I am wanting to start an outdoor TV program, which would involve hunting, fishing, sporting clays, etc., along with a short segment to witness for the Lord. I would really appreciate any help I can get with some questions, but keep in mind the following: only previous experience with TV was radio/TV class in high school 30 years ago (yes, we had TV's back then) and a journalism class in college; had some editorial experience for very small regional magazine; OK with computers (have website and update it myself with FrontPage and alot of help from the Lord), have some photography experience (amateur), and a very, very limited budget. Given all of this:
1. This HV vs. SD question seems like a real issue. Given the fact that I dream big and have been in touch with a semi-national network about airing the program, and hope it goes bigger than that, it makes sense to me to film in HD and then convert to SD so that the footage taken now can be used on HD in the future. Is this reasonable, based on a long-term commitment to this idea?
2. I have looked at posts about the Sony HVR-A1U, and the great pricing from B&H. However, this camera is about the top limit of my range, and from what I read, minimum lux is 35! Since alot of my filming would be early and late in the day, this seems like a huge problem. Is the 35 lux rating right? Is there any way around it other than buying an FX1?
3. If I go with FX1, which I am seeing today new FX1's in the $2500 range, what about the audio with no XLR ports? I assume I need these, from what I have read, but is the standard shotgun mic not good?
3. Would I be better off getting a used PD100A or V2000 or a GL2 and not worry about HD?
3. I want this to be a top notch production. Is there a huge difference between 1/4" and 1/3" CCD's, and how do three (3) ccd's compare to one CMOS with the A1U?
4. I have talked with the manager at the local university about editing the program, especially the pilot(s), and think that's the way to go initially. If I do try to edit myself, especially after the pilot, what's your opinion of Premiere 1.5? Anything better?
5. Any suggestions on how to get sponsors, including one that would donate a camera for being listed on the program?

Thanks for any help anyone can provide. This is a big decision, especially on a very limited budget. I would love to do this, and it would be great to be involved with this, but I want to do it right. Please provide me with your insights, and may God bless you for doing so.

Mark

these questions can probably be answered in many different ways, but here are my suggestions:

1. Does the semi-national network you speak of currently broadcast in or have plans to broadcast in HD? If so, an HD(V) camera is probably your best bet and of these cameras, you seem to be on track. If they don't have anything to do with HD at the moment, get a Canon XL2 or Panasonic DVX100B and you'll be happy - both have excellent reputations, good low light capability and XLR inputs.

2. I've never used the A1U so I can't comment on its performace in any way (I don't like to speak of cameras I've never used) but for this kind of a production, you should be fine as long as it isn't horribly dark and if it is, perhaps investing in an on-camera-light would be a good idea. Ideally, the FX1 would do better for you because it has larger sensors.

3. If you would like the FX1 but cannot afford the Z1U and still need XLR inputs, you can get a small adapter box that will provide them and they aren't that expensive.
Like I said, if the station you have in mind doesn't require HD, you can get SD cameras that do a lot more for the money, only downside being they aren't HD, but you do make gains in other areas, so it is something to think about.
In terms of 1/4 vs. 1/3 inch CCDs, larger CCDs generally mean better low light performance with less noise. In terms of how they compare with CMOS sensors, the only CMOS sensors I haven't used CMOS based video cameras yet but the size rules still apply - bigger=better in low light. There are of course exceptions and other factors to the equation, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

4. Premiere 1.5 is fine for editing this. There is a 2.0 version available, but I don't think you'll gain anything from upgrading to it at this stage.

5. In terms of sponsors, I've never tried to get any before so I don't know the process, but I believe you can try calling the marketing departments of the companies interested and speak with them. I know Canon is a very active sponsor (you see that logo almost everywhere) and so is Sony, so perhaps try them.


In concluding, I really don't want to scare you off from doing this, but there are quite a few costs aside from a camera you'll need to consider such as audio equipment, underwater housings (if you need them) and other little things, so make sure you leave some money aside for a good shotgun mic, light and other stuff.

Sorry for writing a novel, but I hope it helps

Is there a huge difference between 1/4" and 1/3" CCD's, and how do three (3) ccd's compare to one CMOS with the A1U?... what's your opinion of Premiere 1.5?Hi Mark,

Don't worry about any difference between 1/4" and 1/3" CCDs. Don't concern yourself with opinions about Premiere. The main thing is to choose the camera which feels best in your hands, and also to choose the editing software which feels most comfortable to you. The question is NOT about the capabilities of the camcorder or the editing program. The question is really about how comfortable you are with this gear in your hands. The rest will come naturally and with practice. The limitations are not in the equipment so much as they are in your head. Pick the equipment that feels good to you, and those limitations will disappear as you gain experience and confidence in what you're doing. The more you shoot, the better you'll get. Just do it.

Adding a note: I believe it was our own DSE who wrote "Sound is 75% of what you see." Don't neglect the audio side of things - viewers and networks will forgive marginal pictures if the subject is interesting to them but they will NOT forgive bad sound - and regardless of what camera you decide on, the on-board mic is absolutely going to only be of limited usefulness. There's a thread currently running in the "Hear It Now" section titled "Getting Started in Sound" and in it Ty Ford has presented a list of the contents of a basic startup sound kit. I suggest you give that a once over and make sure you have funds in the budget to cover purchase or rental of most of the list.

Just speaking for myself, I'd prioritize the budget in roughly the following order...

Audio & Video Editing Software (since it sounds like you're already familiar with Premiere, go with the current full Adobe Production Suite 2 unless you feel compelled to try something new. Sony Vegas production suite is also a good bundle.)
Specific Audio Editing Hardware (audio interface, monitor speakers, etc)
Audio Acquisition Hardware (mics, mixer, boom, recorder, etc)
Specific Video Editing Hardware (reference monitor, etc)
Video Acquisition Hardware (camera, tripod, etc)

I place editing over acquisition because it's easier to rent camera and sound gear if you don't own them than it is to rent editing setups.

I was just reading some specifications and requirements for a couple of networks, one of which is the Outdoor Channel.

Interestingly, if you provide HD programming, the Outdoor Channel will either barter time, buy rights to air your show on a limited basis, or buy it outright.

If it's in SD, then they'll charge you to run the show and allow you to sell a limited amount of air time to your sponsors.

So there's a huge difference between the business models of SD and HD-originated material.

Also, the Discovery Channel, according to what I found in their "Technical Requirements for High Definition Programming (No. HD-05.2)", you are allowed to use HDV for up to only 15% of a show. So there are restrictions when it comes to the HDV format. DVCPro HD, and other formats, are unrestricted. That's not to say that other networks or distributors have the same requirements or restrictions. But just in case, you might want to gather material in a format that won't prevent you from hitting particular markets. You might consider this when looking for a camera. That's what our own production company is considering for its upgrades.

In short, format selection might affect your ability to sell your program.

If you're just starting now, you might want to "future-proof" the material you shoot and just start shooting in HD. You can do post production for current needs in SD but still re-purpose in the future in HD.

Most important: Content is king. Learn how to tell engaging, compelling stories. The best equipment can't make up for a half hour of boring material.

And do whatever it takes to keep production standards high. A recent demo of another outdoor show I watched had good action. Good interaction of the people involved. But it could have been shot and edited a whole lot better.

As Steve House mentioned, audio is often overlooked. Don't be afraid to spend a little more to get equipment you can depend upon. Going cheap sometimes means having to spend twice, and that's more expensive in the long run than paying once for something that's a lot better.

Good luck with the production!

dean, that was a great post!

"mark fish" is gonna look good on the credit roll of outdoor show :-)

stick with minidv, but spend the $$$ on good audio gear, because it can be used with multiple cameras and formats.

considering where you are in terms of experience, and your knowledge of the web, why not put the show on the 'net for viewing? learn how to put it into a podcast format as well... do all the editing yourself.

that way, you can perfect your craft, yet still reach thousands of viewers with your message... i'm pulling in somewhere around 25,000 unique url's a month, but i've been doing it since the mid-'90's... in your case, all it'll take is for the show to get some key links from big church websites.

I used to hunt in Willams IN! Then moved to WI to start doing the same thing. I just bought a Sony pd 170. I have used it a couple times early and late in the day. I also will be filming hunts and fishing. Everyone says its the best in low light situations. After reviewing my footage id agree, it "sees" great in the morning. I have a lot of the same questions as you. I may be coming back home to film some turkey hunts this month. Maybe we could hookup and hunt and do some filming. I also know of someone that has a gl1 package for sale cheep. he was filming and had to stop {2 kids and family} email me if your interested mikelawwi@charter.net. Thanks and good luck. Mike

I really appreciate everyone's help and advice...we are about to get pounded by a thunderstorm, so just wanted to take a minute to say thanks before I turn off the computer. Hopefully post some answers to some of your questions about what I am doing tomorrow. Thanks again, Mark

Andrew-thanks for all the info, I need all the help I can get. I am not sure if the semi-national now shows HD or not, but from what I have read, I really think that's the way to go so that any footage shot now could be used now as SD or used later as HD. Is that correct thinking? Thanks for all of the explanation on the other items, I think the Beachtek adapter for an FX1 would be the way to go on sound.

Chris-thanks for your info as well. I never thought that much about how the camera fits or feels, guess it's kind of like a shotgun needs to fit the shooter. My problem is there is no one near where I live where I can even see the cameras. All of my window-shopping has been via the internet. I am pretty sure I don't want a shoulder-mount camera, though, due to size and weight. Would try to use a portable tri-pod whenever possible for stability.

Steve-thanks for emphasizing the sound. I never thought that much about it, even though I do want XLR capability (even though I am not 100% sure about what it is). I do know I don't want to sound like I am in a box when I record, even some outdoor commercials sound like that, and it really "cheapens" the broadcast. Your post makes me realize I need to research more on this topic.

Dean-thanks for the info. I appreciate hearing from all of you guys that are experts in this area. The Outdoor Channel news sounds really good. I had received pricing from them for buying time, but if I could sell the show to them, especially when getting sponsors is so tough, would be a huge blessing! And I think you are right about designing the production for the future and really emphasizing quality. If this ever works out, I hope to have a show that is entertaining, educational, that witnesses for the Lord, and hopefully brings a laugh or two as well. After all, isn't fishing and hunting supposed to be fun? I think so! I think you are confirming some conceptions that I had, so hopefully I am on the right track.

Dan-thanks for the idea. I had actually looked (online) at a JVC camera that was designed for web streaming. How big of a deal is it to use SD or HD footage and post it on the website? I assume it's just like loading a file, but what about download time? Never thought about the church link idea, that's a good idea too. I did think too about posting on the site about the upcoming show in hopes that it might draw some advertisers, if they can see some footage maybe that would help "seal the deal". P.S. I agree, a name like "Fish" helps in this business.

Mike-what are the odds of that? I've spent a little time hunting and fishing at Williams too. One of the first places I ever remember fishing at as a kid with my Mom, Dad and sister was at the old covered bridge (and Dad blowing the horn on his old 50 chevy while driving thru the bridge). Not really interested in the Gl1, but thanks for the info. If you do want to try the hunt/film route and if I can work it out, email me when it gets closer at fishn@tima.com

Thanks everyone for your help. I really think I want to go after the HD camera if I can find a good deal on one to be building for the future. The issues about sound, content, quality and getting a camera that I am comfortable with all gives me a good start on how to get to where I want to go, if it's the Good Lord's will. May God bless you all.

Mark,
I'm going to make a suggestion that will seem like I'm trying to rain on your parade - I'm not, but I think it's something for you to consider.

Given your lack of experience with shooting, sound and editing as evidenced by your questions, you may be faced with a very steep learning curve and your efforts will probably not be successful in the beginning. You will have to spend thousands of dollars to buy camera(s), audio equipment, lighting and accessories, and editing equipment. Once you have all of these techno-goodies, you will have to learn to use them effectively to produce a pilot for submission to a TV station for airing. That is another long process.

May I make a suggestion? Find some experienced videographers and editors who you can work with locally, pay them for their equipment and talent. Your very significant contribution to getting this show on the air would be looking after the millions of details, schedules, on-camera talent, segment arrangements, scripting, editing decisions, interface with the TV channel/network - in other words, be a Producer.

While your pilot is being produced, observe and learn. If successful, begin acquiring the gear to begin the DIY approach.

There are many talented people who can run a camera and edit. A good producer is hard to find!

Mike,

I appreciate your objective observations. I feel like with the Good Lord's help, this could be a very good program. And I feel like I catch onto things fairly quickly, and I think it would be alot of fun too (in addition to work). But you are so correct, this is all new to me, tons of things to learn, and I may be getting in way over my head. I think I will try to take your suggestion and dig into that approach a little deeper. Or, maybe I will consider doing the filming and letting someone else do the editing. That's what I initially had in mind, until I found out the local university's TV station is a year or two away from editing HDV. Do you have any idea about the costs involved in hiring someone to film enough footage for a 30 minute program (let's say an 8 hour day), or what it would take to put that footage into a finished product? As I mentioned in my original post, the budget is very limited. That's another reason I wanted to do it myself. But again, I want a polished, finished product, and may have to go elsewhere to get that. Thanks for your suggestion, and don't worry about raining on my parade. I need feedback like yours from people who have been there, done that. Thanks.

Mark - can you really capture enough footage in an 8 hour day to fill a 30 minute program? I suppose if you have a lot of 'talking head' interviews you could, but for straight-up outdoor activities, it might be difficult.

For example:
I produce an ourdoor video of sorts (outdoor motorized recreation) which basically involves me hiking on trails all day following and filming Jeeps. In a typical 8-to-10 hour day on the trails, I shoot between 4 to 6 hours of footage (it varies greatly depending on location, events, people invloved, etc). But in the end, no matter how hard as I try, I can't get more than about 6 hours of footage in a given day. And that doesn't mean it's all good/useable/compelling footage, either.

For my last video, I shot 16 hours of footage. For my current video, I've already shot 12 hours of footage, and have 3 more shooting days scheduled. I figure I'll end up with about 25 hours of footage to cull from. And that's for just a 45 minute run time program.



Just something else to consider. :-)

- Duane

I'm glad you took my suggestion in the spirit in which it was intended.

I piloted a 30 min outdoors show four years ago using in-house talent and resources. Our show was a magazine format with 3 main features and a few shorter segments. The show concept was accepted and is now on the air in 9 markets in NY State on either the Fox or CBS affiliates. We chose to contract out the actual production, talent and promotion.

A lot will depend on your show format and locations you choose. One thing to keep in mind, especially with outdoor shows is that fish & wildlife operate according to their own schedule, not yours. Actors can learn their lines, rehearse actions and you can set a schedule - critters don't! For example, we planned to shoot a 7 min. feature on a charter fishing trip on Lake Ontario. We spent 2 full days, from 5:00 AM to late afternoon trolling with one of the top captains in the area - NOT A BITE! On board was a videographer, assistant, on-cam talent (a fisheries biologist) on-cam host and the captain. Lost of high priced talent for 0 return. We ended up grabbing our fly rods and running to a local river where there were reports of good salmon fishing. - We got that segment, but it was a long day!

There is a lot of travel involved in shooting outdoor shows, factor in weather and the unpredictability of your target (pun intended) - expenses can run high.

A simpler format with only 1 topic per 30 min. show may be easier to shoot within a day, but it will be very difficult to keep lively and interesting. A compromise would be to have a few "sidebar" segments that can be easily shot, but would keep the show moving. For example, on a fishing trip you could make a side visit to a fish hatchery or local tackle manufacturer. Or perhaps you could do an interview with a biologist about the fishery in that particular lake or stream. For a sporting clays segment, a visit to a gun shop to talk about the types of shotguns work best for clays or a close-up look at the traps would be appropriate. Maybe you could get a shooting expert to give tips...

Lots to think of - Go back to the very basics of communications planning - an in-depth analysis of your audience, purpose of the show and "take-away" messages you want to emphasize.

By the way, Welcome to DVinfo - if you haven't guessed already, there is a lot of great information available here and plenty of people willing to share their expertise.

Good luck.

Duane-I am hoping in a "full" day we can get enough footage for a 1/2 hour segment. From what I have gathered, there is usually 28.5 minutes allocated, and of that, approximately 6 minutes are devoted to commercials. That leaves 22.5 minutes, less opening and closing segments. So somewhere around 20.5 minutes of actual footage would be required. I am hoping that with footage shot hunting, fishing or whatever we are doing would fill the majority of the slot, along with a guest segment that ties into that particular area of interest, kind of like what Mike was discussing, and maybe some type of pro's pointers. In addition, I hope to have a short segment tying hunting and fishing in to witnessing for the Lord. I wrote a column in a small outdoor magazine years ago that did this. I would like to have just one topic per show, if I can fill the time allotted without just dragging it out. But you're the expert, so thanks for raising this question as well and giving me something else to consider. That's what I am looking for, is questions and answers.

Mike - I appreciate the info in your post. Sounds like it can be costly, time consuming and "iffy". What I hope to do is, for instance, have my contacts let me know when they are "on" birds or fish or whatever, so that I can try to maximize the time spent in the field. Of course, that doesn't always work out, as you pointed out. As far as travel, my intent is for the show to be midwest related, to again minimize travel and expenses. As far as content, I think we are kind of on the same wavelength there, so I am glad to hear some of my ideas are hopefully headed in the right direction. I would be interested in hearing how you were able to get in with the networks, that seems to be a pretty difficult task to accomplish. And any other guidance you can give me would be welcomed. The (3) steps to a good program also made me think, and to realize how much I don't know.

I really appreciate the warm welcome as well. It's nice that you folks are kind enough to share your experiences with me, so maybe I can learn from youins (Southern Indiana language) and maybe not have to learn everything the hard way. Again, may God bless you all.

Mark, here's another thought:

Watch similar shows to what you envision creating and pay attention to the number of CUTS in the edit. On most prime-time Docu-drama stuff nowadays (a la "Discovery Channel" type stuff) it's common to have a cut every 3 to 5 seconds, with extended minute-long segments reserved for only the most special of situations. Unfortunately, that's what seems to keep the public's attention. Anything beyond about 5 seconds and they change the channel. ;-)

Okay, so maybe that's a bit coy to say, but still...WATCH some of what you envision, and then PLAN ACCORDINGLY to see how you can pull it off. Can you do it with one camera? In one day??? How much more work will a one-camera setup require? Can you accurately portray/communicate your intended message in a manner that will cativate your audience?

I'm not saying you CAN'T do it; I'm just saying that you should plan as much UP FRONT as possible in order to maximize your time in the field shooting; you'll likely need every minute of the available day to accomplish your goal.

Good luck! :-)


- Duane

Duane-Thanks for more things to think about! I have always watched alot of hunting and fishing programs, but not alot of Discovery channel. It sounds like they are a little different, as the scene/setting seems to stay the same for quite a while on hunting/fishing shows. But maybe I am not understanding, are you talking about jumping scenes, such as to the hunter/fisher, to the woods or water, to the sunset, back to the hunter/fisher, to the action on the water, etc? Or are you talking about different settings altogether? Maybe the approach you are referring to could be used to add a change of pace to the "standard" hunting and fishing show. It's worth considering, and you also bring up other questions I had not considered. I really like the idea of planning, kind of like making a presentation, which I have some experience with, but hadn't really put enough thought into making it a production. That's good, I need to put more thought into that.

Another question for everyone, if I were to shoot the footage myself in HD, and assuming I find a market such as the Outdoor Channel for such footage, and I don't try to do it all myself, where would I look to find an HD editor, meaning a person rather than software? Is it possible to send footage to someone and work with them over the phone to generate a finished product? I assume it's better to find someone locally that I can sit next to and work with directly, but how hard is that to find if HD is relatively new?

Still looking for help, thanks Duane and everyone....

Depending on the type of HD you're shooting, it shouldn't be hard to find someone to edit it, but make sure the person you're hiring knows what they're doing in terms of editing technique and stuff like that. Most editors who are set up with recent systems/software will be able to handle HDV which I'm assuming is what you'll be shooting in.
If you can't find someone locally (which probably won't happen), I guess you could mail tapes to them and edit over the phone, but I've tried it and it's very difficult because you (the client) can't see what the editor is doing unless you send compressed videos back and forth over the net, which just becomes really, really time consuming for both you and the editor.

OK, I mentioned I might be getting in over my head, and now I am really wondering! If I can't learn to edit this myself, and to do so in the next few months, I may have to forget this idea if the email I received today was any indication. I emailed a local guy yesterday asking for ballpark (rough) rates on what it would cost to edit HDV footage for 1/2 hour program. He said it was hard to say, but a ballpark figure would be $11,000-23,000 dollars-for one show! Am I missing something by about a mile or what? Let's say worst case $23k-that means if I buy (6) minutes of advertising on the Outdoor Channel (if they wouldn't buy the show from me), I would have to sell it for about $4k per minute! That's just to break even on the editing costs! Are advertising costs that much? I am starting to think local cable channels, with me editing, are sounding a lot more "do-able". Somebody rain on my parade and help me to wake up if I am living in a dream world. Or is this figure just excessive for editing? Again, folks, I need help. Not ready to abandon the project yet, but if these are "reasonable" editing costs, I am ready to learn how to edit. Help! Please!

Sorry, I just re-read part of my post-I would have to sell advertising for $4000/minute IF Outdoor Channel GAVE me (6) minutes of free advertsing in exchange for the program just to break even on the editing! That's even worse! Double help!

Duane-Thanks for more things to think about! I have always watched alot of hunting and fishing programs, but not alot of Discovery channel. It sounds like they are a little different, as the scene/setting seems to stay the same for quite a while on hunting/fishing shows. But maybe I am not understanding, are you talking about jumping scenes, such as to the hunter/fisher, to the woods or water, to the sunset, back to the hunter/fisher, to the action on the water, etc? Or are you talking about different settings altogether? M...

Have to get a little literary and philosophic here ... Always remember that your program is telling a story. It may be fiction or it may be factual, it may be to entertain, ir may be to persuade, or it may be to educate but it's always a story. And you need to engage the viewers interest and keep them wanting to see what going to happen next or else they'll turn you off. Now think back to your high school literature classes - what kept you more interested - Hemingway or Dosteyevsky? Hemingway writes in short, simple, declarative sentences - "The great fish lept from the water in a fountain of silver" while the Russian novelists can have a single sentence that runs for pages it seems. What is more exciting to read? Now, no offense intended but the majority of hunting and fishing shows are about as fascinating as watching paint dry - unless you're really passionate about the topic the episode covers, they're often just plain boring, often because they overlook the story-telling. So that brings us to the pace of the cuts - the length of a cut is the length of a sentence in your narrative. You shouldn't do gratuitous cut aways to something extraneous to the story, like a beauty shot of a sunset, just because it's about time to make a cut. But you should cut when there's something to be emphasized, to focus attention, to build viewer tension and then relax it, to direct their attention when there's action, to make them focus in curiousity wondering what's going to happen next until you finally reveal the secret. Think of your audience standing beside you as the action unfolds - Things are going on around you and you're going "Hey, look at this ... ooohhh look at that!" The pace of the action would be the pace you'd point it out to people would be the pace of the cutting of your sequence. And if whatever is going on doesn't advance the story, doesn't show the audience new things, explain what happened, or reveal new information, cut it out.

Steve, that is a FANTASTIC post; I agree 100% and then some! :)

Mark, $11,000-23,000 might well be perfectly normal for what you're asking, depending on WHO your're asking. But like anything else in the world, I'm sure you can can both a much lower and a much higher price quote from other vendors.

If you feel like you SHOULD do it yourself, then by all means do it! Two years ago, I had never even SEEN editing software, much less knew how to use it. It's daunting at first, but you'll get the hang of it really quickly. Just STUDY-STUDY-STUDY and you'll get there.

Of course, depending on what your time is worth, it may still be better to hire an editor instead.

Steve-You bring out some very interesting thoughts I had not given consideration at all. First, I never really thought about a hunting and fishing show from a story-telling standpoint! I think most people love to hear stories, but for the most part, you are right, alot of the hunting and fishing shows don't tell a story, they just show footage. Maybe that's why I fall asleep sometimes or turn the channel to a basketball game or something else. I need to really think about how to approach this, as not only do I want a quality, top-notch program, I want it to be different. I want it to be interesting, entertaining, enjoyable and yes, even fun! What a concept, an outdoor show that is really fun to watch! One where you can't wait to see what's on the next show. How do I get to that point? Good question. Maybe I start by throwing out any preconceived ideas I have, based on about 40 years of watching fishing and hunting shows, and concentrate on what made the good shows good in my eyes. As soon as you mentioned the story-telling, I pictured a couple of guys sitting around a campfire at night, saying something, like "hey, do remember the time we went here or there and did this and that" and then kind of fade into the show. But not like a lecture, not just like a bunch of clips pasted together, but a story about remember when. I really like the concept. And the Hemingway example was very good as well-something conise, to the point, but illustrative of what is going on, or went on or whatever the case may be. These are the kind of ideas I need, help from you guys on if, how and where to take this.
Duane-I was not criticizing your or anyone else's idea about an editor. In fact, I still think that's the best way to go. But from a tight budget aspect, I am not sure I can go that way. If the price range listed is reasonable, then I am way out of my ballpark, I can only look in from across the street with binoculars. And maybe a big part of the reason I would like to edit is knowing I am strapped for cash for this. But on the other hand, I think I would like to do it. I am not a genius by any means, and it may turn out to be too much for me to do. But if it's going to cost thousands, it may be me do it or don't do it all. The real question is will I be able to produce a finished product that will live up to my expectations, when I have no experience and will be competing against those that do? I really, really appreciate your giving me a little background on where you were at two years ago, because that's where I am at now. I haven't seen any editing software either, other than clips here and there and a touch with a small Sony consumer camcorder. So your words of encouragement really give me a ray of hope that maybe, with the Good Lord's help of course, that I can do it. I am not saying I can do what you did, but maybe I can. But again, thanks for giving me some hope.

One more question, Duane, how long would think it would take an inexperienced person like me to edit footage and come up with a good 1/2 hour program? Is it hours or days or weeks? And how long would an experienced person like yourself take, assuming I provide plenty of footage, guidance on where I need to go with it, and the network's technical specs? I am just trying to figure how long a good editor would take. Is the $11-23K range representing days or weeks-or hours? And maybe I did not make it clear enought to the gentlemen I emailed, even though I specifically only asked about editing.

Everyone, I truly appreciate your help. I want this to work out, Good Lord willing, but if I cannot do it right, then I don't want to do it. Your feedback is so much appreciated, may God bless you all.

Mark,

I live north of Indianapolis in Westfield. I mainly produce wedding videos. Perhaps sometime you could observe an editing session to get a feel for what's involved (storyboarding, trimming clips, laying out the timeline, transitions, color correction, and exporting). Most of my weddings are shot with two cameras. I can't imagine a very interesting outdoor video shot with only a single camera. You'd almost have to shoot every scene over from different angles to provide variety, but that would detract from the realistic apsect of the show and triple your production time. Weddings are a bit like fishing shows in that it's not a controlled environment and you don't get a second chance. That's why I think a second camera (often referred to as "b-roll") would be a must -- if nothing else, it could save your bacon if the primary camera misses the shot (or is out of focus, poorly composed, otherwise ruined).

Shooting video and editing are two totally different skillsets. I'd recommend you first master your camera controls and shooting techiques before trying to edit. Then tackle editing. Once you've experience both, you'll understand what it is to "shoot for the edit." For example, you should always have a few seconds before and after the action ("handles" in video editor speak) in your shot to allow for variation in editing and placement of scene transitions like fades and wipes.

Good luck to you.

T.J.

Editing costs come down to (A) labour and (B) equipment.
(A) - The rate for an editor can vary widely. Anywhere from $0-$200/hr freelance. Or if you go by annual salary, there's people making $200k and people making close to nothing.
(B) Equipment. Many Avid suites have a total $300-400k investment. So they have to charge a very high hourly rate.
(C) At post production facilities, there's overhead. Rent, the customer care people, etc.

B- As far as equipment goes, you don't need expensive equipment to edit your piece. It just makes the process faster and looks better to clients. Both are very valuable, but not necessarily to you. The equipment doesn't make a difference on your content.

For making a broadcast master, you may need to rent some time at an editing facility though. i.e. if they require betaSP, it's cheaper to rent an online facility than buying/renting the editing equipment.

Traditionally, the equipment cost a lot. And many post facilities still run as they have in the past, because $300-400k suites pull in well-paying clients. But nowadays, there are much cheaper and slower alternatives.

A- The labour is the other part of the equation, and rates vary widely. The reason to pay more for an editor is for their talent. The better-paid editors can also work better with others- they may be 'overpriced' because of this. Anyone can push the buttons, don't worry about that part.

In your situation, you might want to tackle the editing yourself (because of the money factor). It's about making a final product that's interesting and compelling. Most shows on TV are stories in one form or another (especially reality... there are actual writers who work on those shows). There are also some genres which I don't consider to be stories, but they are compelling nonetheless (game shows, here's cool stuff shows... i.e. science-type shows).

The button pushing part anyone can do. You might take slightly longer than others without experience (i.e. knowing shortcuts, a good workflow). Editing will go much faster if you have an excellent plan of what you want in your final product.

2- If you want a slicker package, then there are other things to consider like shooting the production well. On bigger budget and larger shoots, there are more people, they are more specialized, and they are generally more talented + paid better. All those things contribute to better production values. Better production values don't always translate into significantly more viewers though. But poor production values can be detrimental to you.

3- Traditionally, no one takes the route you are going- buying air time AND finding the advertisers. Usually, the broadcaster is better than the producer (or production company) at finding advertisers. The broadcaster already has relationships with their advertisers... forming that relationship takes significant effort.

And also you need to promote your show... that would cost money upfront. Normally the broadcaster promotes its own shows with its own airtimes (plus some print advertising and PR and things like that).

4- The pilot route:
A lot of people shoot pilots and many, many people pitch networks with show ideas. So your chances there aren't good. Your chances increase if you have a track record behind you. Unsolicited pilots may still be worth doing but the gain has to exceed the pilot cost / chance of succeeding (which may be under 1%). And also since you don't have a track record, you can get exploited by the broadcaster.

Usually the unsolicited pilots that get accepted are the ones where the on-camera talent/personality is good. They will likely ditch the production company/people, because they have no track record in doing good work (which will likely happen when you have no money).

You might want to work out a business plan just to think about how things will work. What things will break your business? (i.e. not finding advertisers, cash flow, not getting viewers, etc.) By thinking about it like a business, you may discover that other businesses have more potential. Some business ideas are better than others. Even really successful people have bad ideas. (http://www.paulgraham.com/bronze.html)


Anyways just my two cents here.

... As soon as you mentioned the story-telling, I pictured a couple of guys sitting around a campfire at night, saying something, like "hey, do remember the time we went here or there and did this and that" and then kind of fade into the show. But not like a lecture, not just like a bunch of clips pasted together, but a story about remember when. ...

I haven't seen any editing software either, other than clips here and there and a touch with a small Sony consumer camcorder. ...

One more question, Duane, how long would think it would take an inexperienced person like me to edit footage and come up with a good 1/2 hour program? Is it hours or days or weeks? And how long would an experienced person like yourself take, assuming I provide plenty of footage, guidance on where I need to go with it, and the network's technical specs? I am just trying to figure how long a good editor would take. Is the $11-23K range representing days or weeks-or hours? And maybe I did not make it clear enought to the gentlemen I emailed, even though I specifically only asked about editing.
...

Don't get quite so into the story idea that I meant your show has to be campfire tales told in flashback. But the show itself is always a story - it's your job to make it a good one <g>. For example, there's a documentary series running on some of our cable channels right now called "The Naked Archeologist." In it the host starts the show posing a question "Have you ever wondered about how XXX? Well I always have and so I had to go find out for myself." or "I heard they'd discovered XXX and I just had to go and see it myself" and he takes the viewers along with him on the journeys of exploration where he visits sites and interviews experts who explain the ideas, etc etc. That's what I mean - you never know what's coming next or where the next turn is going to lead or who he'll be talking to in the next scene- the head of the Israel Museum or Mustafa the Cabbdriver. Turns what could be a dry, academic topic into an adventure that's fun to watch.

A rule of thumb to give a very rough estimate of editing time is 1 to 3 hours of editing for each finished minute of screen time. If that seems long, remember there's something called "shooting ratio" that is the footage shot to the footage used. In documentary style, that's often 10:1 or more. So just to review the raw footage and log your shots for a 30 minute program is going to take you a couple of days.

Tim, Glenn and Steve: Thanks guys for these very informative posts. I definitely appreciate the info, and I appreciate the offer to let me watch an editing session Tim. You guys are very helpful.
Now the big question: Given what you have gained from my posts so far, which indicate a big desire but very small budget and no experience regarding the actual production aspects, if you were me, would just say it's not meant to be and give up? Tim's comments about a second camera are very valid, but also throws a major kink in the plan. For a fishing show, that means instead of just a cameraman in the boat, now we are talking about a second boat and at least two people in it (one to run the trolling motor, one to shoot footage). So now we are up to about 5 people total. I have been watching fishing and hunting shows for along time, but I guess I never really caught it that we were looking at two different camera angles, which I now realize. I guess it just never soaked in. Anyway, this was going to be stretching the budget to get one (1) FX1 and some kind of editing software, not to mention I might have to get a faster/bigger computer to handle the process, plus things like a shotgun mic, camera supports, case, etc etc etc. But another $3k for a camera and more people involved really makes it sound like I am dreaming too big. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, folks, if I am being unrealistic or I am trying to do something that takes a major budget for a good show, please tell me. I can always go to shooting a 1-camera show and doing it myself and doing on local cable stations, but not sure the end product would be any better, because I am still at one camera. And then almost everyone I talk to wants to sell me the time and let me sell the advertising, which has not worked well at all so far. Of course, who would buy based on the theory of what the show would be about when they can't see a pilot? Maybe I need to start small-time and see if it can go big time, buying the TV time on local cable and paying for it thru my very, very small fishing lure business, advertising my lures and hoping somebody sees it and wants to advertise too. Of course, I don't want to do that if I don't see results from it. Maybe this is why more people don't live out the same dream I have! OK, give me your thoughts, please! And thanks again to everybody, as I have said before this is major to me and I need all the advice/help I can get.

So far I had come to the conclusion to do this right, right from the start. If you think going the local route is the way to start, then by that way of thinking, do I forget the HD approach (crawl before you walk) and just go with a PD100A (or maybe two for the price of an FX1) and just worry about getting started? The only kicker again is an additional person for that extra camera. Will people be happy enough to see a local program fishing where they fish and hunting where they hunt that they will watch a one camera program that does not meet network standards but is a "down home" show?
Thanks again....

Fairly random idea:

You could also consider doing short segments to place on your company's website to advertise for your company. Have short segments that tells your audience some information useful to them (i.e. the differences between various types of lures). And do something to the presentation to spice it up, make it fun and interesting.

You don't have to make the segments blatant advertising, and it may be better if they aren't. By giving away free information, you can build up your company's credibility. This would just be a way of getting guerilla advertising. You could advertise your segments through fishing forums (presumably there are some), and by getting other websites to link to your site.

This is probably not worth doing if your company does not sell product online. But the reasons this may be worth considering is:
A- It may stand a good chance of making some money. You can guess your returns by estimating traffic (there are traffic estimators for websites available), and your conversion rate (you might assume that 0.5% who watch turn into paying customers).
So suppose 10 segments, 20,000 hits each segment, 0.5% conversion rate, $10 profit / customer = $10,000

B- Lower-risk. You do need to spend money on video production equipment. But above that, there are only the web hosting fees (do watch out for overage fees on your bandwidth costs). If you pay $1/GB for bandwidth (this may be on the high side here), 20,000 hits for 5MB movies would cost $100. But most of this cost you don't pay upfront.

This would get your feet wet with relatively low risk.

2- If you do that kind of avertising, video elements may not necessary unless video helps show what you are talking about. Images + pictures alone may be a better option.

Glenn,

Thanks for the idea, I think it's a good one! Maybe that would be the way to start, putting clips on the website of the different products, when to use them, show some different colors, etc. Or maybe even film some fishing clips and show just how well they work! Some time after reading this, kind of felt like the Lord might be leading me to even do an instructional DVD that I could sell for $10 or so on the website! I appreciate the idea, Glenn, keep them coming!

Moved to UWOL at Meryem's request.