|
|
Posted by William Davis on 10/05/46 11:39
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post, but the footage was
> requested by a journal (you can probably narrow down the possibilities
> to two). The probability it will be used by the media is around 1%. Even
> then, we are talking about 5 seconds of footage that will be shown with
> a voiceover. Hence, it would be silly to spend weeks preparing the
> footage. Instead, we wanted to spend less than a day on it, but still
> wanted to make the results as good as possible given the limited time -
> hence the original post.
>
> Don't get the joke about a videographer wanted to do a rat study. If I
> had put a post up saying "I want to produce a film that people will sit
> in a cinema for 2 hours to watch and I also want it to be nominated for
> an academy award. I want to know how to film it so it looks professional
> but don't want to read up about lighting, camera direction, etc."
> However, we were simply providing some footage that was asked for by the
> journal, but wanted to make the result as reasonable as possible given
> the extermely tight deadline we were given. I don't see what is wrong
> with admitting ignorance and asking experts for their advice.
Well, since it was my joke I'll try to clear things up.
Your query was pretty specific. You specifically wanted to produce
footage of a quality commensurate with NETWORK BROADCAST standards.
You wanted to do that quickly with a minimal investment in either gear
or learning.
As it appears you discovered, that's very difficult to achieve.
Put simply, it's not the equipment that makes good video - it's the
BRAIN of the person using the equipment.
(Precisely as it's not the rats nor the maze construction that yields
qualified scientific results in quality scientific study... it's the
BRAINS of the people running, interpereting, assembling and analyzing
the data that is generated thereby.)
If you'd begged, borrowed or cajoled someone with video expertise to
shoot your study - and the resulting footage was a) visually interesting
and b) linked to a study that was intrinsically interesting to a wide
audience of lay people - I'd wager that your 1% chance of getting extra
press and promotional value from the whole exercise might have improved
by orders of magnitude.
That's all I was trying to point out.
Sorry you missed the irony.
But coming to a group where many people make their livings by producing
professional video and assuming that by gathering a few quick tips you
can simply "do it yourself" - kinda devalues the decades of experience
that many of us here have devoted to learning how to do this stuff well.
Don't you think?
Anyway, best of luck in your study.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|