I think you think that shooting to allow a safe zone for lower third graphics etc will compromise the artistic integrity of the piece. Wrong. Because a skilled camera person will get it right, and make it look beautiful at the same time.
Although how many regional packages are shot by craft camera persons is a moot point in this age of videojournalism.
I think you think that shooting to allow a safe zone for lower third graphics etc will compromise the artistic integrity of the piece. Wrong. Because a skilled camera person will get it right, and make it look beautiful at the same time.
Although how many regional packages are shot by craft camera persons is a moot point in this age of videojournalism.
Just picking up on your point that a skilled camera person will get the shot right and make it look beautiful. With the best will in the world, a VJ's self-shot stuff isn't going to be as good as what a dedicated camera person will produce.
Just picking up on your point that a skilled camera person will get the shot right and make it look beautiful. With the best will in the world, a VJ's self-shot stuff isn't going to be as good as what a dedicated camera person will produce.
Because STEVE IN PUDSEY branded all VJs as only capable of shoddy work, which is simply nonsense. That's like the old chestnut of saying there are no bad teachers.
Look, ofcourse keeping skilled craft people in jobs with generally require them to only be a master of one skill is good. And there will always be some of that. But times move on, and things change, and to essentially say that the only decent video is by craft camera operators is nonsense.
I think you're putting words into my mouth there. Much of what VJs shoot in perfectly acceptable, I certainly wouldn't use the word "shoddy" for the vast majority. But I wouldn't necessarily use "beautiful" which was the word you used to describe material shot by a "skilful" camera operator.
I don't think it's insulting to say that one person working alone is less likely to produce something that is visually beautiful as where there is somebody whose entire purpose is to make it look good. I think I'm right in saying that the cameras a VJ would use are generally less sophisticated than what a dedicated camera operator would use, which may also have an impact on whether some of the more create camera work is possible.
I thought it was cockup, but the gent interviewed looks VERY close to the camera... Who knows!
There's been a couple of very close shots in VTs in tonight's programme - it seems that they occasionally forget how to frame shots for lower thirds.
I would hope people don't ever frame shots just for graphics. I like the MCU/BCU look myself.
I've never understood the obsession with name supers on every contributor - particularly when they are name-checked properly in voice over. (No issue with the hard of hearing as the intro will appear on the subtitles)
Well that does presume the live subtitling will produce the correct result.
Yes - but I guess that's the case for pretty much everything that is subtitled?
Well that's precisely the point - it's hardly "no issue" if there is a distinct possibility of an error.
I think you're putting words into my mouth there. Much of what VJs shoot in perfectly acceptable, I certainly wouldn't use the word "shoddy" for the vast majority. But I wouldn't necessarily use "beautiful" which was the word you used to describe material shot by a "skilful" camera operator.
I don't think it's insulting to say that one person working alone is less likely to produce something that is visually beautiful as where there is somebody whose entire purpose is to make it look good. I think I'm right in saying that the cameras a VJ would use are generally less sophisticated than what a dedicated camera operator would use, which may also have an impact on whether some of the more create camera work is possible.
I think you need to reread the posts you made, and then my responses. Cause if you can't stand by what you wrote, why not just admit you were wrong, instead of rolling half way back.