're a one-man-band reporter/videographer for a local affiliate or have just domestic U.S. clients, whether they be news outlets or corporate customers, you probably shoot only in NTSC. Similarly, if you're based outside the United States and shoot for only local clients, you probably shoot only in PAL, unless you are in one of a very small number of countries that use NTSC also. In that case, you wont face the challenges of conversion that many of us face when we have clients in multiple countries.

My work means I need to create final projects in both NTSC and PAL. There are ways to ensure you get smooth results without having to spend endless amounts of time converting:

1) Shoot for PAL clients in PAL, and NTSC clients in NTSC.
It may sound obvious, but this is my least favorite option. It has some upside though. For example, if I shoot a story in PAL for a TV station that broadcasts in PAL, I have no conversion to worry about at the end of the editing process. I can simply set the project and sequence properties in my editing software to PAL - 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. But the biggest problem comes when I want to archive the material for use at a later time. I keep all my material archived on harddrives, and then pull library footage whenever I need it. If you're working on a project in NTSC and you have a lot of library footage in PAL, then you have to spend a significant amount of time converting and rendering PAL footage into an NTSC timeline. That's just a waste of time. Ideally, all your archive should be in the standard you primarily use.

2) Shoot it all in your native standard and then convert the final project only.
This is generally what I do. Because I'm in North America, I shoot and then edit everything in NTSC HDV 1080i (16:9). This means that all my library archive is in NTSC. It also means I have all my footage in high definition widescreen so I can convert that to any quality, rather than shooting in SD and having to up-convert for a future HD client. Simply converting one file (your final NTSC project) into a PAL movie will save significant time. It sure beats converting bunches of archive b-roll into PAL as you go along.

3) Avoid moves, or at least make them slow.
Nothing looks worse than a pan, pull or some other kind of move, when it has been through a process to change its frame rate. As experienced videographers will know, NTSC video runs 29.97 frames per second, essentially 30 still shots pass in front of your eyes every second. PAL video has a frame rate of 25 fps. Converting from 29.97 fps to just 25 means you will get a shuddering effect because there are not enough frames every second to maintain the original smoothness of the move. Interlaced digital video is hardly the smoothest at the best of times. Using still shots, or very slow moves, is a way to avoid shuddering when converting standards. You have to get creative with the way you shoot things in order not to make the sequence of still shots look dull. Also try to avoid shots of objects, such as cars, moving quickly across the screen. Even if your camera is still, their movement will be shuddery. Shooting compression shots of cars moving away or coming towards you is a good method of capturing moving vehicles without worrying too much about problems during conversion.

4) Use a good piece of conversion software.
I have had different amounts of luck with different pieces of software used for conversions. In the news business, the Apple Compressor is not going to deliver for you. The conversion is smooth, but it takes a very long time. It took 24 hours to convert a 3 minute news package for me. That is not deadline friendly. I used JES Deinterlacer for a while, but I was unhappy with the quality of the final product. I didn't like its compression, and I felt the NTSC to PAL conversion was not smooth enough. I finally settled on MPEG Streamclip. It's free and, as long as your moves aren't too quick, it handles the frame rate conversion well. It has a frame blending function which seems to create sort of mini dissolves between frames. This significantly diminishes the shuddering. If you don't do news and have time to do more than a down-and-dirty NTSC to PAL conversion, go for it.

But the bottom line is, the less conversion you have to do, the better!

Getting more from a shoot with less

I recently produced a story for Agence France Presse TV which turned out to be quite a challenge. The challenge was that the pictures were just not as interesting as I had hoped. This particular shoot required some imaginative camera work to make the piece live up to its billing.

The story was about high-tech gadgets that are deployed by S.W.A.T teams in major U.S. cities, using Orlando, Florida as a case study.

STORY

I pitched the story to AFP as a cool, gadgety piece, featuring lots of high-tech toys - the kind of thing that keeps the viewer gripped. The problem was that when I showed up at the police station to shoot the story, I realized the equipment in question simply didn't look as interesting as I had thought it would. Instead of high-tech robots, I found a clunky looking remote controlled car with a camera on top, and a couple of smaller remote controlled devices, not much larger than your hand - hardly the makings of a fascinating piece in terms of pictures.

Fortunately, the length of packages for AFP is short; somewhere between 1:30 and 2:00 minutes in duration. The trick was to make the items in question look a lot cooler on screen than they do in real life - but without misleading the viewer into believing the robots are somehow more than they are. I have a few tricks to achieve the effect:

1) Lots of tight-shots.
The closer in you go on a small object, the more interesting you can make it appear. It also gives the impression that the item is more significant in size than it actually is. For example, one of the robots I was shown was shaped like a dumb-bell and measured a few inches in length. It looked boring, but much more interesting when it filled the screen. I shot the robot with a large depth of field, and kept the framing tight. Filling the frame with the object makes it look bigger, and having a good depth of field means the object in focus does not appear relative to its surroundings, also creating the illusion of size. Having a blurred background also makes the item pop-out from the screen so the viewer's eye is not drawn to other more interesting things in the frame.

2) Inside and outside shots.
I shot each of the robots in inside and outside locations. Giving yourself a greater variety of shots to chose from, you can keep the viewer's attention by varying up the pictures in each sequence. If all the shots are of one object, then having that object in one location with the same light and background would make the viewing experience very tedious. Switching between indoor and outdoor shots halfway through a sequence of pictures keeps the piece moving along.

3) Use rack focus.
When struggling for interesting shots, or somehow limited in the number of shots available (in this instance only three robots which didn't look particularly compelling), a rack focus can keep the picture changing, providing enough "movement" for a few seconds of VO. The same still shot, without a change in focus, would be less interesting and would give the viewer a longer time to look at the less than compelling object in question. Bringing the object into focus gradually and revealing it can keep the viewer engaged.

4) Interesting establishing shot.
Clearly, you need a wide-shot to establish the location, even if the specific subject matter (robots) is small and not visually exciting. A wide shot of the items themselves would just make them look small and insignificant, playing down the story right from the opening. In this story, I chose to open the piece with a tight shot of a robot, before then switching to a wider shot of the robot's operator. Any wide shots should not include a picture of the robots themselves, but still make it clear to the audience that the location where the wide-shot is being taken is where the robots are.

5) Introduce additional elements.
Wherever possible, introduce additional elements that do not divert too much from the original story. In this instance, there happened to be a demonstration taking place the next day involving another piece of technology. It was a headset, not a robot, but could still be introduced to the piece as another form of high-tech gadgetry used by law enforcement. It added a separate element and sequence of pictures to the piece to break up the monotony of the robot shots. It also allowed me to get more footage of police officers. Before the headset demonstration, I only had pictures of one police officer. I also added a third element by asking the S.W.A.T. team leader to drive me around the block in the S.W.A.T. vehicle. Combined with a few shots of the vehicle from the outside, it added another element to break up the piece.

6) Keep it short.
When you script a story like this, keep it as short as possible. Don't be tempted to introduce all the details you'd hoped to bring in. Remember it'll make your life a lot easier when it comes to editing. You don't want to be scrambling for shots to cover your prose.