This particular video has a special purpose. It will be shown on an endless loop on a small TV at the gym where former bodybuilder and nutrition counselor Dave Pulcinella works. It is meant to alert the members of the gym to the services he offers.

Because it will be playing in the noisy weight room we decided that the soundtrack should only include our voices. Loud music is piped into the gym at all times, and we felt that any additional music on the video would add to the cacophany and weaken our message. Music, the crutch that I often rely on to help me shape a piece, was taken away from me this time!

The video is also designed so that it doesn’t have to be watched from start to finish. You may notice that the information we present is somewhat repetitive. That’s because we wanted the casual passer-by, whose attention is momentarily caught by the TV, to get all the info s/he needs within a minute or so and hopefully be enticed to inqure about Dave’s services.

The video is just under 5 minutes long. I suggest you allow it to fully load and then pick a random spot to begin viewing, just as if you had stumbled upon it in the gym as our target audience will. You can even have someone grunt and yell and put on some loud music in the background to fully simulate the effect!

Does it work? How could it be better?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G5YyvTRigM

Thanks,
Mike

Mike,
Excellent video. I couldn't find anything to improve upon. Should be very effective for your client.
Randy

A few suggestions:

Your first phrase in the video is "Everyone knows...". If everyone knows, why are you including the sentence that follows? That's weak writing. Replace it with something stronger.

An announcer with a stronger voice will help you convey your message in a more professional manner. Especially with no music. I know what you mean about it being a crutch, it's that way for me too!

Use a tripod. When a tanker truck explodes and there's shaky video on the news, I excuse it, because the guy was running for his life. I assume you had the run of the gym and the trainer for as long as you needed. I also assume there was no fire. So take your time, set up a tripod.

Too many zooms. The eye doesn't zoom or pan, it jumps from place to place. Wide. Tight. Medium. Wide. Use cuts, they're more effective.

The trainer didn't seem to be wearing a mic. Lapel mic, even a cheapie from radio shack, is your friend. Wireless lapel mic is REALLY your friend, because you can use it from farther away.

This is a small thing, but tell Guido to spit out his gum while you're shooting. This five minute video is going to repeat ten million times over the next twelve months, he can live without his Trident for a half-hour!

Fade out Guido's audio after he talks.

He's shot in the dead center of the frame, I'd like it better if he were along the "rule of thirds" line to the right.

Overall, I thought the video served its purpose. Guido was very passionate, and a good speaker. I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective if it was only him, or perhaps more him and less narrator. I feel you achieved your purpose of selling his services, but I don't feel you achieved your purpose of starting at any one point and getting the whole message. It's very linear. Beginning, then three steps, then a defined end. I feel if you put a "Contact Guido at the front office... your first visit is free!" lower third ever thirty seconds or so, that would go a long way. Also, re-visiting who he is and how to find him every minute or so would help. You need not tell the whole story, but "World-Class athlete Guido, available at the front office, says follow up is an important step to training."

Also, a thirty-minute video to run on an in-house TV channel might get some views. For the TV's above the treadmills. Another sale!

Good effort, good luck out there!

I liked the video very much, and thought the overall message and objective was accomplished. I found it interesting enough to watch all the way through. The beginning voiceover was a bit too soft, imo. Thinking about your intended use in that specific situation of the open gym, I wonder if it will be loud enough to get the full "punch" - there is a lot fo verbal support for the visual message. Perhaps a running closed captioin of the diaogue summary at the bottom would assist? Not a criticism at all, merely a thought. At my gym, the clanging of weights, chatter etc would make it very tough to understand the voice. Thanks for sharing - makes me realize I need guidance getting myself into shape!

I think music should be added. If music is already played in the gym, wouldn't it have vocals. This would compete with the video anyways. Also, with everything that goes on in the gym would people really be able to concentrate on it. It may be more effective in the lobby or dressing rooms. Also, it sounds like you were using the on camera mic.

Thanks all for your thoughtful comments. You have really helped me to see AND hear this piece in a new way. I am thinking of adopting many of your suggestions for an updated version of the commercial. I’m especially thinking of adding subtitles of the VO and a banner that runs throughout explaining that one can make an appointment at the front desk.

I agree the sound could be better. I thought my shotgun mic would do the trick but was somewhat disappointed in the result.

Mike Watson: I agree with many of your criticisms, but could you elaborate on your first comment? I still think that, “Everyone knows ABC...but did you also know XYZ?” makes perfect sense.

The “shaky cam” debate is certainly a divisive one among videographers and editors. It seems that people either love it or hate it, but it is being used quite often. While typing this I counted at least three or four commercials running on the TV next to me that used a hand held camera technique to good effect. It was not an oversight on my part, it was a conscious stylistic decision. Whether or not I executed it well can be debated, but it can be an effective style when done well.

As for the zooms, again I agree with you generally and tend to cut them out as well but I thought that in this case they gave the piece the informal feel that Dave wanted. A little TOO informal with the gum maybe, but that’s my fault for not noticing that he was chewing it!

By the way Mike, his name is Dave. I say that many times throughout the piece.

Hi Michael, thanks for being a good sport. Sorry for poking fun at your trainer. :-)

Your opening line in a piece should (arguably) be the strongest sentence in the entire piece. When I walk by the piece playing in the lobby of a gym and I see it start, I might stop and watch the first sentence. When your first sentence starts with "everybody knows", and what follows is something that everybody does indeed know, I just wasted five seconds of my life listening to you echo something I already know. It's sloppy, lazy writing. (So you don't think I'm picking on you, I'm a horrible writer. It's the kind of thing I would write. That's why I farm out my writing, or at least write it and re-write it and send it out to be copy-edited first.)

You started with "Everybody knows that this fitness center is the best in town. But did you also know that we have Dave, a world-class trainer?"

One option to make that line better is omit "everybody knows", to end up with "This fitness center is the best in town. Did you know we have a world-class, in-house trainer?". Another option would be kill the whole sentence, and end up with "Did you know we have a world-class, in-house trainer?"

Your audience is people that are in the gym. They joined the gym for whatever reasons they had - price, location, best gym in town, they got a coupon in the mail... whatever. They're already there. You're not selling the gym, they're already in the gym. You're pushing Dave.

A better option for an open (IMHO) would be to drop the verbage entirely. Start with a shot of Dave grunting and groaning while he tosses those 200lb dumbells above his head. (Assuming you have that -- it looked like you had some file vid.) Or (from what I know you have), start with the shot of Dave flexing and the audience cheering. Makes me want to walk over to the TV and say "Yowza, I want to look like that guy!" ... then, "Wow, he works here?"

When I was first starting out in the biz, I used to shoot shaky video, and compare it to the stuff on MTV... see, that's shaky too! It's taken fifteen years to get to the point where I can shoot shaky video and it doesn't look like poor home video, it looks like the MTV stuff. There are a thousand things to do to get there, far more than I could detail in a post. I think you're seeing steadicam video on TV, and not knowing how it's shot, confusing it with handheld. It's tough to get non-tripod video that looks like what you see in those million dollar TV commercials - that's why they cost a million bucks. The easiest way is to stick it on a tripod. Beyond that, if you're shooting handheld, you should shoot all the way wide. Also, it should be motivated -- there should be a reason you're not on sticks. Not just because you want it to look like MTV.

Also, IMHO, you will never, ever see an unmotivated zoom on broadcast TV.

The gum is a small detail that can make a big difference. When I watch pieces to critique, I mention things like that, but most folks won't notice.

Thanks very much Mike. I see now what you mean about that opening sentence and you are right on the mark. it's weak.

Your suggestion for an alternate "grunting" opening is excellent! I do have plenty of that kind of footage. Dave is my brother and I've produced two amateur documentaries on him and his bodybuilding antics that have been very popular in the bodybuilding subculture. Here are a few clips...


Workout...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5q2rd0dBc1Q

Contest problems...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8cluyc24vqc

Death of a friend...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ofpGg7rKIP0

We considered using some of Dave's workout footage in the commercial but we were afraid that the footage would be too "extreme" for the milder members of the gym who merely want to lose a few pounds and it might scare them away! I think I like the cheering contest shot as an opener better and may try that.

After a test period to see exactly where the commercial fails in its intended environment I plan to do a re-shoot and I will try using a tripod exclusively (and avoiding zooms!) in order to see the difference that it makes. In the meantime are there any sites that you know of that have articles or tutorials that will help me improve my hand held technique?

You're a good sport, Michael!

I don't know of any articles on handheld technique. I don't know specifically what look you're going for, but let me give a few tips:

1) Be as steady as you can. The look I imagine here is a hint of handheld video, not a guy standing on a boat in a windstorm. Brace yourself against a chair, or a wall, or a piece of equipment. You can even brace yourself against your tripod. I know it's counterintuitive to get off the tripod to get the "handheld look" and then lean against said tripod to steady-up, but it works.

2) Stay wide, as much as you can.

3) Shoot 24p, or if you're stuck at 60i, at least de-interlace (in post). Film is where the whole look comes from, so ... make it look like film.

Another idea for the video as a whole is intersperse a few "tips" for what people are hiring a trainer for. So, do a segment on how the trainer can help you break your plateau, then show step by step tips for one of many exercises this trainer will do with you. Somebody would stop and watch that in a hallway, as opposed to walk right by.

I'm interested to see a future version of the video!

Mike:

Could you define a "motivated" vs an "unmotivated" zoom for me?

The unmotivated one just sits around drinking a beer.
sorry, couldnt resist!

The unmotivated one just sits around drinking a beer.
sorry, couldnt resist!

LOL! Some help YOU turned out to be!! ;-)

I am biased toward the anti-zoom school of thought, and I don't know that I ever see a zoom that I like. I will sometimes do a slow (s-l-o-w) zoom on an interview subject because producers like it.

If I may explain a motivated pan (or tilt) first: If you were shooting a wide shot of the gym, and someone got off of a machine, and walked to another machine that was just out of frame, and you panned to see them get to their destination -- that would be a motivated pan. Your motivation is that you wonder where the subject is going, and the camera pans to follow them.

If your subject were close to you, and you had a head-to-toe shot of them, and they walked away from you, and you zoomed in to keep a head-to-toe shot of them ... that would be a motivated zoom.

Your eye doesn't operate with zooms and pans -- your eye operates with straight cuts. When you go into a strange surrounding, you first assess the situation (a wide shot), and then look at a variety of details. Signs posted on the wall, people serving food, patrons standing in line, what have you. You don't slowly glance from place to place (pan), nor do you look over at the counter and do a slow zoom to the menu. You look at the counter, and say "hey, there's the menu!" and you look at it. It's a cut, or at best, a snap zoom.

Now, when an attractive young lady walks away from the counter, and you gaze lovingly at her, and watch her as she sways to her table... that's a pan. (And a zoom.) It's motivated by you gazing at her.

Mike's no-zooms-no-pans-no-tilts school of thought, all in one easy post!

Mike,

You make it sound almost black & White. It's great you know the rules, but rules are there to be broken. You have a biased opinion to the reasons you would not use zooms, pans etc. In many situations I agree, but you can be creative with movement and slow zooms if you are handheld to great effect.

If you use the zoom correctly, for creative effect it, can look great, but if not then it just falls into the amateur variety which we see many examples of.

I'm one for rule breaking, and I do not have such a rigid approach as yourself(my opinion).

I think the video has achieved what it was set out to do.(my opinion again)

I personally hate all this hand held wobbly shots that are ment to be artistic and ohh so hard to achieve. Good luck to those who wish to take that route.

You said - "I will sometimes do a slow (s-l-o-w) zoom on an interview subject because producers like it."

Have you asked the producers why they like it???

John De Rienzo

Mike's no-zooms-no-pans-no-tilts school of thought...

I have to agree, generally, with everything Mike has stated. Certainly, as somone pointed out, there is ALWAYS the exception to the rule(s).

Having said that, I am of the opinion that anyone, short of a seasoned professional, who says "I think rules are for breaking" either never understood the rules and/or never learned how to properly apply them. They simply use that as an excuse for sloppy work habits (that has been borne out by several years of teaching film-making on the college level). I believe the majority of the work shown here and on other sites (YouTube) will bear that out quite readily.

Regarding zooms. I think a valid argument could be made that a zoom (not a tracking shot where the camera physically moves closer) could be an outward or physical expression of what one may do when zeroing in on a specific item mentally. For example, the eye may be scanning a table top of interesting antiques. The eye then falls on one item that catches the viewer's attention. The viewer, not being able to draw closer physically, will concentrate all his vision and mental processes on that single object. In cinema, a zoom would be one way of "showing" this mental process. In this scenario, such a zoom could be considered "motivated."

Mike made some excellent suggestions. All who shoot video would be wise to apply his counsel to their shooting, if for no other reason, to "see" what he is talking about and how it "works."

John,

I appreciate your comments, and I'm genuinely happy that someone other than me has chimed in to this discussion. It benefits a novice filmmaker more to hear many points of view on techniques.


If you use the zoom correctly, for creative effect it, can look great, but if not then it just falls into the amateur variety which we see many examples of.

That's the point I'm trying to get across, I guess. In my opinion, there are very, very few instances where a zoom adds to a production like the one discussed here. Which is not to say I'd never approve of one, just that I think there are better ways. I came up as an NPPA photographer, where (at the time) there were NO zooms and pans. It's a style I've excelled at.

When I'm giving advice to a guy who lives on an opposite coast about zooms, it's my opinion that 1 in 100 zooms that I see are effective. Rather than pontificate about what makes the one good, my advice is "don't zoom". If it were 50/50, perhaps I'd tailor my advice a bit.


I'm one for rule breaking, and I do not have such a rigid approach as yourself(my opinion).

As Jay said, it's my experience that people who proclaim that rules must be broken are people who don't know the rules to begin with. Recently I shot something handheld, zoomed all the way in, intentionally rocky. I wanted to use it as a background element. It looked great. I would never use that shot without a gaussian blur of 10, but with the blur, and as a background element... I love it.


I think the video has achieved what it was set out to do.(my opinion again)


As do I. I think the video could be better, and that's why I chimed in. Do you think the video could be improved upon?


You said - "I will sometimes do a slow (s-l-o-w) zoom on an interview subject because producers like it."

Have you asked the producers why they like it???

I like it too. Gives a still frame a little movement. At the same time, it's completely unmotivated. Yikes, I'm breaking a rule!

Great discussion guys! Thanks for all your input.

Thanks John for your support, but I have to agree with Jay on this one. There is far too much crap out there in YouTube-land and we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. It is too easy to say "I am breaking the rules" without learning them first.

I prefer not to call them "Rules". Why don't we call them "Methods"? In that way we won't ever have to BREAK the rules, just BEND the methods to suit our purpose. However, we still need a strong understanding of the practice of those methods before they can be intelligently bent or else we are floundering about, relying on luck to get us the shot we need.

Mike, you've opened my eyes a hell of a lot with this discussion, and for that I thank you again. I completely agree with you about the composition of the interview, the weakness of the voiceover and especially the zooms. Believe it or not I've shared your anti-zoom philosophy myself for quite some time. Therefore I am surprised upon re-watching my commercial for the hundreth time, to see just how many zooms I left in!!

MIke, if we were to remove all of the zoom shots in the piece, do you really think that the handheld shots that remain are really all that sloppy? I watched the whole thing yet again and I must say that I think that that commercial contains some of my most controlled hand-held video to date and, with the exception of one or two shots, I don't think it falls into the "wobbly" category.

My bottom line is...I still like the way most of it looks and if I had to reshoot I think I would still go hand-held. Are we just talking a difference of preference here or is my eye still not sophisticated enough to see where I'm being amateurish?

"As Jay said, it's my experience that people who proclaim that rules must be broken are people who don't know the rules to begin with."

Again, a very black and white answer!!!

If I am reading this correctly, you are claiming ALL who say this do not know the rules. You would be very dangerous as a minister of the Gospel!!!!

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers
John De Rienzo

"As Jay said, it's my experience that people who proclaim that rules must be broken are people who don't know the rules to begin with."

Again, a very black and white answer!!!

If I am reading this correctly, you are claiming ALL who say this do not know the rules. You would be very dangerous as a minister of the Gospel!!!!

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers
John De Rienzo

MIke, if we were to remove all of the zoom shots in the piece, do you really think that the handheld shots that remain are really all that sloppy? I watched the whole thing yet again and I must say that I think that that commercial contains some of my most controlled hand-held video to date and, with the exception of one or two shots, I don't think it falls into the "wobbly" category.

My bottom line is...I still like the way most of it looks and if I had to reshoot I think I would still go hand-held. Are we just talking a difference of preference here or is my eye still not sophisticated enough to see where I'm being amateurish?

I watched it again. The handheld shots don't bother me so much the second time around. I would prefer them on sticks, but that is a personal preference. I don't think it reduces the effectiveness of the video to have it handheld.

I have done this for fifteen years and if I looked back on a video I shot two weeks ago I would tell you things I should have fixed, things I should have shot from another angle, things I should have lit another way. If you look back on this video and learn a few things, it was a success. I see video all the time that I wonder how people live with putting their good name on such crap, and your video does not fall into that category. I see commercials that probably cost millions that have things that still need cleaned up. We live in a world with deadlines and cost limits, and eventually things have gotta make air. You did your best and did a good job.

If you told me that I was right, you should have asked him to spit out his gum... but told me that zooms and handheld video and shotgun framing were the wave of the future, I'd count it as a victory that in your next video the guy wouldn't be chewing gum in the interview. Evaluate what I say and what you think of it. Take the good stuff, and discard the rest. I won't be offended, I'll be flattered that you took some of my advice.

I don't think it reduces the effectiveness of the video to have it handheld.

But it doesn't ADD to its effectiveness either, if I read you correctly. I get your point! I'll try it on sticks next time and then decide which I like better.

Thanks again!

P.S. Damn my brother and his ever-present gum!! That's all I can see now!! I'm going to smack him on the back of the head next time I see him! "Spit your gum out next time!!"

Mike, I am intrigued.I would be interested in seeing some of your work so that I can judge for myself what you say seems to be THE RIGHT WAY of doing this or that. Since you have seen so much crap, yours must be far superior. I trust it will have your name on it. I have been filming since the age of 16. I am now 40. Makes me no wiser for it!

Please feel free to pm it to me or even post here.

Cheers.

John De Rienzo

Again, a very black and white answer...

... You would be very dangerous as a minister of the Gospel!!!!


Evidently, John, you aren't very familiar with the Gospel. The Lord himself told John to write to the mediocre saints of the early church: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold [black] nor hot [white], I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).

Jay you are too much! LOL!

John, thinking along the same lines as you I found this example of Mike's work early on in our discussion.

http://www.mikewatsonproductions.com/video/Vol8Generic2007.mov

It was as professional a piece as I had ever seen and led me to try and glean some knowledge from Mike while I had his interest.

What do you think of it?

But it doesn't ADD to its effectiveness either, if I read you correctly. I get your point! I'll try it on sticks next time and then decide which I like better.

There are some things that are a matter of perspective, experience and feel. I think trying it on sticks and deciding which you like best is a brilliant idea!


Mike, I am intrigued.I would be interested in seeing some of your work so that I can judge for myself what you say seems to be THE RIGHT WAY of doing this or that. Since you have seen so much crap, yours must be far superior. I trust it will have your name on it. I have been filming since the age of 16. I am now 40. Makes me no wiser for it!

Not sure if you're serious or being facetious, but I have posted on show your work in the past... perhaps a forum search would satisfy your curiousity? I don't fancy myself the best photographer in the world; just try and learn from those better than me and try to teach those with less experience. I don't feel like there is a RIGHT WAY, merely that there are more and less effective ways to tell a story. I probably see zooms I like every day, but don't notice them, because they're effective. :-)

edit to say: Michael, you're a real sleuth! That's one of the ones I posted for advice about last year! May I ask what you thought of it?

I started out with video as a hobby I really couldn't afford, until one day I inadvertently made a sellable instructional video. after two months of learning to edit, I learned a lot of what Mike Watson has given in this thread. pans and zooms are bad, cuts are the way the eye sees things. the one thing I did not like in the video that was not mentioned specifically was the grocery store aisle. walking past the food did not seem natural. when you walk down the aisle looking at food, do you look straight ahead, and the food goes by one your side? or does your eye cut from item to item? maybe it was just me, I was a little dizzy from the aisle shot.
Mike watson, I enjoyed seeing your comments, I think a lot of us less experienced videographers as myself can learn from it.

when you walk down the aisle looking at food, do you look straight ahead, and the food goes by one your side? or does your eye cut from item to item? maybe it was just me, I was a little dizzy from the aisle shot.

Then it worked!!

The angled blurriness was intentional. The concept I was trying to get across was that there is a dizzying array of choices in your local supermarket and Dave helps you sort out the good from the bad. I'm sure it could be done better than I did it, but would you agree that I can be excused for bending the rules a little bit and including a shot that, while not exactly the way the eye sees things, was intended to communicate my message?

Mike? Anyone?? Back me up on this??? ;-)

Evidently, John, you aren't very familiar with the Gospel. The Lord himself told John to write to the mediocre saints of the early church: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold [black] nor hot [white], I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).

I am saved by the grace of God, not by works,lest anyone should boast.

I am a Christian because I have put my trust I Christ. It is God who holds onto me, not I to him. I will not be perfect, or perfected till the day I die.

We are saved by faith, even that of a mustard seed, but as you say, evidently I do not know the Gospel. Maybe another thread!!

John De Rienzo

Then it worked!!

The angled blurriness was intentional. The concept I was trying to get across was that there is a dizzying array of choices in your local supermarket and Dave helps you sort out the good from the bad. I'm sure it could be done better than I did it, but would you agree that I can be excused for bending the rules a little bit and including a shot that, while not exactly the way the eye sees things, was intended to communicate my message?

MIke? Anyone? Back me up on this??? ;-)

I have no artistic talent, I do instructional stuff, and I am good at that. My style is to accurately convey a message and/or images as the eye would perceive it.
yes, I see the intended effect now, and maybe I was the only one that didnt catch your intent... lol

Then it worked!!

The angled blurriness was intentional. The concept I was trying to get across was that there is a dizzying array of choices in your local supermarket and Dave helps you sort out the good from the bad. I'm sure it could be done better than I did it, but would you agree that I can be excused for bending the rules a little bit and including a shot that, while not exactly the way the eye sees things, was intended to communicate my message?

Mike? Anyone?? Back me up on this??? ;-)
The grocery store stuff was great! I thought I wrote that in my initial review, but apparently not.

Jay you are too much! LOL!

John, thinking along the same lines as you I found this example of Mike's work early on in our discussion.

http://www.mikewatsonproductions.com/video/Vol8Generic2007.mov

It was as professional a piece as I had ever seen and led me to try and glean some knowledge from Mike while I had his interest.

What do you think of it?


Yes its good work. I will still agree to disagree on some aspects, but just my opinion, right or wrong!

Cheers.
John De Rienzo

The grocery store stuff was great! I thought I wrote that in my initial review, but apparently not.

Thanks Mike. You have no idea (actually you probably DO) how hard it was to get permission to shoot in my local grocery store. Corporate headquarters kept me in red tape for over a month! I think they were hoping I would just go away. I had a far easier time getting permission to shoot video in the operating room of two different hospitals, if you can believe that!

see? I am too technical for most stuff. I look at the moment, and lose the artistic intent. I could never be a wedding videographer huh?

Michael, I can't believe I didn't write it in my initial review, but that was my thought -- "How did you get permission to shoot in a grocery store?!". Around here they want big-time location fees. You can get into the mom-and-pop stores, but they are so old and run down it looks like the video was shot in the 1980's.

John, I still don't know what we disagree about, but I appreciate wishing to part amicably.

-MW

Hi Mike. I like your work. Excellent compositional shots and framing. I guess I like the creative zooms and don't mind certain pans. Agree, or disagree, it does not matter!

I think I have come across too harsh and apologise.

Cheers.

John De Rienzo

Michael, "How did you get permission to shoot in a grocery store?!".

Persistence. I emailed and called every couple of days.

They said that usually they were given a storyboard to approve before allowing videotaping to take place. I didn't have that so I had to show them my nearly completed video, with gaps where the food shots were to be inserted, so that they could see what my use and intention was. I also promised that the store would remain anonymous and that I would show no brand names, workers or customers. (The bewildered looking woman was a friend of mine.) Lastly I assured them that I would not be bringing in lights or a crew and that there would be no disruption to business at all. They eventually agreed, charging me no fee whatsoever, and I was able to roam freely throughout the store for over an hour. Now I have my own archive of grocery store stock footage!!

I have no artistic talent, I do instructional stuff, and I am good at that. My style is to accurately convey a message and/or images as the eye would perceive it.
yes, I see the intended effect now, and maybe I was the only one that didnt catch your intent... lol

I find your technical outlook useful as well. That's why we're here on this forum, to bring all of our strengths together to help each other out. Isn't the internet cool?

I find your technical outlook useful as well. That's why we're here on this forum, to bring all of our strengths together to help each other out. Isn't the internet cool?

without the internet, where would we be?
lets see, on a thursday, probably bowling, right?

without the internet, where would we be?
lets see, on a thursday, probably bowling, right?

For me, watching 30 Rock and The Office. The Office has some wobbly footage fer sher!!

Tonight however I'll be shooting my first stand-up comedy show at a local club. 2 camera shoot, BOTH on sticks! Wish me luck!! Any tips anyone?

Yeah, the spotlights are HARSH. Brush up on some youtube vid of that stuff before you go out, and see what the problems are. If you expose for the talent's face, you'll end up with a comic standing in a black hole, and if you expose for the audience you'll end up with a white ghostly figure on stage.

You can ask the house to bring the lights up a bit (they typically won't), or... you can just make the best of it!

(PS... Ask them to spit out their gum.) :-D

(PS... Ask them to spit out their gum.) :-D


LMAO!!!

Thanks Mike. I have been watching Youtube standup clips for the past few weeks (that's where my videos will be going as well) and have seen some really bad and really good stuff. Hopefully my clips will be closer to the latter than the former.

I have shot bodybuilding contests which have some of the same spotlight problems that you've noted so I won't be totally green going into this. Thanks for your help.

Post again when you get it shot. I'd love to see it. You seem like an up-and-coming guy. If I'm not lurking around here (sometimes I get busy) e-mail me at my website... it's where the video you linked to came from.

-MW

Will do! I'm working hard at this. At this point I am getting better and better at it every day (with help of course!) and that's a good feeling.

Just thought I'd mention that I saw a Hillary Clinton campaign commercial last night that had both bad framing AND several unmotivated zooms!! It was basically just thirty seconds of her talking at a rally but I was surprised that I was now sensitive enough to these things to notice the zooms (thanks to Mike!) but also that they were there at all...in a Hillary commercial no less!! She certainly has the money to afford the best so I can only assume that these weren't mistakes.

I realize of course that this still doesn't mean that zooms are a good idea but I do think that they were using them intentionally to create an informal feeling to help give the impression of Mrs. Clinton as down-to-earth person. So, now that I think of it, maybe they WERE motivated after all!

You don't have far to go before you're wringing your hands during local TV commercials and spanish-language telenovelas. :-)

I thought that some of you might be interested in continuing our discussion of "wobbly" camerawork and "unmotivated zoom" here in a new thread...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=117432

Hello Michael,

Very good job!

I just watched your video, the only thing I would do differently is put the success stories up front. As a person of girth (meaning I am overweight) I was at first captivated by the commercial. but as I went on, I was looking at the people he was helping and they were already thin and beautiful. Even at five minutes, I started to get board with it-- however, when I saw the pictures at the end, I was like-- Hey! wish I lived in Delaware!

Thats what made me think that inverting the order of the folks that he helped to the front would make a difference.

Just a thought

Hello Michael,

Very good job!

I just watched your video, the only thing I would do differently is put the success stories up front. As a person of girth (meaning I am overweight) I was at first captivated by the commercial. but as I went on, I was looking at the people he was helping and they were already thin and beautiful. Even at five minutes, I started to get board with it-- however, when I saw the pictures at the end, I was like-- Hey! wish I lived in Delaware!

Thats what made me think that inverting the order of the folks that he helped to the front would make a difference.

Just a thought

VERY good suggestion! We must remember...who are we targeting? Catch THEIR attention right away! Thanks for that one!