Archive for January, 2007

Lighting For Digital Video

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 31 - 2007

How you light your video is one of the most important aspects of a shoot. This is especially true if the end result is going to be a compressed and encoded video to be shown on computers or the internet or even recorded back onto tape for broadcast.

Let’s say you have someone wearing black jeans and standing in a shadowy area. There’s nothing wrong with that, and depending on how well that scene is lit, it could have a very nice, mood-creating look to it. If it’s not lit well enough, you may have a problem when you compress and encode that video. Let’s say you shot the video with frames that are 640 pixels wide and 480 pixels high. If the target size of your final video is 320w by 240h, you now have 1/4 of the pixels available to describe that frame (1/2 height times 1/2 width). This means that the program is going to have to calculate the combination of four adjacent pixels to create the single pixel that’s now representing that space. Think of it as taking that 320×240 and stretching it to cover the original 640×480 frame. Each “pixel” is now going to cover four pixels of the original. Let’s call those A, B, C and D.

AB
CD

If A and C represent the shadowy wall, and B and D represent the black jeans in the original frame, this new pixel will have to be a calculation based on all four of those. If the lighting of the scene didn’t differentiate well enough between the two, they will be seen as approximately the same color. This is a problem, because the definitions of where one object starts and another begins becomes more vague after the compression. This is one reason why people wonder why their video looks so bad once they’ve compressed it, when it looked so good on the videotape, or they could clearly see the separation between the jeans and the wall on their television screens.

You can see the effect of poor lighting if you open your color wheel settings on a graphics or video editing program. Next to the color wheel, there’s a slider that only slides from white to black. This represents “luminance” (luma) or the amount of “whiteness” of the color that you’re choosing by the wheel. Notice how you can choose purple or choose blue or choose brown… and the farther you slide the luma slider towards black, each one of those colors starts to look like the exact same color? That’s what happens to your video. That’s what the computer sees when you personally knew at the time of the shoot what colors you were looking at, but there wasn’t enough light for the computer to be able to see what you saw.

Bill Cammack • New York City • Freelance Video Editor • alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack

EMS Episode 69: Dave & Buster’s Times Square

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 30 - 2007

EMS Episode 68: Ming-Jun Zheng

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 28 - 2007

EMS Episode 67: Leaving Columbia

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 27 - 2007

EMS Episode 66: Ronen, Bill – Chaos

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 27 - 2007

ReelSolidTV Episode 37: NY Video 2.0 Group 05

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

ReelSolidTV Episode 36: NY Video 2.0 Group 04

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

ReelSolidTV Episode 35: NY Video 2.0 Group 03

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

The NY Video 2.0 Group

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

Last night, I attended the NY Video 2.0 Group “meetup”. The focus of the event wasn’t the _making_ of digital video, but the business surrounding putting video on the internet. I found the presentations to be interesting as well as informative.

The host was Yaron Samid, Founder, Pando.com.

The presenters were (in order of appearance):

1. dotSUB – Michael Smolens, Founder
http://www.dotsub.com

2. Network2 – Jeff Pulver, Founder (www.pulver.com)

http://www.network2.tv

3. NBBC.com – Marc Siry, VP, NBC Universal
http://www.nbbc.com

4. YouAre.TV – David Dundas, Founder
http://www.youare.tv

5. Bolt.com – Aaron Cohen, Founder

http://www.bolt.com

Also, Chris Brogan, Community Developer for network2.tv had special information for the NY Video 2.0 Group about the upcoming Video on the Net conference in San Jose, California.

It was interesting to hear about “the shell” surrounding creativity, or perhaps the vehicles by which content is presented to the world via the internet and hopefully monetized all the way back down to the content creator. I think I can say that I felt “behind the scenes”. That’s an odd way for me to feel, since as an editor, I’m _always_ “behind the scenes”, but they’re behind MY scenes, and I know exactly what’s going on and what I’m doing.

To the average person, sites, applications and widgets just magically appear one day and get reported on in a blog or a show. Now I know where these things come from. People “moonlight”, creating businesses during their time off from their day jobs. People solicit venture capital (VC). People count on what they learned in their last business to make decisions for their new startups.

If any of those topics are interest to you, the videos I made from the meeting are available on Network2.tv, tagged “nyvideo20group” [link]

Bill Cammack • New York City • Freelance Video Editor • alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack

ReelSolidTV Episode 34: NY Video 2.0 Group 02

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

ReelSolidTV Episode 33: NY Video 2.0 Group 01

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 26 - 2007

NY Video 2.0 Group January Meetup

Thursday, January 25 at 7:30PM

Intro by group organizer Yaron Samid (www.pando.com)

Presentation by Michael Smolens, Founder, dotSUB (www.dotsub.com)

re: Justin Kownacki’s STBD SOTU 2007

Posted by Bill Cammack On January - 25 - 2007

re: Justin Kownacki’s STBD SOTU 2007

Brilliant assessment & planning, Justin. :)

I’ve been watching STBD since about the middle of last season, and I’ve seen some of the archived episodes. My impression of it was “the life in general of several people that happen to know each other because of professional and personal affiliations”. Since I started watching after the show became more spread out, the radio station didnt actually have anything to do with anything for me. I saw a couple of episodes where they were saying they were selling the station or shutting down, and I saw it as more of a removal of a location than something really important to the show’s storyline.

I suppose the speed of the storylines is as dependent upon how much time the producers & editors are willing to spend crafting them as it is upon how often the actors in a particular scene (and the crew to shoot it) are available at the same time. It’s much easier and faster to cut a more slowly-paced episode than a fast-paced one that requires more cutting and therefore more continuity between the scenes. OTOH, the faster the scenes are paced, the more storylines you can fit into the same amount of time, or you can cut your show lengths down. Another consideration is the effect of changing pacing on the “feel” of the show. Regardless of the choice of pacing inside one scene or one episode, looking at the pacing over time, such as “how many episodes will it take to get this character from finding out about an issue to resolving or becoming consumed by that issue” is very important. Soap operas drop something and the resolution doesn’t happen for the next two weeks (10 episodes). Sit-coms achieve resolution within 30 minutes to an hour. I think that having the IRL timelines of plots in the script locked down is going to be crucial for STBD moving into your new production / business / community plan.

Regarding the lack of unification because of so many characters, STBD definitely needs to have a searchable way to track specific characters. One of your additions in your web site plan needs to be a text-based, searchable episode list with links and tags based on the characters in each episode. If someone watches an episode and wants to learn more about Caroline, there needs to be a way for them to quickly pull up the sequence of episodes with Caroline and/or her storyline in them. She might not be in the actual show, but something that happens in that show is relevant to the development of her character or someone involved with her. Of course, that’s easier said than done, and it’s easier to start off with a text-based cast/crew listing like IMDB has, so that at least fans can create a list of the episodes that the character they’re following is in and possibly create RSS feeds so they can follow along when that character’s next episode comes out. Overall, I think that spinning off shows based on popular storylines is a great idea. :)

The “heightened conflicts” issue is very important and IMO drives the IRL timelines of an episodic production like STBD. The show has to move quickly enough to keep people interested in the conflict. Unfortunately, this is a lot easier to deal with in a situation where the resolution is definitely going to occur “soon” like in a show that is completely done after every episode or a mini-series that’s going to be over after the sixth episode. In the HBO series “Rome”, you knew that by the end of the season, Caesar was going to be dead…. I mean, assuming you knew about these things to begin with. That leads to situations of heightened conflicts, but also “lack of conflict” as you know that Caesar’s going to be stabbed to death by people including Brutus, so there’s a complete lack of suspense in his character’s part when he’s on a campaign or in a war or something. OTOH, you never know if the other characters are going to live or die in the situations they get involved in. The heightened conflict is that even though they’re the stars of the show, they’re expendable in the grand scheme of things.

I think “The Sopranos” is more relevant to STBD. In the first season, guys were dropping like flies, because the focus was to show the struggle for posession, survival and success in organized crime. As time went on, there were fewer characters that they were able to develop to the point of being so important either to the characters in the show or to the viewer that they needed to be “rubbed out”. “The Sopranos” settled into being more “Tony’s home life” oriented and stable, which was a turn-off to many of the viewers that were originally so interested in the show because of action, violence and not knowing who was going to “go” next. It’s kind of like “Now that Tony’s made it to the top, what’s there to do? What stories are left to tell?”. STBD (at this point at least) seems to be about the ongoing lives of people that don’t really have any conflicts other than where they’re going to work or whom they’re dating. Similar to Tony Soprano’s settled life in the later seasons, it’s tough to create & heighten conflict in an environment like that. I see it more as being the “fly on the wall” as these people live their lives than watching something that’s potentially volatile.

Overall, I enjoy STBD and I’m looking forward to seeing where this new vision takes you. Much of what you mentioned requires planning, and planning takes time and time is money, so hopefully your monetization plans work out so that the people involved will be able to devote more time and energy to the show.

Good Luck! :D

oh… either way… make sure you remember that…

“women wanna SEE it & men wanna BE it!” :D

Subscribe / Connect

facebook.com/BillCammacktwitter.com/BillCammackyoutube.com/reelsolidtvmyspace.com/reelsolidtv

Enter your email address to
receive my blog in your inbox