Three Camera Interviews

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/5/2013, 6:46 PM

I am involved with a project that is going to create a large number of interview videos, using three cameras. We have arranged a production studio that will provide two of the cameras, a Panasonic AJ-HPX2700 P2 VariCam 1080i HD, and a Nikon HD-SLR (not sure which model). I will provide a Sony HVR-Z5U as the third camera. Rental includes lighting and cameramen to work all three cameras.

The Sony has two XLR audio inputs. Our audio plan is to run an Audio-Technica AT899 Lavalier microphone to each person from the Sony, both interviewer and interviewee, using the XLR inputs to capture the audio track on the Sony.

The production studio will download the video files from their two cameras onto an external hard drive for us. Using the multi-camera feature in Vegas, or a third party plugin during editing, we hope to produce an acceptable interview video.

Certainly, there will be a learning curve to this, but right here, before we even get started, does anyone see any glaring problems with this plan? The production studio does this for a living, so surely there will good advice from them, but I would like to have this thought through, first.

I’ve read in other threads about video from multiple cameras getting out of synch within ten seconds or so, we want to avoid that, but not sure what to do to avoid it. I’ve also read about different cameras having different “looks” which can cause a distracting appearance as the video cuts back and forth. Any problems using different cameras, different name brands, interlaced and progressive footage in the same project?

Our finished product does not need to be extremely high-level movie studio quality, but it needs to be good enough so as not to distract from the message. Any cautions from some of you gurus would be welcomed.

Back to post

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 3/8/2013, 8:13 PM

"But video editing, are you kidding me? I mean, look at Grazie, has he not gone stark raving mad? Just sayin... "

Totally unfair, Barry. Grazie is who Grazie was, even before taking up video editing. Look at Bernard's earliest posts ("Grazie does video" or something to that effect). And we all love him just for who he is, a beloved member of our community and an incredibly creative human being.

And no, he is quite sane and competent, although he expends little energy bragging about his accomplishments, which are many.

It's easy to project a persona on someone whose online responses evoke a particular stereotype, making a peek below the surface even more difficult than it needs to be. I can assure you, in his instance it is well worth the effort.

Just sayin . . .
;?)

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/9/2013, 6:34 AM

Sorry, I meant that in jest.

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/9/2013, 6:45 AM

Riredale,

US Navy, F/A-18, now American Airlines.

On one particular no fly day, beautiful clear weather. I was relaxing on the flight deck, which is rare to be able to do. We heard the Brits were in the area. We were close to shore.

Next thing I know I hear this incredibly loud roar, just like a fly-by, but I didn't see any jets, thought what in the world. I looked over the edge to the water, and there goes the Brits, in their Tornadoes, in formation. I was 66 feet above the water line, looking DOWN on Tornadoes in formation, guessing at least 450 kts. Musicvid, I say this in complimentary jest, yes, the Brits are stark raving mad. And for all of you making a living in this fickle world, I salute you.

riredale wrote on 3/9/2013, 12:24 PM

I've made the firm decision that in my next life I want to fly jets off of carrier decks. Or possibly helos. I saw some amazing footage of a coast guard helicopter hovering over a heaving ship in terrible weather--ferocious winds, and a deck that was rising and falling thirty feet every few seconds. And as the deck rose, the helo rose, and as the deck fell, the helo fell. Man, that takes some amazing skill, in my view.

The most excitement I ever had was landing at LAX (flying a Mooney 201) with a very low ceiling down to the minimums--200 feet. Breaking out just at Decision Height and seeing that strobe rabbit. "Cheating death" gives a great high. Yeah, it's perfectly safe if you do things by the book, but still...

NOTHING cleared the cobwebs from my head like flying that plane. Alas, sold it fifteen years ago.

Dan Sherman wrote on 3/9/2013, 4:52 PM

This is funny.
From three camera interviews to flying planes off aircraft carriers.
Sorry, but where's the connection? LOL!!!

Grazie wrote on 3/9/2013, 5:23 PM

Sorry, but where's the connection?

Creativity?

G

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/9/2013, 5:35 PM

I don't know, but I'm feeling it!

Coming down the chute, meatball, line up, AOA, grab a wire, tap afterburner till dead in the wire, adrenaline pumping, love it.

Ok, back to work, video editing software, computers, cameras, so much...

By the way, today I ordered a Sony HDR-XR260V. I think it will satisfy my needs. I know, I thought about an HD-SLR, but the coward in me won out. I looked at the GH3, just couldn't do it. Maybe when I sort out all this technology, in my next life.

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/9/2013, 5:59 PM

You might be on to something there Grazie. Creativity is a fickle mistress. I see the ideas on this forum, such good stuff, and I want them, incorporated into my products.

The systemic implications drive the motivations of those earning a living, the need to turn out the work.

The extrinsic valuations brings some people to downright technical genius, writing code, programs out of this world, my head explodes reading it, wondering how they conjured up such stuff. Tweaking colors, render settings, codecs, on and on and on. I’ve received advice from people all over the world, crazy.

Then the intrinsic rears its head, the human factor, and we interject all those great sometimes hard to describe qualities… aesthetics, beauty, joy, pleasure, fun, ugly, the conversations and bantering are never ending, creativity.

When those Brits flew by in tight formation, VERY tight, below deck level, I was moved, thought I was going to tear up, it was powerfully emotional. It was so effing cool. Just to be clear, I did NOT tear up, fighter pilots do not do such things. Funny thing though, I feel that same feeling with some of the creativity floating around this place. So yeah, you might be on to something, creativity.

BUT, I still like blowing up stuff.

Grazie wrote on 3/10/2013, 12:58 AM

I was privileged to be present at the final open day at a place called called Bentley Priory, here in the UK. Nothing especially extraordinary in the final public bow of an old building in the UK. After all, we have an embarrassment of old buildings in the UK.

That kinda changed when we all witnessed, at full throttle, the tree top emergence of the Spitfire Supermarine, Rolls Royce powered WWII fighter, giving us a stirring rememberance of just what it meant to be subject to its thunderous roar over our heads. I'll never ever forget it as it proceeded to execute a pertfect victory roll and climbed, almost vertically, into the Sun

And Bentley Priory? It was the HQ of Fighter Command during one of the most important phases of our tiny island: The Battle of Britain.

Did I keep my head as I captured this on my tiny Canon? You betcha! But there again I'd had at least a decade of gathering skills to be able to "focus" on the edit. And now I have the footage to play back time and time again.

Grazie

farss wrote on 3/10/2013, 5:53 AM

I'm having a hard time seeing a studio with different cameras in it as professional.
A studio should have identical cameras capable of being genlocked so there's no sync issues in post. Cheapest such cameras that I know of are the PMW-200 or PMW EX3, Canon may also have something around the same price.

Additional features you might find in a studio are pedestals instead of tripods, then there's comms so the director whose watching the ouput of all the cameras, can direct the camera operators.

Most such production is done via a vision switcher into a recorder with maybe all the cameras recording internally as well. The advantage of this at the end of the session the jobs done apart from adding the head and tail.

If such a studio and all that gear is way over the budget I'd hire the studio, their lighting and facilities and rent the cameras yourself. From my experience studio space is cheap, they hit you up a lot for anything other than the space, that's where they make their money.

Bob.

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/10/2013, 8:23 AM

Thanks Bob, that all makes sense. From your descriptions, your definition of professional is beyond our scope, at this point, hopefully not forever.

We are creating many videos to be used internally, the audio is actually more important than the video, the level of quality might be outside what you would consider acceptable. Studio space, in this areas as you described it, for the amount of time we need, is outside our budget. The PMW-200 is WAY over budget.

But as always, when I read these posts, I have another idea in my head.

Grazie, you wouldn't happen to have that footage posted somewhere would you?

Grazie wrote on 3/10/2013, 10:11 AM

[I]Grazie, you wouldn't happen to have that footage posted somewhere would you?[/i]

Correct.

G

farss wrote on 3/10/2013, 3:13 PM

"The PMW-200 is WAY over budget."

I wasn't suggesting you buy one, rent a couple of them.

I don't know what rental rates are where you are, down here I could do you two for a day with good tripods for $500.
By comparison a very low end studio space runs to around $1,000. Just pray it doesn't rain, the noise from the metal roof is something you don't want to have to deal with.
It seems a no brainer to me to use gear that you know is going to just work when you're already paying out money that could be wasted if the gear doesn't perform.

I shoot a lot of multicam with next to zero budget. Trying to match the look of two different cameras is a nightmare but for me it doesn't matter because each camera is shooting quite different shots of different subjects. With an interview I'm rather inclined to think the issue will stand out. The problem goes beyond matching white balance, each camera has a different Look, in part because of different sensors, in part because of different matrixes. Where I see this most is in skin tones and in interviews the viewer is going to be looking at skin tones a lot.
Whichever way you go, given the combined amount of effort you're going to put into shooting this, do tests.

As for the audio, I'd give using one or two cardiod mics some serious consideration. Lapel mics can be great or a curse. They really should be thought of as mics of last resort. During an interview people move around a lot, especially during long interviews. That can create issues with clothing noise and the sound of their voice changing as their mouth moves relative to the mic. Pretty well every interview style show I see done by the professionals uses anything but lapel mics.

Bob.

ddm wrote on 3/10/2013, 4:01 PM

>>>Pretty well every interview style show I see done by the professionals uses anything but lapel mics

Having done years of sound work in broadcast tv, I wish that were the case. Many years ago we all got overruled by producers and directors who favored wide jib type shots, etc over a great audio recording. Big budget interview shows like the old Barbara Walters Specials to Oprah etc, lavs were (AND ARE) the way of the world. And HIDDEN to boot, just a nightmare in so many ways as you know. Talk shows, too, which are just multicam interviews, all lavs all the time, the desk mic is a prop and as a last last resort if the host's 2 lavs crap out. I used to do interviews with just my Schoeps until producers started demanding that I use a TRAM backup on a separate track, which they would almost always use because on first listen in the edit bay, the TRAM sounded more intimate than the Schoeps which was a mere 10 inches from the speakers mouth. I was once almost fired for insisting on only using my Schoeps in an interview on a dubbing stage that was as dead as a room can be. So glad I don't do sound anymore. Moved on to the camera dept. doing DIT and Colorist work, still feel the sound boys pain when they get overruled trying to get the boom in a little tighter. No, director wants that 7th pass on the wide master to be clean.

Barry W. Hull wrote on 3/11/2013, 8:46 PM

Bob, more good advice. The owner of a studio we talked to, young, motivated, graduate of NYU with a nice resume, lots of experience for young age, growing his business, prices are very negotiable, discussed much of what you mentioned. He suggested renting a camera. I didn't ask what make or model, decided to buy a small Sony for that wider angle third camera shot, didn't seem as important as the two cameras on the two people.

Bob and ddm, I might be living that curse, both hosts will have wired lapel mics. Not making excuses, but for the venue of these video discussions, we won't let "great" stand in the way of "good enough". I'm optimistic that with the advice I've recieved so far, even without preferred equipment, we can make it work.

ddm wrote on 3/11/2013, 11:35 PM

Don't get me wrong, you can get excellent audio using lavs, there are just lots of issues that can happen and they can be a real deal breaker. To state the obvious... use a sound man or at the very least have someone listening to both channels with headphones so that if there is a problem you can deal with it then and there.