Revisiting cameras in the newsroom
Posted on January 27, 2007 by Melissa Worden
In her post, “Shiny equipment blinds everyone to real quality issue,” Angela Grant asserts that training is the issue, not what kind of camera we purchase. Good video comes from a good videographer.
This is right along the lines of what I posted previously.
I did a lot of thinking about this issue this week, especially when it coincided with my getting the opportunity to test out a P&S for our Web site. It sparked some excellent debate in my newsroom. (Love this!)
I still think that better quality video is a bonus. If you have the money to pay for it, by all means, go for it. The compression limitations we face now will change, and with the pace of technological advancements on the Web, it might happen quickly — it wasn’t all that long ago that video seemed pointless because of bandwith constraints.
So do your research, get the very best that you can afford and concentrate on the training because a huge learning curve must be overcome as we introduce reporters to video. They need to learn about the technical aspects of using the camera and what makes good visual storytelling, and to grow as an industry, we MUST invest time in exploring how we can use video as a non-linear storytelling tool. Right now, we’re producing TV segments viewable on the Web. Whoopee!
I think what Angela has outlined is an ideal, long-term goal:
“To shoot a good video, you have to have multiple angles of your subject or action. Each angle must have multiple focal lengths. You must remember to shoot each stage of whatever action is happening, and shoot multiple angles of that action with wide, medium and tight shots. You must use restraint when pushing ‘record,’ so you’re only getting the video that you know you’ll use.”
Yup, agree on all points, but that ain’t gonna happen overnight. It’s going to take many small baby steps and lots of practice.
Not only for print reporters to learn visual storytelling, but once they get the hang of it, we have a huge production obstacle staring at us. Does the reporter edit the piece, too? Or the Web team? If it’s the reporter, how long can he/she spend on it and still make the print deadlines? If it’s the Web team, do we have the resources to have a full-time video editor? (Because you know once the reporters start, they’re going to all be wanting to play with the new toys.)
Given all that, for breaking news, I’d rather just get from the reporter a written paragraph brief, a one-minute video or audio clip of a witness account or something like that, and then go work on the longer version of the story for the Web and then for print. We have the luxury of NOT being TV. We don’t have air to fill with an edited, visually compelling 3-minute linear video about a story.
I tested this very idea on heraldtribune.com Friday with an eager reporter and a cheapo P&S camera. (The video is the “Witnessed describes hit-and-run” link.)
It worked OK. I’m still looking for a better camera. You’ll see that the video and audio quality is quite poor.
At this point in the game — and maybe always — the multiple angles and edited video will have to wait for the enterprise reporting.
Note: Will Sullivan and Mindy McAdams have already talked about how much time is needed to do video well.
Which makes me think even more so that even while we ohh and ahh over what Rob Curley did with Studio 55 or roanoke.com is doing with their TimesCast, we need to capitalize on the strengths of the Web and come up with ways to use video that isn’t just like TV.
Tags: Uncategorized
Comments
9 Responses to “Revisiting cameras in the newsroom”
Leave a Reply
Currently reading
-
I am melissaworden on del.icio.us.
Add me to your network
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting the TimesCast is TV-like, but I hardly think it’s similar to the evening newscast.
Something else to consider here is whether or not people are actually watching these video efforts. How does the audience for this type of multimedia compare to the data on users reading text?
And perhaps most important, does this audience justify the expense of equipment and production?
Or is this an expense that you believe newspapers will recoup in the future?
Or is this an expense that you believe newspapers will recoup in the future?
That’s certainly a good question Patrick raises there. And one that isn’t really clear. After all, most newspapers don’t recoup the expenses from reporting. If someone can point me to a direct causal link between high reporting costs and increased readership AND/OR advertising sales and revenue, I’d love to see it.
There are a lot of questions that are not clear at this point in the multimedia-ization of newspaper online efforts. For instance, as Patrick asks, how does the audience for this type of multimedia compare to the data on users reading text? Well, we’re not sure what the audience is yet because there hasn’t really *been* any of this content for very long. Yes, I know there have been some online products doing video and multimedia for a while, but how many users have had the broadband connectivity to access that content?
Only 2 years ago, the idea that people would be spending a lot of time watching short video clips on YouTube was somewhat far-fetched.
“Does this audience justify the expense of equipment and production?”
Again, is this the audience you have now, or the audience you hope to build? Honestly, I think the equipment expense is negligible. Production costs in terms of time spent editing, etc. will likely be more of a concern. And the other question that raises is: what’s the alternative?
I think TimesCast and Studio55 are out-of-the-box efforts by local newspapers that should be applauded. And so should all the efforts that are being made to try to figure out this conundrum, including the one Melissa tried with the Herald Tribune reporter.
Thank you both for such insightful comments. It’s both frustrating and oh-so-much fun to work in online journalism right now, isn’t it? We’re still at the start of a new frontier with more questions than answers. But that means there are so many opportunities, too.
I think both the TimesCast and Studio55 should definitely be applauded for bringing news video shows to newspaper Web sites. It’s a first step that’s needed in educating readers about what we can do in video storytelling online.
Studio55 does it with a lot of glamour; TimesCast does it with style that connects with younger viewers.
Patrick, what I meant in comparing it to TV is that while TimesCast is quite different in tone and style from the evening newscasts, the viewer is still watching a linear “show.” Take out the links to extra material to the right of the player, and this could be broadcast on TV.
As Melissa says, quite rightly, we are at the start of a new frontier.
That means we can expect a lot of experimentation because nothing’s been set in stone.
I also expect to see some entrepeneurs deliver new multimedia software that will make it easier to create online content without knowledge of HTML etc…
No doubt, exciting times ahead.
How does the audience for this type of multimedia compare to the data on users reading text?
At heraldtribune.com, video is still a small segment of page views compared to text — although, to be fair, the number of videos we produce is far fewer than text stories.
But we’ve seen quite a growth in video over the past 6 months, and there’s an appetite for more of it.
I think readers are catching on, thanks to broadband, YouTube and promotion by TV Web sites such as CNN. On our site, I’ve found that if it’s a good story — and the headline is compelling enough — the reader will click on it regardless of whether it’s video or text.
A point you made in another post, Melissa, is relevant here. How much of news org video/multimedia content is buried? This is an industry-wide issue, as far as I can tell.
There should be a “rail” along one side of the web site that is nothing but multimedia content.
Give it as much play as the text stories and you might find that page views increase dramatically.
I know it will take a while to get reporters to start shooting video. It’s a really good question you ask about the editing…At the Express-News, we imagine that reporters will enjoy the idea of shooting video, but when it comes to editing…We’re afraid they’ll never come back after they find out what a time-consuming thing it can be.
There are going to be a lot of reporters who decide to drop out of the video game, stick to print. But some of them will have drive or talent and will hang on.
Hopefully training will be there for them at that point. I really don’t think it’s too early to begin planning to reach that “long-term” goal I outlined in my post. If you know what you’re doing, shooting and editing “fancy” videos really isn’t that difficult.
For those just starting out in video, I highly recommend Michael Rabiger’s book titled
Directing the Documentary.
It’s packed with all sorts of useful information and it isn’t written in a technical way.
The emphasis of the book is on storytelling.
As Angela says, shooting and editing videos isn’t that difficult.
However, if a news organizations hands reporters fancy, high priced camcorders and expects them to edit in Final Cut Pro (overkill for news videos destined for the web), they’ll get frustrated and give up.
Thanks for the recommendation John. I’ll check it out. :)