Video Shot By A Guy Referred to My Client at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Open DV Discussion
For topics which don't fit into any of the other categories.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 9th, 2008, 09:25 PM   #1
Tourist
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
Posts: 3
Video Shot By A Guy Referred to My Client

Here's the deal

Someone referred a guy to one of my clients to shoot a red carpet event out in the hamptons a few weeks ago. Sent out by the client with a Sony PD150, He came back with this:

YouTube - Video Shot by a Guy I Referred

Here are a few questions that if people could take some time to answer, would be very helpful to this self-styled "Video Ographer." What is your opinion of the technical quality of this video footage? Would you be happy if you were the paying client and this footage was brought back to you to use on your Television Show and WHY? Do you think this Video Ographer is of a professional skill level and Why? What suggestions do you have for this video guy for future paying job?

The "Video Ographer" swears that his zebras were 70% on the subjects face and that he did everything he could possibly do to expose correctly.

Thank you for any comments. BTW I'm not disrespecting Videographers --- I am one --- it's just that this guy insists on telling clients that he is a ---- " Video --Ographer"
__________________
Thomas Hollyday
DocuVid Media Since 1992

Last edited by Pete Bauer; September 9th, 2008 at 09:56 PM. Reason: formatting for readability
Thomas Hollyday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 09:50 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Hollywood, CA, United States
Posts: 790
The first thing I noticed was the poor tripod. One was used, but it was either not a fluid head, or was and was still locked. The most glaring problem was the use of manual iris. He actually opened it up more when there was an all-white background. At one point he had it perfect, then opened back up. He also rides the iris the entire time, constantly changing it, but never making it good (or even legal for broadcast I expect!)
Edward Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 10:24 PM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,356
I am a little confounded by the purpose of this post.


Is it a name and shame with no name? The footage speaks for itself. The camera operator is his or her own best motivation for your client to be encouraged to revisit you next time round. I assume this is the point of this post.

There is no need to rub it in. It does not make good business sense. Your client now becomes the focus for negative attention, not the camera operator, so might just go elsewhere rather than come back all chagrined and face the music with you.

People no matter how loyal, can be like that and you would never know, except maybe observing your client base wither a little. The customer is always right even if as wrong as all hell, the exception of course being when no business is better than bad business.


That said and the cliches finished and clear - my own observations :-


The camera operator is apparently using substandard camera support, does not appear to know how to walk around a tripod ( or was bumped by humble public ) and is not fluent on two fronts.


With the camera itself.

In preparing for events - as in prior research of the best places and viewpoints for best composition and flow of action.


Skilled or nay, the camera operator may have simply had a very bad frustrating day.


Whoever planned the event and designed that background panel was not exactly the most inspired either. It had lookaway built right into it and may not have helped a live audience because of glare, let alone media coverage.

Last edited by Bob Hart; September 9th, 2008 at 10:33 PM. Reason: error
Bob Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 10:41 PM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colombia
Posts: 153
Well the camera work itself looked like pretty classic E news footage (sans bad tripod and iris riding) which could be a good thing if that's what your going for. Even the shot of the camera people.

But the iris riding was unacceptable the footage is for the most part ruined
He might of had the zebras set to 100 and not 70 Which are on the same switch on the pd 150. or he might have been trying to get to zebras on the whole face and not just high lights.

Wouldn't pay for this, but maybe if he got it right.
Andrew McMillan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 10:59 PM   #5
Tourist
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hart View Post
I am a little confounded by the purpose of this post.


Is it a name and shame with no name? The footage speaks for itself. The camera operator is his or her own best motivation for your client to be encouraged to revisit you next time round. I assume this is the point of this post.

There is no need to rub it in. It does not make good business sense. Your client now becomes the focus for negative attention, not the camera operator, so might just go elsewhere rather than come back all chagrined and face the music with you.

People no matter how loyal, can be like that and you would never know, except maybe observing your client base wither a little. The customer is always right even if as wrong as all hell, the exception of course being when no business is better than bad business.


That said and the cliches finished and clear - my own observations :-


The camera operator is apparently using substandard camera support, does not appear to know how to walk around a tripod ( or was bumped by humble public ) and is not fluent on two fronts.


With the camera itself.

In preparing for events - as in prior research of the best places and viewpoints for best composition and flow of action.


Skilled or nay, the camera operator may have simply had a very bad frustrating day.


Whoever planned the event and designed that background panel was not exactly the most inspired either. It had lookaway built right into it and may not have helped a live audience because of glare, let alone media coverage.


Shame with no name definitely

My wish is not to name names --- but only to let the footage stand by itself ---

and be tried in the court of public opinion

the reason being that the guy that shot it ---cursed me up and down that he had done everything he says he could have ---- to expose the shot properly ----

and it's pretty clear that this is Certainly NOT the case

By The Way ------------- I fired the client weeks ago ---

not even the point ----

The point was: The Video Sucked --- and it was done by someone who thinks they're pretty good at it. Go Figure.

Red Carpet Events are always staged like this with plenty of bright logos everywhere

Not too hard to shoot if you know how -- and this guy didn't


Thanks for the replies
__________________
Thomas Hollyday
DocuVid Media Since 1992
Thomas Hollyday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 02:06 AM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 2,053
Well you know the footage is bad.

In today's technology where what-you-see-is-what-you-get, I don't understand how anyone can come back with horribly mis-exposed material.

I come from a background where you didn't see what you got until after the film was processed and the prints made. And by then hours or even days had gone by. So a "pro" HAD to know how to get it right.

The best news guys could be shooting without a meter and be able to tell you what the exposure needed to be within a stop -- and in the days of Tri-X and D-76 that was pretty darn close.
__________________
Dean Sensui
Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing
Dean Sensui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 05:53 AM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,609
Ah, TriX pushed to 1600 (or more)! Big dots of grain and the newspapers all loved it! Brings back great fond memories.
NikonF (original F camera) with the lens of choice and a Singer/Graflex or Metz flash-TriX to 1600-shutter 1/60th-f/2.4 zone focus and GO FOR IT! :-)
Ah the good ol' days! Hah!

Thanks for the early AM memories
Don
Don Bloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 06:13 AM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Bloom View Post
Ah, TriX pushed to 1600 (or more)! Big dots of grain and the newspapers all loved it! Brings back great fond memories.
NikonF (original F camera) with the lens of choice and a Singer/Graflex or Metz flash-TriX to 1600-shutter 1/60th-f/2.4 zone focus and GO FOR IT! :-)
Ah the good ol' days! Hah!

Thanks for the early AM memories
Don
'Tri-X, f/8 and be there' was the mantra for the guys I worked with at my first job. Funny, I still have an old sweatshirt with fixer stains on it.

Nikon FM with a Metz or Lumedyne with the shoulder battery pack. Ahhhhhh... I can smell the Dektol now......
Mark L. Whalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 06:37 AM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 689
no pay. he ruined footage of a still hot Christie Brinkley
Scott Hayes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 10:07 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,449
She is definitely hot. But so is the footage. Clearly overexposed.

The guy does not know how to read zebras, obviously.

All the whites are blown out. And it appears he was using a still camera tripod. Just because a guy can afford to buy a video camera doesn't mean he knows enough to use it. From what you're saying, his attitude is typical--not MY fault. Scratch him off your list. If you're using FCP and are conversant with Color, you might be able to tweak the footage a bit to make it within the realm of acceptability. Good luck.
Bill Pryor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 11:07 AM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
OBVIOUSLY, buddy was going for the "Infinite White" background made famous by Apple. You guys SERIOUSLY need to get with the times! Film, FM and Metz... BAH! Dinosaurs all...

<Tongue planted so VERY firmly in cheek I think I bruised myself>

I used to teach and my STUDENTS never came back with anything THAT awful. Blue? Yes. 190 IRE whites? Never.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 11:18 AM   #12
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Sensui View Post
Well you know the footage is bad.

In today's technology where what-you-see-is-what-you-get, I don't understand how anyone can come back with horribly mis-exposed material.

The shooter probably doesn't even know the difference. I can see the thought process now...
"Yeah, this looks just like a music video! I wonder if this thing goes whiter? Wow, it does! Awesome! This looks wicked!"
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC?
Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com
Dylan Couper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 11:19 AM   #13
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
A definite case of where leaving the camera in auto mode would have done a better exposure job! (insert smiley)

We are really lucky here in the Uk we never get any sunshine so exposure for dull cloudy overcast is our std pre-set (insert another smiley)
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 11:47 PM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2,207
Dektol/D76/Tri-X. Still available from Kodak. Original Nikon F - still have two of them in good working order. Great camera. One of them is sitting on my desk at the moment. I still remember how to use a light meter! I even still have my nearly 40 year old 5 X 7 Linhof - in fact I just sent one of the shutters off to be cleaned and re-calibrated by a guy in Providence R.I.

That's what I find lacking about modern photography - no chemical smell, no magic moment watching the latent image appear under the safelight, no fixer stains on my clothes.
Jim Andrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 04:07 AM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
I love the smell of hypo in the morning, to me it smells like........ victory!!!
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network