Video Editing Forums: Digital Director - Blogs http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/ A video editing forum for the amateur videographer, including hardware and software support, guides and reviews. en Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:42:37 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.videoforums.co.uk/images/misc/rss.jpg Video Editing Forums: Digital Director - Blogs http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/ The price of videography failure http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/16-price-videography-failure.html Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:27:01 GMT It had to happen sooner or later. A videographer has been sued for breach of contract following a less than professional attempt. Parting with £1.5k... It had to happen sooner or later. A videographer has been sued for breach of contract following a less than professional attempt. Parting with £1.5k for a video and photography package, Marc and Sylvia were presented with a video nasty. "Bowers (the videographer also missed the cutting of the cake and you can see how angry I'm getting on the wedding video - I even do a psycho slashing knife action, which I can't believe they left in."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...tographer.html ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/16-price-videography-failure.html <![CDATA[What's the going rate for viditing talent?]]> http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/15-whats-going-rate-viditing-talent.html Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:41:31 GMT How much is your hobby worth? Or more importantly, how much can you justify spending? It's all to easy to spend a small fortune on video editing, but is that expense really justified and what does it really add?

As a self confessed gadget freak, I'm guilty of a gadget for gadget's sake. Do I really need a PS3 and a Wii? Does my 5.1 surround sound and 40" TV enchance my viewing pleasure? Does my heart rate monitor increase my training capacity? I hardly need these items, and some border on frivalous. So where do you draw the line between what you need as a video editing amateur and what you'd like.



For some, that line is clear. It's the bottom line. If they can't afford Adobe Premiere CS4, they buy Premiere Elements (we'll put to one side the piracy option). For others, it's an obsession with the latest and greatest. Some may be techies after the best possible quality. And finally we have the arty types that just want to create. So our four groups are:
  1. The money saver
  2. The gadget freak
  3. The techie
  4. The artisan
As with all theories, it doesn't really work in practice, but I bet you can sit yourself in one or two of those categories. Which one(s) are you?

But our original question was: how much is your hobby worth and can you justify the expense? For the money saver, this is easy. He can quite legimately say he's got good value for money. He spends the minimum and gets a great return. He may even have some talent and produce stunning results on a budget. The art house of the video editing amateur.

At the other end of the scale is the techie. These probably know their software inside out. The kind of person that could strip a gun bare, blindfolded, but couldn't possibly shoot a rabbit. They're probably not very artistic, but want the best so spend the most. Their returns are small in terms of the end result. The Matrix 3 of the video editing world.

The bottom line is that the latest and greatest video camera is no substitute for talent. You can easily create a fantastic video on a tiny budget. So the next time you think about upgrading your software or investing in a new camera, think about why you're buying it. Will it really make a difference, or do you just want a new toy?

Me? I'm the greatest victim of them all. I bought a new camera last year and already want a new one. No, in fact I need a new one. After all, the recent ones are getting such rave reviews. But how different are they really? Can I justify the expense, or should I concentrate on improving technique. We all know the answer... ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/15-whats-going-rate-viditing-talent.html Music back on YouTube http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/14-music-back-youtube.html Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:24:00 GMT It seems UK users can once again watch "premium" music videos on YouTube afer a deal was struck with song writers group PRS. But, more importantly, this deal covers music included in user videos. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be retrospective as my music videos previously stripped of audio remain "quiet". Whether this particular music wasn't covered by the deal, I can't say. But it would seem a shame to have to upload videos all over again... ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/14-music-back-youtube.html A break to the internet http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/13-break-internet.html Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:17:49 GMT My wireless router finally died over the weekend. Seven plus years of faithful service ended with constant interuptions to internet browsing. Imagine... My wireless router finally died over the weekend. Seven plus years of faithful service ended with constant interuptions to internet browsing. Imagine having to get up every few hours to reset the internet? It was almost like the bad old days of dial up.

At first I assumed my ISP has finally tired of all my video dowloads. I refused to believe my fathful netgear had died. But then I realised it was long overdue an upgrade. So eager to get back on the net, I took a trip to PC World. My first trip there for a while and I soon regretted my impatience. Every sales assistant (and even the ones at the tills) weren't there to help, but encourage you to buy. The bloke in front of me (buying a laptop) was asked if he wanted a bag. "No my car's just over there", came the answer. The lad was trying to sell a laptop bag.

Anyway, so after finally getting to pay for the thing (and then queuing up again to exchange it after I realised I'd picked up the wrong one), I was the proud owner of a new router. It's all very new and I'm sure does some wonderous things. But it also gives me internet. And it's half the size of the old one. Let's hope it lasts just as long. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/13-break-internet.html UK video sharing to be cut off http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/12-uk-video-sharing-cut-off.html Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:23:38 GMT The great piracy debate always sparks interest in the Digital Director community. And none more so that illegal file sharing. According to an article... The great piracy debate always sparks interest in the Digital Director community. And none more so that illegal file sharing. According to an article on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8219652.stm) anyone caught file sharing in the UK could lose all communication on the net. This initiative is part of the Digital Britain report.

Whilst I am against all kinds of copyright infringement, the punishment here does seem severe. Any who will assess those that break the rules? It's been well documented that these cases often end up with scapegoats. How many people do you know that admit to file sharing have been caught for example?

And how do you restict access to a teenager living at home, where their parents rely on internet access for home working?

The solution, as always, has to be the widespread availability of well priced video downloads. Not draconian punishment. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/12-uk-video-sharing-cut-off.html Muscles of Love http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/the-gaffer/11-muscles-love.html Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:38:25 GMT Some of you may have read this exerpt from "Diary of a cameraman" before but for those who haven't...

The camera doesn't lie. Of course it doesn't, it's just a tool, it's like saying that a paintbrush or a pen doesn't lie. It's the person using the tool who can manipulate, distort and disguise the truth. Before going into a philosophical essay on moral truth I think I'll quickly nail my colours to the mast and state that it's the ability to use filters, lighting, effects and other tricks which makes a good camera(wo)man.
The job was a sequence for a documentary about bodybuilding and we surfaced at an "Xtreme" contest to film the participants and interview as many of the contestants as we could. The producer was determined to make an impartial documentary, not sending up or ridiculing the bodybuilders but looking at the health aspect of the whole set-up.
One problem was that nearly all of the contestants were short. I'm just under six foot tall and the muscle men barely came up to my shoulder, five foot and a few inches seemed the average height. This created a problem when it came to filming them from a standing position since it meant that I was looking down on them, especially when physically close in with a wide angle lens. The camera angle has a strong effect on the viewer. A high angle, looking down can make the subject look weak and insignificant. A low camera angle, looking up, makes people appear more powerful and strong. Most politicians are aware of this effect and will try to insist that the camera is below their eye level in order to make them seem important. Since a lot of politicians are shorter than you'd expect, I tend to try and interview them sitting down, thereby saving strain on my bent back!
Eyelines are also important. Normally the interviewer will sit next to the camera, at lens height so that the subject is looking stright ahead. If you make the subject look down with his or her eyes, they can look shifty or a bit ashamed, making them look up can make them appear dreamy and unsure.
With the bodybuilders, it was tempting to show them as short, insecure performers but that would have been a manipulation too far in our producer's opinion. Yet filming them with the camera tucked under my armpit gave them a stature and height which was just as misleading. In the end I shouldered the camera but moved it down underarm when I came in close. Going in for close-ups also caused a moral problem. Before the show the bodybuilders plastered fake tan and make-up all over (most of them had skin like the moon's surface with spots, pimples and blackheads) which looked okay on the stage but in close up it had a comical quality. To ridicule them would have been like shooting fish in a barrel but it would require a lot of manipulation to become "impartial", and is that more, or less honest? Who said videographers aren't philosophical?
When it came to an outside interview with a female bodybuilder a decision had to be made whether to "soften" her or not. My connundrum was that she had very hard features, skin like leather and lots of facial lines. Normally this wouldn't have been a problem, I would have used an i-ring on the lens (a net which fits on the back of the lens and softens lines without losing definition or giving a "romantic" look) and not just because she was a woman, men can also benefit from a bit of "net" to stop them looking like a focussing chart. Unfortunately in sunlight it can give a bit of a romantic fuzzy look which didn't suit the theme at all and made the woman look daft.
If you use diffusing filters then you have to match the diffusion to the focal length of the lens (changing the strength when you zoom) and the aperture. All of which is a right faff in a situation where you've got enough testosterone to supply a rugby team coming from a woman with shoulders like a beam engine. In the end I just slipped a warm promist 1/2 in front of the lens and held the shot without zooming too much.
To avoid the harsh sunlight creating hard shadows I placed her with her back to the sun, then used two photoflex reflectors, one to bounce a lot of soft light into her face and the other from the side to give her muscles some definition. I then used an on-camera light close to the lens to fill in any remaining facial lines and give a bit of "bling" to her eyes. This isn't manipulation, as far as I'm concerned, it's just getting the best out of a person's looks.

There was also the fact that her biceps were bigger than my thighs and I have this aversion to pain...

If nobody objects, I might just post a few more of these blogs "day at the office" and try and slip in a bit of useful advice at the same time. ]]> The Gaffer http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/the-gaffer/11-muscles-love.html Roll up, roll up... get your free films http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/10-roll-up-roll-up-get-your-free-films.html Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:14:59 GMT It seems Slum Dog Millionaire is set to beat all records... for the most pirated film in history. Its universal appeal provides the perfect catalyst... It seems Slum Dog Millionaire is set to beat all records... for the most pirated film in history. Its universal appeal provides the perfect catalyst for this dubious title. That and the universal availability of pirate copies.

At a time when everyone's attempting to save money, it comes as no surprise to see knock off sales surge. But surely that's not the whole story? I paid £3 to watch Slum Dog on the big screen courtesy of Orange Wednesdays. About the same price some people are paying for pirate copies. There's bargains to be had. In fact I will never comprehend the publics love affair with pirate DVDs. The quality is awful, it'll put the price of DVDs up in the long run, but more to the point, you can BUY the real deal for a fiver. Sure they're not the latest, but you always pay a premium for the latest must haves.

What's even more shocking is that the whole industry is the ultimate money for old rope. It's quite literally like printing money. Hell, people could even download the films for free if they really wanted. But there's more a stigma attached to that. People get caught stealing films from the internet, but how many times have you heard a story of a guy in the street being collared for buying a dodgy DVD?
If you simply must see Slum Dog (or any other film for that matter), pay a few quid more and watch it in a cinema. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/10-roll-up-roll-up-get-your-free-films.html Technicians are people too.... Supposedly http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/the-gaffer/9-technicians-people-too-supposedly.html Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:10:37 GMT My first blog.... ever. So, we have a studio based broacast with an insert from a separate studio. The scene is a presenter in a dark,... My first blog.... ever.

So, we have a studio based broacast with an insert from a separate studio. The scene is a presenter in a dark, atmospheric room, bookcase as background, giving a serious piece to camera. Down in the studio there are two monitors. One connected to the camera and one from the control room, showing what will go to air. In between me and the broadcast image is a technician...

Technicians are usually bright people. Often geeks with a hint of nerd they have a degree in something technical but don't always have an "artistic" side. Having spent the whole morning creating an "aaaah" image I'm a bit perturbed to see that the "air" picture is boring.

Guru "What's happed to the image? There's no shadow detail."
Techie "I've had to correct it to make it broadcastable."

So I walk up to the gallery. I do not storm up in a fit of rage because that's unprofessional but I do keep repeating the mantra "He's only a technician, he's only a technician" en-route. In his dark corner I politely ask "What's the problem?".
"There's no white." He says
"No" I reply "It's supposed to be dark and atmospheric with the talent barely seperated from the gloom."
"But I don't get more than 80% anywhere at all!" He whines.
I see he's looking at his vectorscope. I also notice that the only monitor showing the picture is tucked away in the corner, all the other monitors are on vectors or graphs or waveforms.
"Which one of these is to air?" I ask.
"Er... all of them."
"Oh! So we're broadcasting waveforms? The viewer is sitting watching a white line on a black background is he?"
"No but..."

Here I have to stop before I resort to violence. The techie is only interested in his waveforms. He doesn't see any high notes (in fact, since the presenter was tanned, the highest level was about 75%) so the techie increases the brightness until his monitor shows numbers he likes. He then realises that there's no true black, so he fiddles with that. We end up with a picture where all the shadow detail, created with painstaking delicacy, is lost.

"Where's the shadow detail?" I ask.
"There." He replies, pointing to his A1 monitor. "If you look closely..."

Now these monitors each cost more than a brand new saloon car and, if you look closely, in a darkened control room, in ideal viewing conditions, you can just about make out a few of the old books which the props dept spent days sourcing and setting up. On a Curry's flatscreen in a living room it will be a black patch.
I try explaining that to the techie who fails to comprehend. This may be because he has a £2k television at home which he watches with the curtains drawn but is more likely to be because he doesn't actually watch television, preferring to interact through his computer.

It doesn't matter what I do, I know that the broadcast image will be what the techie wants, not what I created.

Then some tabloid so-called TV critic who has never made a film, video or photo in his life will cleverly and sarcastically comment on the "cheap set consisting of a black cloth background". The producer will have a pop at the props, who will blame the set-dresser who will blame the Lighting Director (me) who will not even try and blame the techie because:
(a) I'm too far up the food chain (I never blame those below me ...Too tacky)
(b) The techie would deny it and blame me anyway.

The grass may be greener to you, but that's only because an awful lot of manure has been spread in my field! ]]> The Gaffer http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/the-gaffer/9-technicians-people-too-supposedly.html Does size matter? Do you really want a big one? http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/mark-w/8-does-size-matter-do-you-really-want-big-one.html Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:49:34 GMT It's not how big it is but how you use it that matters. True I suppose, great content will always be king, a video of plane load of orphans in a crashing into Prince Harrys personal chinook party mobile filmed on a phone camera is far more exciting than a plane load of tourist fools landing safely shot in IMAX.

However the size of your thingy will affect how you use it.

My first proper camera came along about seven years ago, it was a small £300 panasonic. I did a vox pop with it and was stunned by how honest people were to the camera, I wanted more. " Is this for the telly" passing fools would shout.

So I thought, 'is this for the telly' - no - but if I looked like I might be from the telly, maybe peope will perform for me better and maybe I can use the decpetion to blag access to secret military establishments and massage parlours.

Two weeks later and I had a sohulder mount VX9000e and a £1200 overdraught.

The first time we tried the conciet to the max it worked like a dream. Would you believe - ' your live on channel four, give us your watch / knickers / money / phone'. It was for a pilot I worked on for free and yea it was in town on a sat night and people were drunk but to a man woman and mail reader they all fell for it. My ego was stimulated - look at me i am a real film maker - and I was hooked.

Big camera oomph works on posh PR ladies with riding crops too. A few years back I turned up at a big hunt ( foxes are nasty ) to make a film about the hunting ban and was accosted by a plummy lady who in five minutes or so had arranged an interview for me with the hunt leader.

So a few years passed and i got to wanting better video with less noise and smear and more switches and more size please vicar.

£ 1600 pounds of new kitchen money was blown on a proper pro huge throbbing cock of a best - a JVC DV5001E. I had to get the 'E' model cos all my cameras have 'E' in - SOny PC4E, Vx9000E... it's a hobby of mine. I aspire to a sony EX3 - maybe - see, I cant help myself.

So real lens is better, performance is way better, it's a joy to use and a real creative tool. But as with your cock ( if you is a man ) wielding a huge tool can have it's downsides.

I sometimes feel like Dirk Diggler in a G string when I go out filming now. Herds of children follow me shouting abuse randomly, wnaabe film babes look at me with come to bed eyes, fascist security guards accuse me of being Al- Queda, that actually happened and once on election night I was invited into the real media room only to get thrown out by two coppers cos they didnt like me filming them.

I do like having a big one but keep your tiddler unless you really like being the centre of attention.

I do.

If you want a big one like a VX9000e check e bay - pay no more than £350 as it is old DV but that big cock camera pull is a hoot.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version Name: GYDV5000.jpg Views: 149 Size: 16.7 KB ID: 1   Click image for larger version Name: vx9000good.jpg Views: 605 Size: 24.9 KB ID: 2  
]]> Mark W http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/mark-w/8-does-size-matter-do-you-really-want-big-one.html Manual Labour http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/6-manual-labour.html Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:39:29 GMT Let's not be snobs about this, using a cheap (or not so cheap) camera on fully automatic settings is something we all do. You either don't have the time or the inclination when filming for fun, or filming to capture the moment. But sometimes, when those automatic settings simply won't do, you just can't do without manual adjustments. Two settings you'll always need are manual focus and manual white balance. How easy are those on your camera? Do you know where to find them?

So when will you need them? There's two basic scenarios when I've needed to override the automatic adjustment. The first is where you're locked out in a high zoom on a moving subject. You'll find that the automati focus starts to kick in sporadically, making your subject appear blurred every now and again. The second is in poor lighting conditions when the automatic white balance never seems to work, no matter how good the camera.

A classic example of both scenarios are wedding speeches. You'll find yourself zoomed in on a suject in a candelit room. Leave the settings in auto and you're simply asking for trouble. But that's a scenario where you should be resorting to manual settings anyway. You have the time to prepare.

What about if you don't have the time? Then you'll need to know how to access those manual controls. Take the time to read the manual now and save the hassles in the future! I recently bought a new point and shooter, and the heavy snow fall in the UK was the perfect opportiunity to put it through its paces. Unfortunately, I failed. The white balance gave me snow tha looked rather too yellow. And everyone knows that snow should never be yellow. I ended up spending the first 5 minutes finding the settings burried deep in the menus. It was fiddly, but needed to be done! I then had exactly the same problem with manual focus...

Unfortunately a mixture of poor menus systems and limited manual settings can make accessing manual ajustments a nightmare. If there's two settings which should aways be readily accessible, they are white balance and focus. The expensive cameras get this right, so why can't the cheap ones? It shouldn't be the reserve of the expensive cameras to get these fundamentals right.

So, what every camera should have are: manual focus rings and one touch access to white balance. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/6-manual-labour.html The tale of the tape: tapeless filming http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/5-tale-tape-tapeless-filming.html Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:56:17 GMT I've always felt hampered by tapes. There's just too many things that can and often do go wrong. And when you're filming live events where your first take is your last, a small error can be costly. We've all heard of tape horror stories. From corrupt to broken tapes, the videographer is at the mercy of those pesky little tapes.

With solid state media falling in price, I finally took the plunge into the AVCHD world. This hasn't been without its problems, but there's one thing for sure, SD cards are so much easier to use than those pesky DV tapes. In fact the initial AVCHD teething problems are far outweighed by the benefits of solid state media.

I've initially opted for 2 x 4GB SD cards in my little Panasonic SD9. This gives 80 minutes of recording at the highest quality, which is more than enough for a fun bit of recording. So why the love affair with Hard drive or SD recording. Here's a quick summary:
  • Easy review of clips: it's easy to review what you've recorded by simply browsing thumbnails to select your clip. Whether it was record 5 seconds or an hour ago, you'll go straight to the clip. So there's no rewinding and no fears you're writing over footage.
  • Easy transfer: you can easily transfer your footage by simply inserting the SD card on your PC. Couldn't be more simpe.
  • Size: You can hold a whole day's worth of filming in the palm of your hand
One thing's for sure, tapes are a thing of the past. I may not be convinced by AVCHD (I make do), but SD cards are here to stay. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/5-tale-tape-tapeless-filming.html Shoot to Edit: A Guide to Using Your Camcorder http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/4-shoot-edit-guide-using-your-camcorder.html Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:26:09 GMT Post a watchable video on almost any forum and you're guaranteed to be asked the same question, "what software did you use". Or perhaps, "what camera did you shoot that with". Although perfectly understandable questions, they expose the first faux pas of the video editing newbie... that the editing suite is a magical place that creates professional looking video. In the right hands, and with a lot of ingenuity, even the most dire of video can be made to look presentable. But why go to all that effort when you can let the camera do the talking? Why spend hours hunting for usable clips when you can edit together a series of beautifully shot segments? There is no reason, so get your camcorder out and start getting inventive...


Be one with your camcorder
How are you holding your camcorder? Do you always hold it in the same position? I'm guessing you shoot more or less everything in exactly the same angle with your hand cupped around the camcorder inside the strap. A perfectly reasonable and comfortable position, but why not try a bit of variety? Before exploring other ways, lets get the basics of this hold licked! I tend to use this 'hold' when filming a head shot, i.e someones talking to the camera, as it's easy to align the camcorder at head height. If you tuck your free arm against your body with your free hand supporting your camcorder arm, you'll get a rock solid shot even when zoomed. But remember to avoid using that zoom whilst someone;s talking! If you do need to zoom right in and keep a rock solid shot, a variation on this theme is to take a seat and rest both elbows on each of your legs. You can hold this rock solid shot for as long as needed without arm fatigue - and because your subject is so far away, it doesn't matter that you're sitting down!

If you're filming a crowd of people or tacking a single person in full frame, why not move the camera to just above waist height? Now obviously you'll have to abandon your favoured hand cradle hold, but you'll soon love the freedom this gives. Hold the camera with both hands so that your fingers are underneath the camcorder. At waist height, this gives a different perspective and one you wouldn't have got if you hadn't taken your hand out of that strap! To pan around, move your upper body. This gives a much smoother pan that you'd achieve with just one hand. You can now get closer to you subjects without looking intimidating. Simply position the camera below waist height and point up towards your subject. You can be sneaky with these kind of shots in post production by shooting this angle before and after shooting at a traditional interview angle - mix this footage in with the interview as a cutaway and it'll look like you have two camcorders. If you look closely at TV interviews, more often that not the cutaways to different angles aren't actually in 'real time'... sneaky but useful and no-one will notice.

Don't be afraid to rest your camera on a wall of suitably stable piece of scenery. If your arms get tired or you need to by at a high zoom, rest the camcorder on something and you've got an instant tripod. Again, because the subject is far away, it won't really matter what height you're filming from.

Angles and moves - mangles
Changing how you hold your camcorder is a start, but using these holds to your advantage is the next step. You'll find that alternative methods of holding your camcorder allow for a much increase variety of shots. The 'dutch' shot can be particularly effective for use as cutaways - simply tilt the camera around about 15-30 degrees from horizontal and keep it there whilst shooting a static shot. Alternatively set the camera at an angle and walk slowly past your subject or scenery from one side to the other. Another variation on this theme is to move from horizontal to a tilt as you move forwards to your subject. This can be a great setting the scene shot but requires a lot of practice to get right.

Perhaps the most difficult shot without camera stabilisation is tracking your subject - walking with the camera in a fixed position. I find the easiest way to do this is to hold the camera with both hands at waist height. Once you master this, how about moving around your subject? By filming around 180 degrees, from one side to the other, you get an interesting and visually appealing shot. This is best achieved with the camera held steady in both hands. If you've got a steady hand, another stunning shot is to combine this 180 degree movement with a walking subject. If your subject is reading a map for example, walk up from behind and the then around your subject as he or she is walking with the camcorder lens fixed at their head. Continue tracking around until you're behind them, but as you're moving towards their back slowing adjust the position of the camcorder so that you focus on the map (or whatever they're holding). This works perfectly if the subject stops as you come to rest on the map. With practice you can get a feel for when they will stop without direction! You can also use this when two people are meeting. As one person is walking towards another, track around so that as they greet, you're behind the other subject.

The Reveal
Let nature be your friend. If you see a tree and especially branches full of green leaves, use it to your advantage. This can create a stunning visual effect by moving your camera slowly along the line of the branch before dipping underneath and exposing the scene behind it. Alternatively walk up to and under or through branches to reveal your main shot. Again this requires a lot of practice to get a smooth shot.

The up and down
Crouch down with the camera just below your knee. Now slowly stand up and as you move, bring the camera up towards head height. This can can work beautifully for an opening shot as you slowly move the camera up towards your subject - watch them smile as the camera eventually points towards their face. You can also combine this 'up and down' shot with the reveal above. Use something like a tree or fence to slowly move the camera up and then have the final third of the shot as the reveal of the scenery.

Manual Focus and Depth of Field
Changing the focus is a great way of creating a stunning effect. Position your camera just behind an object - again let's use the tree branches as an example. By default your camera will try and focus on the branches themselves but we want to see what's behind this. So switch to manual focus and adjust so that you subject is crystal clear and the foreground becomes blurred. You'll be amazed at how effective this simple technique can be.
These are just a few ways to make editing your videos that much easier. By combining these shots, you'll realise that editing isn't as difficult as you've found. But as with anything, practice makes perfect and these tips are nothing without getting out there and putting in the time and effort. This certainly isn't a comprehensive guide to shooting video, but will hopefully inspire you to experiment with different angles, positions and more advanced camera techniques. Don't let that camcorder hand strap constrain you. Be expressive and shoot stunning visuals. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/4-shoot-edit-guide-using-your-camcorder.html Creating a shallow depth of field http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/3-creating-shallow-depth-field.html Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:30:50 GMT It's relatively easy to achieve the fabled film look. We've featured various post production tips to get the look and feel of a Hollywood production, but it's not just film treatment that gets results. Long before hitting post production, camera technique goes a long way to giving your footage a film look. So rather than rely on expensive plugins, why not learn a few tricks (and in the process dispel a few myths) to give your footage impact without post production wizadry? This first in our series of camera trickery looks at achieving a 'shallow depth of field'. This helps to highlight your subject or 'point of interest', but also adds that professional touch to your footage.

Achieving a shallow depth of field isn't easy with a consumer camcorder, but if it's got manual controls you'll get the desired results. Here's the quick and dirty guide without the technical explanation (the techie bit follows!):

Step 1: Get in as close as possible to your main pont on interest in your frame (and don't worry about focus for now) but leaving the maximum distance between this point of interest and the background to the frame.

Step 2: Now switch to manual focus and focus the camera on your point of interest. You'll see that the subject becomes crisp whilst the background blurs.

Step 3: Lets really get those manual settings out in the open now. First leave the camera's auto exposure on, but increase the noise detection filter to maximum. If there's enough light to shoot the scene in, you're all set to film. But if the light's not perfect, change the noise detection filter and exposure to the the next lowest. Repeat this until there's enough light to film and you're ready to shoot.

Below is a video that puts are technique into practice:

And now the more techie bit from our resident guru on all things video related. We asked him whether we'd be able to reduce the depth of field with a longer lens. He has a lot to say.

Firstly, a lens is only sharp at the precise point of focus. A few millimeters either side and the unsharpness begins. The question is: at what point does "a bit unsharp" become "out of focus?" Which is like asking "how long is a piece of string?". So we say that once the point becomes larger than "X" it's unsharp. We come up with this figure depending on the number of pixels, HD or SD transmission and so on. This is important. Look at a picture on a 3" screen and it all looks sharp, look at a 42" plasma and it all looks out of focus! In other words, Depth Of field is variable, depending on all sorts of circumstances.

What we're calling Depth Of Field is normally thought of as the distance in front of the focussed mark plus the distance behind the focussed mark which "appears" to be still in focus. The main three criteria which affect video DoF are the aperture, sensor size, and distance. So, let's take an interview as an example a 25mm lens, at F2.8 focussed on 10 feet has a theoretical Dof (for Video) of four feet. To get the same size image from a 50mm lens, you need to be 20 feet away and, at f2.8 it has a DoF of...4 feet.

However, due to the foreshortening effect of a lens at the long end of the zoom, the focus appears to "snap" in and out a lot quicker than at the short end which gives an impression of a smaller DoF. By having a "smaller" area of background, this too can give the impression of a smaller DoF. Also an unsharp object (such as a plant) which is far in the background with a wide lens is "bigger" due to the compression of a telephoto and, therefore, more noticeably present and unsharp.

Try a few tests and you'll see what we mean. ]]> Marc Peters http://www.videoforums.co.uk/blogs/marc-peters/3-creating-shallow-depth-field.html