Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- From: Jack Perry <vidpro40@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:01:11 -0400
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Jack Perry" wrote ...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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYghS8a7eAo
Here are a few questions that if answered, would be very helpful to this
self-styled "Video Ographer"
Creative writing might not be a promising career, either.
What is your opinion of the technical quality of this video footage?
Home movies by someone who doesn't even know how to
properly use the camera.
Would you be happy if you were the paying client and this footage was brought back to you to use on your Television Show?
Not even close.
Do you think this Video ographer is of a professional skill level?
No. (Or maybe "video ographer" means some lower-
expectation than we would have of a "videographer" :-)
What suggestions do you have for this video guy for future paying job?
1) Learn how to use the camera under all kinds of lighting
situations, bright cloudless noon, to rainy midnight.
2) Learn how to use creative camera angles. The camera
is not a fire hose nozzle. Recommended instructional video:
http://smartflix.com/store/video/2774/Advanced-Broadcast-Camera-Techniques
3) The difference between amateurs and professionals is that
amateurs show you ALL their pictures (ALL their footage)
while professionals show you their best work.
The "video ographer" swears that his zebras were 70% on the subjects face and that he did everything he could to expose correctly
It should be easy enough to check the camera under similar
lighting conditions to confirm or deny his claim. If the zebra
settings are really that far off, then get the camera fixed and
apologize to the "ographer". Else it sounds like excuses by
someone less than professional.
In any case, wouldn't hurt to spend several hours shooting
test footage under extreme lighting conditions to get a feel for
how the video *really looks* vs. what the viewfinder (even the
zebra) is reporting.
Even for "news" (limited access) shooting vs. "production"
shooting, this just seems like amateur quality, even without
the exposure problems. Pan, tilt, zoom were pretty rough
and lacking in artistry. Exposure (and/or YouTube compression)
was too bad to be able to judge focus ability.
I'm not making any claims to be network news-level
performance myself, but most of us recognize decent
camera work when we see it.
Thanks Guys
appreciate the feedback
and the learning of a new expression
RTFM !!!!
I'm reserving my own comments on this footage until a few more come in
--JP
.
- References:
- Freelancer's Video Quality
- From: Jack Perry
- Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- From: Richard Crowley
- Freelancer's Video Quality
- Prev by Date: Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- Next by Date: Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- Previous by thread: Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- Next by thread: Re: Freelancer's Video Quality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|