|
It's Thus at 5:00 ... You've got an hour. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note: Every Thursday at 5:00, Jan Ozer sits down and writes for an hour on the events of the previous week. Part rumor mill, part therapy and part video lessons learned, hopefully you'll find it 100% interesting. If you notice that Jan missed a week, don't be bashful about sending him a reminder at jan@doceo.com. May 5, 2005 Choosing a Camcorder (Part 1) A frequent topic at some of the seminars that I teach are the keys to buying a high quality camcorder. Here’s what I tell them. 1. Buy the best you can afford. Video is classic garbage in/garbage out, and if you don’t capture good video up front, you’re playing catch-up the entire way. Making this job tougher is the fact that you shoot most of your video in less than ideal shooting conditions, like living rooms, restaurants and ballrooms, which typically don’t offer studio lighting. And low light tends to bring the words out of inexpensive camcorders. Here’s an example. I took these shots at the same time with two different camcorders. On the left is the 3CCD VX-2000, on the right a camcorder with one CCD. Briefly, CCD stands for charge coupled device, which is the sensor that actually converts the image coming in from the lens to useful information.
As you can see, the image on the left looks fine, while the image on the right is way too dark to use with adjustment. While you can make the image brighter in your video editor, typically this also produces graininess and other artifacts.
In the center is the trusty VX2000. You can see that the lines are preserved well past the number 500. On the test pattern on the left, they’re blurry at 400, and though the image on the right is slightly better, it still doesn’t show the detail exhibited by the VX2000. As you might have guessed, both other cameras are one CCD cameras.
Study the gray color closely. The VX2000 is more true to the actual background color of the chart, and shows less grainess. Even under relatively good lighting conditions, the difference is obvious. Let’s look at facial colors and start naming names. Again, the VX2000, on tope, shows good detail and very accurate skin tones under these flourescent lights in my office. The Canon ZR90 makes me look sickly gray, and while the Sony HC40 makes me look skinny, which I appreciate, it also lightens my skin considerably, and the image isn’t quite as rich as the VX2000. Again, this is under pretty standard fluorescent office lighting.
Next look at Barbie with my daughters in the background. The ZR90 shot is positively dreary, while the HC40 is grainy and mottled. Only in the VX2000 image does Barbie truly sparkle.
If we take a quick walk outside we’ll see that the results get much closer. Here the HC40s’s image is almost indistinguishable from the VX2000 in color vibrancy, and even the ZR90 is relatively clear and crisp, though again the colors are clearly off. Unfortunately, unless your job is shooting noon crossing guards in San Diego, you’re probably not going to shoot in direct sunlight a majority of the time. That’s why camera reviewers tend to focus on “low light performance.” It’s also why most camera demo footage is shot under brilliant lights or the noon day sun, because it simply makes the cameras look better. So what’s the point? While you can produce great video with a $100 video editor and a clunky, slow Pentium III computer, you probably can’t produce great video with a $500 camcorder.
I won’t bore you with the Knute Rockne speech about how these are your kids, and they only grow up once, and you only buy a camcorder every five years or so, so the per year extra cost of spending an extra $1,000 is pretty small. But I would dig as deep as possible for this purchase if I was in your shoes.
2. Specs Don’t Matter – Find an Objective Quality Review
Rule number two about buying camcorders is to never buy without first seeing an objective, third party evaluation of quality. You can't buy brand; I love Sony, but they've put out some stinkers, and you can't buy specs; I've tested some 3CCD camcorders that output lower quality than 1CCD cameras. You need an objective evaluation.
I think PC Mag and EventDV produce great reviews, but we don't test all of them, so you probably will have to go elsewhere. My three favorite sites for checking out camcorders are:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php - does a great job with standardized reviews. www.epinions.com - only users, but there are some great reviews. www.cnet.com - good reviews and lots of reader feedback.
Epinions always has good links to online sites for buying, as does CNET. I've personally had good luck at http://www.bestpriceaudiovideo.com/ and at www.jr.com.
3. Make sure your camcorder can connect to external microphones
Almost by design, camcorder microphones produce sub par quality in most shooting situations. One reason is that camcorder microphones are all “omni-directional” or tuned to capture audio from all sources around the camera. This works well if you’re shooting from within the middle of a choir, but if you’re shooting an interview, concert, play or other presentation, you probably wish the microphone was tuned to capture what the camcorder was pointing at, not the ambient noise.
The second reason is that the microphone is either within the camera body or located on the handle. While the second is better, it still doesn’t totally insulate the camera from picking up handling noise when you work the zoom lens (or kick the tripod, my favorite).
What to do if camera microphones all produce poor quality? Make sure you purchase a camcorder that can accept an external microphone, either through a hot accessory shoe atop the camcorder or via a separate microphone input. With these, you can purchase inexpensive (sub $100 external microphones that boost quality into acceptable levels. If your camcorder doesn’t have them, you’ll have no options for improving the quality of your captured audio.
(to be continued ...)
Index to Previous Editions: April 21, 2005 Editing Multiple Camera Input April 8, 2005: Managing the Multiple Camcorder Shoot March 24, 2005 - Managing the Casual Shoot March 17, 2005 - Fixing Backlit Video April 21, 2005: Editing Multiple Camera Input Last week I described how to shoot a concert with multiple cameras; now it's time to edit the video from the two cameras. There are two ways to accomplish this, manually, where you manually sync the two video clips and switch between them, and using the multi-camera capabilities of a video editor to sync the two feeds and let you easily switch between them.
The first is more time consuming but offers greater flexibility. For example, if you want to layer one video over the other (as I'll demonstrate below) as an artistic event, or show both videos in a picture-in-picture effect, you'll have to do sync the videos manually. On the other hand, if your goal is simple switching from camera to camera, multi-cam software features are quick and easy, though not offered by all programs.
I'll demonstrate both techniques in this review, starting with Pinnacle Edition and its marvelous multi-cam feature, and then demonstrating how to do it manually in Premiere Pro. (Note: for a summary of which editors offer multi-cam features, see Stephen Nathan's excellent article in EventDV here). Preliminaries: Every time I've shot with multiple cameras, I've had to color correct one or both clips to make the colors look similar. Otherwise, even the untrained eye can easily notice the disparity, which can be distracting. For example, click on the image below, and you'll see the two camera views of Larissa, the one on the left slightly brownish in cast, while the other shows the true grayish background.
If you're working with Pinnacle Edition, it's fastest to color correct both clips, render them as DV-AVI files in their entirety, and then sync them up. Otherwise, if you color correct after syncing, you'll have to apply the filter separately each time the clip is used in the production, which easily can be a dozens of times in an hour or so program. Definitely no fun. If you're synching manually, say in Premiere Pro, you should color correct first, but you don't have to render the clips separately. Multi-Cam Sync in Pinnacle Liquid Edition To sync multiple clips in Edition, first you select the clips in the bin, choosing the clip with the audio you want to keep first. When syncing the clips, Edition will keep this audio track and discard the rest.
After selecting the clips (holding down the Ctrl key to select multiple clips), choose Multicam Sync from the right mouse click menu. Edition will open the Multicam sync window, where you'll select how Edition should sync the clips (click thumbnail above). Though theoretically you can use the First Marker, I've had the best luck using the Mark In points. Of course, this means that you'll have to select the same Mark In point for both clips before starting the sync process.
After selecting the syncing technique, click Sync Selected clips, and Edition creates a new "sync" clip from the video and audio clips, and places it in the sequence window.
If you open the thumbnail immediately above, you'll see the two video tracks, one from the VX2K (VX2000), which was Camera A, and one from the TRV9, which was camera B. You'll also see that the two audio tracks (left and right) came from the VX2000, which was the camera attached to the microphones used for the shoot.
Click on the sync clip in the sequences window, and Edition opens up both clips in the source window (thumbnail above). From there, you can play the video in real time, or scrub through the clip using the timeline on the bottom. Either way, you switch between cameras by clicking the camera window. If you expand the thumbnail, you'll see flags for each camera on the timeline on the bottom.
You can't delete the camera changes, or even move them on the timeline; both capabilities are sorely missed. That said, it's a feature you can't live without if working with multiple cameras.
When you're finished, you add the clip to the timeline, and Edition presents each camera segment as a separate clip. The clips have handles, so you can slip and slide edit to your hearts content on the timeline, as well as add transitions between clips.
This approach is fast and easy, which is always good. It does, however, limit your creative potential a bit, as we'll see when exploring with Premiere below. Syncing Manually In Premiere Pro When working with Premiere (or other editor without multi-cam sync), you have to sync manually. Here, I loaded the VX2000 clip first, marked in at the sync frame, then added it to Video 1. Then I did the same for the TRV9, and added it to Video 2. To get rid of the TRV9 audio track, you can drag the video only down to the video track, or delete the audio after dragging the clip to the timeline (unlinking the audio and video files first).
From here, you have a couple of choices. In the past, I simply cut away those portions of camera B that I didn't want, in this case on Video 2. I used the razor tool to split the B-roll where necessary, and deleted the unwanted chunks. However, there's using this technique, there's no way to guarantee that you won't inadvertently move the B-roll footage at some point, losing audio sync.
So now I use the opacity control with key frames to make the B-roll footage appear and disappear as desired. Of course, when you make your B-roll disappear, you can no longer easily see it, so it helps to go through and mark the desired in and out points in your B-roll footage. Or, you can create and drag key frames around on Video 2 so you can see the footage, and make your adjustments on the fly. It's definitely not as easy as Edition's automated approach.
The reward, however, is the ability to create layering effects like that shown directly above and three images above. The Marimba is a very visual instrument, and the ability to display Larissa and a close up of her working the mallets was irresistible. In the past, I've used picture-in-picture effects as well, but that didn't seem to suit this concert.
Though you can add slow long dissolves to Edition's combined clip, you can't really do any lengthy layering, unless you sync manually in Edition, which is always an option.
Well that's it. Multi-camera productions are fun and the videos you'll produce are head and shoulders better than single camera shoots. With a bit of extra work and some planning, you can make it happen. Index to Previous Editions: April 8, 2005: Managing the Multiple Camcorder Shoot March 24, 2005 - Managing the Casual Shoot March 17, 2005 - Fixing Backlit Video April 8, 2005: Managing the Multiple Camcorder Shoot I’ve had the opportunity to shoot many events with two or three camcorders. Done correctly, you end up with a smorgasbord of available footage to edit into a cohesive whole and the opportunity to produce a much more compelling and professional looking video. Done incorrectly, of course, and you end with multiple versions of bad video. In this first of two articles, I’ll describe the how to setup and shoot with multiple camcorders. In the next installation, I’ll tackle the editing side of the equation. Placing Your Camcorders Part of the placement decision is equipment dependent, part event dependant. In most cases, unless you have multiple camcorder operators in constant communication, you should set up one camcorder to capture the entire scene and all action in the scene. In a concert or play, this means the entire stage, or at least that portion of the stage where performers will perform. In a wedding ceremony, it might mean a wide shot of the pulpit. This is your “A” camcorder, which provides a good, if unexciting shot of the entire scene. If you were shooting with one camcorder, this would probably be your view and vantage point. If your second camcorder failed, this camcorder would provide a passable video of the event. Typically, I use my best camcorder, a Sony VX 2000, for this shot, since it’s got a great lens that can capture good quality at a distance. Placement of your “B” camcorder depends on the occasion, the quality of your camcorder and whether you have someone who can at least watch your “A” camcorder and make sure it doesn’t get bounced out of the desired framing. For example, for one concert, I set up the A camcorder in the back, next to the soundman, who promised to guard the camcorder with his life. This freed me to wander close to the stage with Camcorder B, getting close ups of the performers and their instruments, as well as reaction shots of the crowd. Other concerts, when I’m testing camcorders and have multiple good camcorders around, I’ll set up both camcorders in the back, keep my A camcorder set to the entire scene and shoot close ups with the B camcorder from the back. This obviously works in smaller venues better than large, since I’m closer to the stage, and makes it tough to get reaction shots of the audience. The key is to use Camcorder A to capture the entire scene, and Camcorder B for your close-ups and alternative shots. Framing Your Shots Framing is just a fancy term describing where your camera is pointed and how the subject is placed in the frame. Learn and adhere to the rule of thirds, which I cover in the Pinnacle Studio VQS, DV 101 and PC Mag Guide to Digital Video. Or, you can get a quick and dirty version here. Your “A” camcorder is shooting the entire stage, of course, so framing is pretty clear. With camcorder B you’re free to roam, and pick out interesting shots to weave into your final video. When driving the B camcorder I keep three thoughts in mind. First, change and motion are good, but only if done well. I change zoom ratio and framing frequently, holding each shot steady for no more than 10-20 seconds, then moving on slowly and steadily. Though I know that I’ll be interspersing this footage with that from camcorder A, I try to move the camera as if all the video must be usable. I used to jerk quickly from shot to shot, but you never know when you’ll need to use the footage, so it makes sense to work more slowly and maintain quality throughout. Second, I try to think of “classic framing” which varies from event to event. It’s a slippery concept, but I try to keep thinking to myself “what are the classic views of a singer/bride/piano player/etc. that would be on the front of the DVD cover.” When shooting a singer, this means either very close up, like shoulders and head, or full body, but hardly ever simply knees to head. When shooting a ballerina, this means get the feet and/or arms in all shots. When shooting a pianist, this means a full stage shot, a full shot of piano and pianist or a close up of the pianist. Shots in between these will likely be awkward, so don’t pause until you reach a shot that has that classic look. The last thought is to get interesting visuals. Sometimes this means close ups of instruments playing, sometimes crowd scenes. Camera B is supposed to add spice to the production, so go out and find the spice. Other Thoughts I like to capture high quality audio with both cameras, but will connect microphones or sound system to Camcorder A, which is more stable, and will position it accordingly. Typically, I’ll use a shotgun microphone on Camcorder B to improve the sound over that captured by the internal microphone, and minimize handling noise. I always, always, always keep both tapes rolling through each set – do NOT start and stop camera B with your shots. This will allow you to sync your two cameras once for each set which is a huge time saver. To help sync the two cameras, keep a small digital camera with you on Camera B and shoot it just before each set or major scene. Then you can sync both cameras to that flash. More on editing next week. March 24, 2005 - Managing the Casual Shoot News of the Week The big news this week is that my prediction from last week came true; Avid Technologies is acquiring Pinnacle Systems. What are the implications? I’m pretty sure that Studio (aka the hen that laid the golden egg) is safe, but Liquid Edition feels like it’s on the bubble since it competes directly with Avid Xpress DV. I like Edition better, mind you, but the Avid interface is like the formula for Coke; you can’t change it without enraging a substantial percentage of your installed base. So, we’ll see. Charles White from DigitalMediaNews wrote a good article summarizing the deal here: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=31386. The biggest risk in the short term is that the Studio team will worry about the acquisition and take their eye off the ball for bug fixes and new releases, whenever they may be. It’s best if Avid/Pinnacle act quickly to close the deal and communicate the true significance head count wise. Managing the Casual Shoot I had two casual shoots this past week, a quick session with a lovely pottery maker who spent some time with my kids, and a First Grade concert. Of course, the problem with casual shoots is that they’re well, casual. So, you take your camera in, shoot, have a good time, then come home and look at your footage and start slapping yourself on the forehead. It’s tough enough getting a commercial shoot right, when you’re getting paid and have time to plan. But when it’s casual, it feels almost impossible to get it right. Well, here’s a list I swear I’m going to print and tape to my beloved VX2000. It’s not complete but it should cover many of the big problems that can totally kill your footage. 1. White balancing should be your first major thought. For that, you need something white, which isn’t always around. Bring a white towel or T-shirt in your camera bag. 2. In daylight shoots, identify all windows, the biggest source of backlight. Make sure to set up pointing away from any windows. In indoor shoots, identify all the big floods or other light sources, and make sure they won’t be in your picture. Find the backlight button on your camcorder and use it if necessary. 3. If you will be sitting down (concert, play, performance, speech), think field of view, as in what you will want to shoot and how can you ensure your view will be unobstructed. Typically, in these instances, your best shot is to set up on the back wall across from the center aisle. Or, grab a seat on the center aisle if you have to sit. This generally means getting there early. 4. Think audio before you leave your house and bring a shotgun microphone. At the very least, it will help eliminate ambient noise from around the camera. If there is no sound system, it could make or break your video. 5. Think storyline as you begin your shoot, and don’t forget establishing shots of the outside of the gym or theater, then the inside and so on. It’s unlikely that you’ll build many of these casual shoots into a finished video, but these shots just take a minute or two and help give you that ability. 6. Monopods don’t work well when you’re sitting (or so it seems to me). If you think you’ll be sitting, go ahead and embarrass your spouse and children and bring the tripod – at least you won’t be embarrassed when you watch the video. If I’ve forgotten any, please let me know. Ruminations: Three tiers of editing software I’m looking at all-in-one suites from companies like Cyberlink and Sonic (MyDVD not Roxio). All include video editing capabilities, but they are very, very basic. What are the key differences and why are they important? Probably most important to me is color correction, since pretty much every time I shoot I find I need some help from my editor in this regard. Ditto with image stabilization, for those handheld shots I always seem to shoot against my own best advice. Audio controls are also lacking in the entry level programs, so it’s tough to precisely mix background music with foreground conversation, or often even fade audio at the beginning or end of your movies. Note that most true first time editors probably won’t miss these features, or image overlays (for logos and such) or chromakey, so their omission is not critical at least right off. However, still image pan and zoom is a pretty important feature that most digital camera owners will miss right away. Fortunately, there’s a sub-class of slide show programs that you can read about here that offer great functionality at a very good price.
If you’re serious about editing, I would advise jumping in at the mainstream level, because you’ll quickly get frustrated by the limitations in these entry level programs. They’re OK for very, very casual users, but if you’re reading this column, I’m guessing that doesn’t include you. March 17, 2005 - Fixing Backlit Video Weekly Ruminations A busy week working with several new products, most notably Magix Movie Edit Pro 10 for PC Magazine. You'll have to wait for the review to learn what I really think of the product, though these ruminations may give you a clue. It strikes me that there are three variables that largely determine a product’s utility, functionality (does the product work?), intuitiveness (is the product easy to use?) and documentation (is it sufficient to help users figure out the program?). These variables lead to several different levels of utility. 1. Non-functional and unintuitive – these products are a waste of time, irrespective of the quality of documentation. 2. Functional, unintuitive and under documented – this is where most video related programs got their start. Products in this category are good when they’re the only ones available, or when you’re a teenager who loves to dig around and make things work, but typically don’t become mass market products. 3. Functional, unintuitive and well documented – This is where many professional products, like AVID Xpress Pro and Pinnacle Edition (900 page manual and all) are today. If a product has sufficient utility, professionals will learn to use them, but most consumers who use the product part time probably won’t bother. 4. Functional, intuitive and under documented – This is where most successful consumer editing and authoring products sit, whether by design or by economic necessity. For example, Sonic’s MyDVD, which is very widely bundled, is typically shipped without a manual, as is Microsoft’s free Movie Maker 2 and Apple’s iMovie. Since all three are relatively easy to use, the lack of documentation isn’t a deal breaker, but it’s not a positive either. 5. Functional, intuitive and well documented – These are the products that users fall in love with. Probably the best example is Final Cut Pro, which is intuitive compared to many others in that category and also well documented. Pinnacle Studio has one of the thickest manuals for products in its class, as well as several excellent (ahem!) third party reference books. Speaking of that, mass market products from large companies like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and Pinnacle tend to have lots of third party books written about them, minimizing the importance of the manual somewhat. However, when you’re a relatively small company trying to break into the big time, you don’t get that level of support, and few if any third party books are written. For this reason, in these instances, it’s critical to make your product functional, intuitive and well documented, or you simply can’t compete Problem solvers: Came back from shooting my best buddy’s birthday party to discover that backlighting ruined significant sections of the video. Ruh Roh, Scooby Doo, what’s a video expert to do?
Experimenting with various programs on my computers, I found the Shadow/Highlight filter shared by both Premiere Elements and Premiere Pro. If you’ve got either program, it gives you the ability to bump up brightness in the darker regions of the video, alleviating the problem to a great degree. Problem (mostly) solved, reputation (largely) intact. Industry Rumors Big week in the video world. It appears that Ulead may be acquired by InterVideo, which would be a great deal for InterVideo, probably not so great for Ulead. http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/software/2005/03/14/eastbay_daily7.html There are also new rumors that Pinnacle Systems may be up for sale, with Avid and Thompson Multimedia listed as possible suitors. I’ve heard about Thompson’s interest for over four months now, but it’s interesting that Avid is now in the picture. New Toys My favorite new toy of the week is a consumer editor test file I put together for upcoming tests of consumer editors. I can’t identify which programs produced which output quite yet, but if you scan the results below, you’ll see a huge difference in output quality. In addition to these tests, the new suite tests slow motion, image stabilization and image rotation, and I’ll post results for three programs (Magix, Pinnacle Studio, Adobe Premiere Elements) after PC Magazine posts the Magix review. I like these corrective tests for two reasons. First, no matter how much I try, I still encounter seemingly unavoidable backlight and low light conditions, and white balance issues seem to plague most shoots. So I really, really rely on the editor to bail me out, and I’m guessing most readers do to. Second, these tests are totally objective, like the compulsories in ice skating, which levels the playing ground. Identifying the editor that unlocks the most creative potential is much, much harder, and much more subjective. Here are comparative screens from the new tests. Look for identification of the respective editors in a few weeks. Color Correct - Pink
Tests automatic color
correction (yikes, pretty garish on the end, eh?) Color Correct – Blue The image on the right looks like a colorized black and white movie, while the image on the left is dull and faded.
Backlight issues Man, I should have moved the camera. Didn’t and you see what happened. Editor on the extreme left does the best job, but it’s a bit tough to tell in this image.
Backlight Issues I always say, the good thing about screwing up a shoot is that you have more video to test. Not sure my buddy feels the same way, but at least I found a program (extreme left) to minimize the problem.
Low Light Conditions Shot in a bar in my old hometown of Long Branch, New Jersey (Tuzzio’s to be exact). Waaaaay too little light, but the image on the left actually looks almost functional. Who is that old guy (who I happened to graduate high school with)?
Green Screen Here I am composited over a golf course in Cyprus (missed a five foot putt for the outright win on the 18th hole). Look at the jaggies on the left cheek in the middle image – definitely a green screen faux pas. Also look at the slight highlight around the cheek on the image on the left, another unwelcome sign that there’s some compositing going on.
Gotta go, the hour is up. Must honor tradition, even if the tradition is just getting started. See you next week.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
