NATS

Some work days recently have been frustrating but I've been relatively happy overall. For the most part we have been doing decent work.

I really liked last night's story–a follow-up to one of the first stories I did with Jeni, the grass cutting program. But watching it last night there were two things I would change if I had the chance to do it again today:

1) The primary interview was a guy who cuts grass for the city. The first broll section shows him coming toward camera. I tried to use a couple longer takes around one cutaway of the mower trailing the tractor. Watching it last night I wished I had added a shot or even two to pick the pace up a bit.

2) the NATS were not quite tight enough. If you're not in tv the NATS are "natural sounds" of whatever you're shooting. Basically, if you're shooting someone digging then it's the sound of the shovel going into the ground; if you're shooting basketball it's the crowd and sneaker squeaks; if you're shooting a mowing company it's the mower and weed wacker sounds. Anyway, the NATS could have been tighter. When nice and quick the NATS help the story move along; conversely. when the NATS are not tight enough they can make a story drag. I am finding and using more NATS but I need to keep them tighter.

Both of these comments have to do with pace. I find that when I'm really locked into editing I often respond positively to a story that isn't cut snappily enough. When I step back I can see it, so I need to figure out the best way to monitor pace while I'm in the editing "zone."

Best Laid Plans

Plan the shoot better. Part of this is taking a more active role in planning the shoot. Figure out what the most proper action is for a character in a given situation. Particularly on photo-light stories. You can pull off one-character stories if they're shot well. Rudy and Whitney* did a really good job of this.

They shot multiple actions or scenes with this single character (fireman leaving Memphis due to budget cuts), which visually told the story of the act of leaving. Stepping into his uniform, driving away. Crazy shot tracking ambulance to the guy's eyes. Really nicely done.

My story was about the husband of a dispatcher who needs a heart transplant. The interview was well-shot but could have been better operated (a little shake in one of the shots and an awkward move that just needed to be smoother). All we had were two walking shots.** What else could we have had him doing? He didn't want us going by his house.

• Could we have put the GoPro in his car and grabbed a shot there?
• Was there any footage of his wife to get? She had to work a double, maybe talk to her and get shots working?
• SHOULD HAVE SHOT THE DISPATCH RADIOS AT THE DESK!!! WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT NATS AND MIGHT HAVE LET YOU USE POLICE SHOTS

This is where my input is critical. I should have had this idea when we started shooting, not now as I'm thinking about it. I can help shape the whole story by telling Jeni that I'm going to shoot that. If I tell her how I want to cut it she can probably write to that. It's an opportunity but it's also a responsibility.

Develop a plan as soon as you hear what the story is. Take ideas to the table. Talk through the plan with Jeni.


Other Notes

• If nobody's taking out the GoPro then maybe take it along on some of these shoots. Get a weird second angle. Set it up and let it go. Pro.
• This can be a weird second angle in broll but you can also try something different in the interview. Maybe it's right on someone's desk. Maybe it's on a back shelf where you see everything. Maybe it's both.

Things you did well that could be better

• Picked out a good spot for the interview. Standard bench, over the shoulder. Though you should have looked at the other side of the bench. You may have been able to get more flattering shots from there. You weren't shooting Shelly interview a rocker. But the lighting was soft and the framing was good.
• Fixed the color well. So much green in the shot otherwise. See how you can best control a white balance. Maybe take the vivid off? Skintones maybe a touch too magenta.
• Manageable EQ of the Lav. Really getting disappointed with the tone of that microphone in some situations but found a quick fix today. Maybe move it farther away from the source?


Come on

• NO NATS? REALLY?




_______________________________________________
*I assume Whitney as I didn't see him much today.
**Shot it backwards by shooting wide-tight-chase. Should have gone tight-wide-tight.

some notes

I thought I'd give a little heads up as to what I'm trying to do here now in case anyone actually stumbles across this page.

This page officially has no official direction. If I feel like writing about something then I will write about it, just like a journal/diary/whatever. But I think it's a great tool to review what I did at work on a given day and what I could do better. I've been trying to figure out a good way to do this for a while and yesterday it hit me that this page could be a great example of that.

It's also a good place to make notes on potential projects. The post about abandoned housing is one example of that, a story I would like to cover in-depth at some point. If I'm going to write through my thoughts I might as well do it here.

So don't expect anything finished and don't expect anything refined. But maybe this will be a place I can stash some ideas, a place I can think through what I've done and what I want to do. A place I can use as a tool to make my work better.

A place I can interact with for a while and then abandon yet again.

Memphis Forsaken

Many building projects around Memphis give the impression of a city trying to break out of a decades-long depression. But this town that is fighting to rise up in some places is in may ways just trying to keep its head above water.

Residences sit abandoned all around this town, from the riverfront to the South Memphis 'hood. New residential developments constantly pushing eastward have left this city with a high housing supply and reduced demand.

This sprawl encouraged flight from the city and left all kinds of buildings in the city of Memphis empty, from single-family homes to luxury condos to low-income apartment buildings.

This is both a symptom and a problem. It's a symptom of the sprawl, a symptom of the urban decay, a symptom of flight from the city itself to the surrounding towns. A symptom of why Memphis's tax revenue has created a shortfall with a gap big enough to require drastic action--in the form now of serious benefit cuts to some of the city's most important workers and retirees.

The buildings themselves present problems...what do you do with blighted 50-unit residences? What do you do with a luxury condo building nearly finished but abandoned? What do you do with countless homes boarded up and (seemingly) empty? Do you raze them to the ground? Do you renovate? Or do you just ignore the buildings and let them crumble, let entropy slowly take its course?

It seems like that's the city's choice.

Tues 7/8/14

Relatively happy with the story today. It was about a cop shot in the line of duty who's health benefits are going to go way up. He was in just about every frame so there wasn't an incredible opportunity for varied broll. But a couple more shots would have really helped at the end, so that I didn't half to stay on single shots for too long.

I had a tough time getting a good white balance today. Lots of green grass, green reflection made for a weird color. Not getting a good white balance was probably the single biggest mistake I made today. My rationale for not changing it was that I deemed fixable quickly in post and didn't want to take the time. Even with it being a news shoot, I really had the time and should've made sure to get a good white. The end result was an acceptable color once corrected but it could've been better.

The other major mistake that I made was not getting a better variety of shots in his walking B roll. Absolutely could have used more walking shots.

I really liked the slow-motion walking, his body on one side with the text on the other side. The slow-motion function isn't quite as smooth as maybe would be best. The idea was good and could be refined. Use text in creative ways so that it's not all documents all the time. This had action that kept the he's moving but also gave the information. Certainly not perfect but something to start using heavily.

White balance was also off at mayors presser. Really wanted to fix it but you were live, what can you do? Get a better white,. Better place to get up for today might of been off of the White stripes on the American flag.

A little on the Neukom thing

This is directly copied from the Jenkins article linked at the bottom of this post:

To source No. 5: Isn't this a really bad look for the organization?
"Here's a guy, Neukom, who was always the smartest guy in the room, without acting like it or trying to prove it. He simply wanted the Giants to stay on top of the heap, and he made every move with that in mind. This is a guy who helped Microsoft stare down the United States government in the Supreme Court. And he's supposed to ask all these investors for permission on the moves he's supposed to make? Petty jealousy knows no bounds, and it may well have just cost this organization the best leader they ever had."
Neukom seemed really hurt by all this. Will he recover?
"Put it this way: In his last two years, Neukom's organization won a world championship and then sold every seat in the house. That's a hell of a legacy. Let's see anyone top that."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/16/SP4C1L5IUV.DTL#ixzz1YF4Exxun

Hey Comcast: Stay Out of My Browser, Part 1

You probably already know this but I wanted to write it. I've probably already written something quite like it.

Television and internet are ever converging. We're getting to an age (and might be there, depending on your definition) when viewing "television" can legitimately take place without a television. Digital cable and satellite TV services use browsers to navigate their offering. And cable providers like Comcast are whining and crying and scared as hell.

It comes down to this basic premise: given adequate programming online, savvy consumers can subscribe to an internet service and not but a cable package.

Comcast's fear is justified. Comcast is, at its core, a cable company. They also happen to provide internet service. They can, in general, squeeze a lot more money out of cable than internet. With basic cable subscriptions and add-ons like sports packages, HBO, Showtime, and pay-per-view a cable provider can easily make well over $100 per month on TV bills alone.

General residential internet service costs about $50/month or less if I remember correctly (the guy who lives downstairs subscribes to the internet while I pay for yard trimming).

If I were the cable provider I wouldn't want to lose the business where I make $100 from a customer in favor of another subscription that she already pays $35 for in addition to the first service. I understand that logic.

But what's Comcast's response? They want to be able to limit your access to web-based video sites like Netflix, Hulu, and others (including broadcast network sites that almost all show full episodes of many shows). Instead of providing us with more bandwidth (perhaps at a higher price), with which an actual television revolution might occur, Comcast is trying to suppress this development in order to line its own pockets. Rather, to keep its pockets lined.

With more bandwidth we get higher-bit streaming and faster downloads, two things that are huge for television viewing. The ideal would be to be able to wirelessly stream full 1080 (or higher) resolution video on your personal device at all times, but the nature of internet distribution does not allow for this at this time. I constantly get jumps up and down in video quality, and I imagine it's only worse in more areas more densely populated than Memphis. Unless you have a fiber-optic connection, which costs mad bank. So we need faster, more constant, reliable internet connection. We need a consumer connection where two or more people on the same home network can stream different shows at full resolution and not encounter any playback problems.

Instead, Comcast claims that it has the right to limit what you can view on their connection. They want to monitor you watching "Wilfred" on hulu.com and lower your connection speed to a point where it's not even worthwhile to watch.

Yikes.

I'll give more thoughts on this in the next few days. Consider this the place-setter.