OK, so what does ENG stand for?
 

I occasionally see references in this group to ENG... "a great mic for ENG" or something like that. I have always assumed that it stood for Electronic News Gathering. But I have seen several posts that made me question my assumption. So could someone supply an authoritative answer?

Thanks,
David A. Johnson
(past photojournalist, present IT admin, future documentarian)

I have several posts here about terms, it would be worth searching. But you are correct, ENG does indeed mean Electronic News Gathering. It should not be confused with EFP, Electronic Field Production. EFP would have higher production values than ENG.

I've seen some folks mis-use the term "ENG," and apply it to any old sort of field production. It's supposed to be strictly news, however. A mic that's good for ENG also might be good for EFP. Just depends on your production values, as Jeff pointed out.

And don't forget LAC stands for Live Action Camera... whenever we'd go out for live shots the desk knew we were lac'in off.

Best,

John

Well, these days, it's hard to know what really is news...(what really happened to Private Jessica Lynch, f'rexample). And further blurring the categories are the "new" genres of television, like "reality TV" (a misnomer if I've ever seen one) and how about "infotainment" ...and whose brilliant idea was it to create the "docudrama"?

Back in the day, they taught me that EFP was whatever you created outside the studio, and ENG was a subset of that. The principal distinction being the pressure to "get the story"--and get it on the air before your competitors do--takes precedence over perfection in audio, lighting, etc., whereas docu or PR work affords you (a little) more time to do it up fancy.

Somewhere in the middle lies the VNR (video news release), a kind of industrial video that may see the airwaves. Plus, all kinds of other material might wind up on broadcast news. It seems that the numerous business shows couldn't do a story this past year about the Hip-Hop economy or the liquor business without runnng a snippet of Busta Rhymes' "Pass The Courvoisier" music video (notice we are not complaining here about the free publicity).

A great mic for ENG would be above all reliable and rugged, would reproduce the human voice cleanly, and good wind resistance would be a plus. A U87 (high-priced condenser mic for music recording studios) might have broader frequency response, but wouldn't last one day on the news beat, for instance. In general, ENG gear has to be built for the rigors of the road and portable enough to shoot run-&-gun.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

Let me pose a related question: The direction of my endeavors is in the field of documentary work. Would it be fair to say that whatever gear is appropriate for ENG work would also be a good selection for documentary work?

Thanks again,
David

Pretty much. But docu is a pretty broad field. Sometimes you have the opportunity to use higher-end gear if the budget and time and maintenance and location constraints allow. Other times you have to forgo the fussier, setup-intensive gear and just, as in ENG, "get the story." I'd start in an ENG-oriented mode and specialize with selected bits and pieces as the projects dictate.

BTW, what have you got now?

Mike,

Right now, my gear is not much to look at. A JVC GR-DVL9800. It's a consumer camera. Its mark distinction is that it has a true 30P mode, which I use *all* the time; an excellent Gitzo tripod (from my photojournalism days; a .6 WA, ATR25 & ATR55 mics.

By mid-March, I should have enough money saved to get a much-longed-after DVX100. The following months will see the aquisition of a $400-500 shotgun mic, a wireless lav setup (most likely the Senn Evolution 100), a Century Optics .6 WA adapter, a fluid head for my Gitzo.

My documentary endeavors will be solo affairs (unless I can talk my wife into following me around with a boom). So, the ENG approach will be a must. Thanks for asking...