Introducing video cameras to the newsroom
Posted on January 24, 2007 by Melissa Worden
According to Howard Owens, Seth Gitner at Roanoke.com is investing in some Panasonic digital video recorders for reporters to use. Howard’s stance: Point & shoot cameras are a better option because reporters won’t be able to juggle all the equipment, and their primary focus is gathering the facts of the story.
I left a comment on his blog, but I wanted to expand on some thoughts here.
Seems to me that if you want to put video on the Web — and you’ve got the money to spend on the higher quality equipment ($600 for a few of these ads up quickly), why not do it well?
Poor quality does little to advance our skills and presentations. Besides, readers are so spoiled by HD and DVD quality on TV — and some projects already on the Web — a point & shoot camera isn’t going to satisfy.
The Panasonic doesn’t look too bulky, actually. And no need to necessarily have to set up the tripod and all.
I’d be more concerned about what type of video you’d end up with. There could be a large learning curve here. It’s hard enough sometimes transitioning photographers (who know about composition and visual storytelling) from print to video.
Reporters would have to learn a whole new skill set — and not just how to push all the buttons. They’ll need to learn what makes good video and why, even if it’s a “basic” shot for a breaking news event such as a fire or car accident.
Because if you’re going to invest to get better quality, a poorly shot video isn’t going to be worth that investment.
The other obstacle — getting print reporters to use them. Not because, as Howard suggest, they have to concentrate on getting the story. But because many are still thinking that their story is a print story.
Why can’t gathering the facts involve using the recorder rather than a pad of paper? Why does video have to be a secondary concern?
But reporters can’t start to do this without the equipment. So maybe putting a camera in their hands is another step toward trying to change the culture of the newsroom.
Tags: Uncategorized
Comments
12 Responses to “Introducing video cameras to the newsroom”
Currently reading
-
I am melissaworden on del.icio.us.
Add me to your network
Vertigo Red Theme by Brian Gardner | Powered by WordPress
The X Degree by Melissa Worden
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Please attribute this work in the manner specified: with a link back to this blog.
As I responded in the comment on my blog … I suggest you use the search feature on my blog and find all the previous post on this topic. There’s quite a few … this debate has been going on for some time, so I’m not inclined at the moment to rehash all the points. Every point you make here and in the comment on my blog has been addressed before.
panasonic?
bulky?
huh?
the thing fits in my hand.
-seth
Seth speaks the truth. Those cameras are tiny.
I suppose they’re not as tiny as my Casio Exilim, which also shoots video. Really bad video.
Wait … bulky was Howard’s description: “Once you give them a bulky camera with a tripod and mic to set up, you’ve just given them a burden.”
I was saying it didn’t look that big from the photos. You’ve just confirmed.
Hey Melissa!
I have the Panasonic here in my hands. It’s not as sweetly petite as my Canon Powershot — which I love — but it’s not a VHS monster either. I’m taking one home tonight for a test run and will let you know how it goes. Congrats on blogging — how do you find the time?
Patrick:
“I suppose they’re not as tiny as my Casio Exilim, which also shoots video. Really bad video.”
Well, if you don’t have the skill to handle the equipment, you shouldn’t use it.
Hi Carole — Yes, please let me know what you think of it. And I just started blogging, so I’ll have to get back to you on the time management. Right now my butt’s a bit sore from sitting at my computer all weekend setting it up!
I’m back to report on the trial run for the camera. It was a breeze to get going. MovieMaker is kind of addictive, because before too long you’re editing and creating “director’s credits” and all sorts of crazy fades. My 5-year-old, the star of my movie, loved playing with the zoom, too.
Nothing is more portable than something that fits in your pocket.
If folks at other newspapers can get every reporter to carry a camcorder, tripod and external mic…more power to you.
And if you have time to capture video in one-for-one time scale, even more power.
But where I work, we need something else.
We use cameras that can fit in pockets and our reporters don’t bat an eye taking them EVERYWHERE. And we can edit a video in the time it takes to capture video with miniDV.
Davin McHenry
Bakersfield Californian
@Howard
Actually, I don’t use it for video. Nor do I claim to be a video journalist.
This is my personal camera that I use for shooting photos, which I often upload to Flickr.
And not to be snide, but perhaps I could say the same thing about many folks misuse of Web design languages (HTML, CSS, etc)? No, that would be an attack on MySpace’s entire user base.
Howard — please play nice on my site. We’re all on the same team. :)
Patrick — you haven’t tested the Casio for video yet? Let me know if you do, please.
Davin — My point about the quality of the cameras is that if you have the money to do it well, go for it. I think it would impress the reader who’s getting used to HD quality video.
That doesn’t mean every newsroom should do it. I can’t where I work. So I’ll try to get the best product for the money spent. But I’ll still aim for the best quality I can find.
(I’m not trying to say that you’re not interested in quality, though, of course.)
Use a camera as a notebook? That’s what (too) many broadcast reporter do already. There are good/bad side to this. Bad: you end up with way too much video to sift through at the end of the day and you still need to take notes rom that video. Good: you free your brain up for the interview and thinking up/asking questions.
The compromise is limited note-taking so you know the basics of what went on and in what order, so when you start going through tape you can find what you want easily.
Re using no tripod. I’m a pro and I know I can’t hold the camera still.
First, get a camera with a good wide angle lens (or for $35 buy an adapter). When you shoot the interview, zoom out all the way - and get in close - and by close, I mean three or so feet away from the subject. This minimizes shakiness.
Second: get one of those silly little flexible arm tripods that are only a foot or so high. You can set them on a desktop.
Do get a and external plug-in mike/cheap or otherwise. Or don’t use the camera for interviews. You will drive your audience away w/o an external mike.
Finally - I was on the Bench-Bar-Media board in my area (lawyers, judges, media) and walked in to a meeting one day and one of the judges jokingly asked me where my camera was. We’d been discussing whether TV cameras should be allowed in the courtroom…they were considered too obstustive and might affect how lawyers/jurors acted. I had a purse with me and pulled out a Canon ZR camcorder, mini-tripod, and mike and said, “Here it is. Now can I get in the courtroom?”