How could anyone disagree with that?

Adding to #1, it's good to do as much experimental shooting as possible to learn the limits (and hopefully break them) of yourself too. Get so that you understand what a scene is going to look like after it's shot. Get to the point where you can predict before shooting what the best setup and angle are going to be. Think like the camera!

Adding to #2, good equipment is a good thing, no bones about that. However, if you get good at #1 you can make the best out of any piece o' junk.

Adding to #3, sufficient light is the key to video SNR. Just like it's nearly impossible to get a good recording of an actor whispering in a full house, it's difficult to get a good image of something lit by candle light. There just isn't enough energy in the incoming material to overcome the noise in the system.

Adding to #4, remember the thought experiment ... try watching a TV show with no sound, then try listening to a TV show with no picture. Which one will get the story across better?

I'm not going to disagree with DaveT2 as he made excellent points.
Instead, I would suggest that his item 3 be at the top of the list.
A well-lit shot with a cheap camera will almost always look much better than a poorly-lit shot with an expensive camera.

I'd like to expand on item 1 and that is to go through the manuals, page by page, for every piece of equipment you own, especially your camcorder.
I realize that this goes contrary to the male code which is "Real men don't read manuals" :-)
Real men don't but smart men do!!
You'd be surprised by what you can learn by reading a manual.
Understand what every single button does and, if possible, how to over ride it.
Setting things to automatic are fine for amateurs but not for most pros I know and work with.

5) Start watching movies and television with the sound turned off.
Ask yourself why you liked a particular shot.
Was it the angle, the way it was lit, etc.?
Ask yourself why you liked a particular scene.
What was about the way it was edited that you like?

6) Do a search here as this and similar topics have come up numerous times with excellent suggestions.

Mike

Walter Graff has a great web site devoted to creative lighting done inexpensively.

Mike

> Instead, I would suggest that his item 3 be at the top of the list.

I agree with Mike in that good lighting should be at the top of the list. It is the direct analogy of SNR in your audio example. You can make pretty darn good video recordings with cheap $99 HD cameras if you have enough light... lose the light, and you find out quickly why more expensive cameras with larger CCD's an lenses are worth every penny.. (because they maximize available light)

So i would put a "well lit" shot at the top of the list.

~jr

I am very, very much an amateur here, but here's my advice for somebody who is new to video:

Most of the time, when watching a movie or video the viewer should completely forget that a camera was ever involved. You should feel like you are actually looking at the content live, not watching it through a camera. So the instant a camcorder hunts for focus or automatically adjusts exposure levels, the illusion is gone and the viewer is taken out of the "live" experience.

So some of the first things to figure out on your camcorder and get in the habit of controlling:
1. Lock the focus when possible
2. Lock the exposure when possible.

These aren't absolute rules, of course, and probably apply more to static shots in a "movie" type shoot than shots in a music video, but hopefully you know what I'm struggling to say. If you are watching a video and somebody with a white shirt walks on screen and the camera suddenly darkens to compensate, your mind (or at least my mind) immediately thinks "camcorder" and you immediately lose your intimate connection to the content. The same thing with focus. If you are watching a video and suddenly the camcorder is hunting for focus, I immediately am reminded that I am watching a videotape of the event and lose the illusion that I am watching the event itself.

And as an addition to the above:
3. Don't zoom while filming (unless the zooming itself will be edited out)

Again, zooming (except for a very slow crawl) usually jolts the user out of the "live" experience and reminds him he's watching a videotape.

(I'm not doing a very good job explaining this, but hopefully you know what I'm trying to say...)

Seeing as how no one else has mentioned it, a good tripod.
I see so many good shots ruined by camera shake and jerky pans it drives me to distraction.
Currently there's only one company that makes a good tripod for the lighter cheap cameras and that's Sachtler. We now run our HC5 "B" camera on a $1,200 Miller tripod. It looks funny, I've even had someone ask "Is there a camera on that tripod?" but the improvement in the quality of the shots when we shoot concerts on bouncy floors is very obvious. The big Miller though is really too much tripod for the camera, the counterbalance cannot be set low enough for that weight of camera, that's why you need to go get a Sachtler. They're expensive but they will outlast many cameras so they're an investment, just check out the prices on eBay for second hand Sachtlers.

Bob.

I'll re-order some of the previous suggestions to my workflow, which is all pretty much geared to live event production:

1) A good level tripod -- farss
2) Lighting, lighting, and lighting in that order-- everyone
3) Adept operators, no on-the-job training -- mine
4) Lock focus and exposure (goes with #3 above) -- Tim L
5) Great audio mix--Dave T2

The key to good video is :
Story, Story, Content, Content.
After that I find composition and light.

Right now there are under $200 HD camcorders that look pretty good for web video if there is a enough light. Still content is the key. What goes in front of the camera make sit or breaks it. Even great film stock shot with great glass is purposely degraded for the feel of the shot. I will watch super 8 if the content is well staged and delivered. Audio on the other hand, has to be clean for me to enjoy it.

I like Musicvid's summary but the point about Story and Content is very, very important.

I did some lighting work several years ago on a video called "Chalk" It was a multicamera shoot in verite style. I learned a lot about rain gear and and about how actors find marks in complex situations.

When it was finished we had a screening at the Castro theater in San Francisco and my impressions were that it looked fine, the story was interesting, but I couldn't understand the dialogue. In the end, the sound broke the screening. (It may have gotten fixed later, or it may have been the Castro's sound system. It's a historic old theater and at the time its sound system was still geared for films from the 30's)

John Water's earlier films probably illustrate the idea of content over quality. They look awful, they don't sound great, but they have a following because of content. They don't have broad appeal but they have a cult following none-the-less.

Content is not always "story". Good art direction and visually interesting people can often hide dull lighting and uninspired sound. This is visual content.

Rob Mack

Actually I think I understood you very well. Thanks Tim.

Thanks so much everyone! I really appreciate your help. Hopefully I can share examples of how your input improves the quality of my videos as I learn.

Cheers!

Ken

Very informative thread thanks guys

I am foremost an editor and secondly a very average camera operator

Often I edit footage from the same event, same caliber cams, same lighting but different crews
Some cameramen will operate, they know the camera but that’s all, and their footage reflects just that, hours and hours of nicely shot crap
Others will get into the event and become part of it and deliver 20 minutes of good , honest footage

All of the above but add

its more about people, than f stops
So for me the key would be emotional content

OK Rory, but get back to me when that same emotional content has been screwed by a badly set f-stop. Yeah? We'll talk again as you start pulling out yer editor's hair? And as editors we have all been their with our own or others footage?

In all of this, it is having the sensitivity to know the difference when kit gets in the way of narrative. It is a rare thing indeed that it is the other way around! Bob makes his living from making sure people get the kit they need/want - for a price! - that can reflect their "narrative-wishes".

Badly shot content may MAY just win the day IF the content called for jerkiness or slightly blown video, but here it was being piss-lucky that saved the day and NOT the expertise that called the shots. And yes, I am all for experimentation, I guess I was hard-wired from my DNA upwards to do so. But to ignore what settings are required is plainly counter to getting the content at its optimum values - tell me about it!

It is knowing the difference that counts. And that is either innate within the individual, or, it is drummed in to them by well meaning teachers or colleagues. Having come up through the ranks through the arts, I know kit should serve a purpose for getting where I want. It is always, or should be, "outcome" over "kit". I would crazy, and a little ostrich-like to think/operate otherwise!

Great thread made real by great people!

Grazie

A few hours ago I had an interesting conversation with a choreographer about the video she'd shot of her own work. All hand held with all the usual horrors so she got a bit of a tongue lashing from yours truly.

Then she told me she'd done a weeks workshop on shooting dance, some of the worlds best were in attendance as well as some serious video people. They had the video guys shoot and edit a dance performance and then gave the cameras to some dancers to see what they made of it. The video guys failed. It looked nice enough in a visual sense but failed to capture the story. Some of the dancers did a way better job.

I'll try to pick her brain somemore as this is interesting. It's more about how you capture the lines and the power of the movement and apparently almost all of us video guys fail at the task.

Bob.

> " almost all of us video guys fail at the task"

I wouldn't have. It is about KNOWING the difference between kit and outcome. You saying this, Bob, doesn't change things, all it does is give oxygen to the realms of WHERE this activity wouldn't have worked . . . sometimes I don't know why I bother . . .

And yes, do "pick her brains", after the "tongue lashing" . . . OK, far too many images for this time of day.

Grazie

It's more about how you capture the lines and the power of the movement and apparently almost all of us video guys fail at the task.Communication.

At some level, you've got to touch your audience. You have to find something in front of the camera and figure out how to pipe that into their brain.

For dance, Astaire always insisted that the entire dancer's body be included in every shot because the entire body was needed to understand the expression. Photographing just an arm or leg would be like uttering just one syllable and trying to get meaning without hearing the whole word.

So, for me, if I were asked to reveal the "key" to good video quality, composition would be at the top of my list: How do you frame the subject, and how does the relationship between different objects in the frame convey meaning and how do you affect the viewer?

My favorite film is "The Third Man." Every setup in that movie is brilliant, with the low camera angles, shadows, and interplay of foreground and background. The final scene, with the excruciatingly long walk towards the camera down the tree lined country lane -- all done without dialog -- is the most engaging thing I've ever seen. He's holding a torch for her; will she come to him? Will he pursue her? Is this the beginning of something? The end? The one point perspective ("vanishing point"); the leaves falling off the trees; the slightly elevated camera; the shadows of the tree across the lane ... oh, so melancholy.

Excellent example, John! This is what great cinema is all about. Unfortunately, so many younger people today totally miss the point of such wonderful images.

"Character is action."

Photo = Light. Graph = Record. That's what we do, record light. Lighting is #1. That said, sound is #2.

Your mileage may vary...

A few hours ago I had an interesting conversation with a choreographer about the video she'd shot of her own work. All hand held with all the usual horrors so she got a bit of a tongue lashing from yours truly.

Similar to a computer programmer: You can know how to program. Know every command and option ... but if you don't know the subject (accounting / video editing / games / whatever) you won't end up with a program worth anything.