Camcorder Masterclass - Index
Choose your viewpoint

Along with Eric and Ron, our two students, we recently viewed a batch of videos made by (mainly) newcomers to our video club. During a subsequent discusssion on their merits and de-merits Eric said "You've mentioned that there was a lack of variety in camera heights and angles but I'm not entirely sure what you mean and what's so important about them anyway ?"

Our comments are summarised as follows. By angle we mean that the camera might be horizontal or tilted upwards or downwards and/or positioned at different points. Rather than talk of shoulder-high shots when filming people or animals we should really be thinking of eye-level ones - the eye-level being that of the subject and not the camcorder operator.

When we go sightseeing, most of us enjoy looking at the scenery, or whatever, from different viewpoints and heights. The same applies when we view movies. We want to see variety in the shots. Sameness is a recipe for boredom. The average newcomer will take most shots from shoulder height (not necessarily the subjects eye-level) thus contributing towards "sameness". However, the more experienced videographer will look carefully at the subject and then select the appropriate camera heights and angle to achieve the required effect. There are umpteen circumstances where different heights and/or angles may be beneficial. Here's a few.

• An eye-level shot is a neutral one in that the character neither dominates or appears to be weak on the screen. Therefore when filming a neutral viewpoint of babies, children, or small animals, the camcorder should be around waist level or lower. Don't be embarrassed to sit or lie on the ground if necessary; but mind the puddles! You will also need to get down to those same levels if shooting from the viewpoint of babes, children or animals etc; in these instances the camcorder lens probably being angled upwards.

• A very low level shot of feet and traffic can also add variety to a busy street sequence. Experiment with framing and you'll probably find that the telephoto end of the lens gives a pleasing and effective compressed viewpoint. If the subject is to look authoritarian or dominant then shoot from below, with the lens tilted upwards. This type of shot might be used to portray a tough "baddie" or to make a statue, or some other object, look more impressive. The extent of dominance is governed by the nearness of the camcorder to the subject and the consequential degree of tilt. An acute angle will portray more dominance than a less acute one. A below eye-level shot, with the lens tilted upwards slightly, can also look more impressive in those situations where a person walks towards and, perhaps past, the camcorder.

• If a person or subject needs to look less significant then shoot from above with lens angled downwards. A looking down viewpoint is very effective as an establishing shot of a street scene or something similar. The next shot might be at street-level, in which case the previously recorded ant-like people will now command a greater presence.

• When a person is looking at someone or something out of the camera's frame then the following revealing shot should simulate or match, that person's eye-line, i.e. be taken from the same place and at the same angle. The revelation might also be achieved by first showing the viewer head-on, followed by a reversal shot where the camcorder is sited to show the rear of the viewer and the object of attention. Reversal shots, with matching eye-lines are commonplace when filming people in conversation.

In summary, varying angles and heights helps add variety to shots, but don't overdo it. Too much can look gimmicky.

Camcorder Masterclass - Index
Editing: Decisions...decisions...

Our student Ron asked us how he might edit a video tape, showing pandas, eating and playing. We suggested that in order to make a watchable movie he should bear the following tips in mind, both before and during the editing stages.

Like a book or any other written matter a video needs to inform, put forward a point of view, perhaps be a record, or constitute a sound and visual experience. To achieve any of those aims then, like the written communication, there must be a defined structure: a good beginning to immediately capture audience interest; a stimulating progressive storyline to sustain that interest; and finally, a satisfactory conclusion.

Whereas the writer has a huge vocabulary available, the movie editor can only use the shots provided. It is this factor which makes it so important to think and plan at , or preferably prior to, the shooting stage. Although the previously prepared running order of shots (Edit Decision List) is invaluable, during the editing process some revision will inevitably be necessary. Certain shots will require omission, others re-sequenced and, most probably, each and every one will need pruning. Be ruthless in your decisions. Apart from cutting out poor material, if a shot doesn't progress or slot in with the storyline, then discard it; even if it's your favourite. The video should flow and usually (there can be valid exceptions) comprise of sequences and not isolated snap-shots.

• Unless the editor wishes to temporarily mystify the audience, each sequence or scene should commence with an early establishing shot showing where the action is occuring and the relationship of the subject to that location. This is usually a long shot or an extreme long shot.

• The establishing shot/s are followed by medium and close-up ones showing in greater detail who is involved and what they are doing. In the case of objects the significant or, perhaps, finer points will be displayed.

• Where possible start a shot with movement. It looks slicker and avoids that tiresome waiting for a subject to come into a scene or to actually start doing something. For instance start with the forwardmost foot entering the frame, or cut as the back foot is about to exit.

Camcorder Masterclass - Index
Shot Length

Ron asked "How long should a shot be screened - he'd read between five and ten seconds. There is, of course, no average time. shot should be given sufficient time for an audience to absorb it. As a rule of thumb, long shots need longer screening than close ups.

Titles and captions can equate with the time taken to reading them aloud at slightly less than normal talking speed, followed by a much quicker repetition. Usually 3-4 seconds per title is more than adequate.

Also remember that the length of shots dictates the pace of a movie. In a serene situation the shots should be screened for much longer than a hectic one. The latter might well consist of a whole series of shots lasting perhaps only a second or less. The movie will benefit from variable pacing.

Screentime is not Realtime

Time can be realistically manipulated. A speedy action such as a person being stabbed, might be extended by rapid shots of facial expressions, the hand gripping the knife and so on. Other actions can be shortened by inserting a series of cut-aways and cut-ins.

Possibly the most important tip of all - Don't bore your audience - keep it short.

Check out the Masterclass Hot Editing Tips

Camcorder Masterclass - Index
Post-production sound

All too often the sound on amateur movies is poor, spoiling what may otherwise have been a reasonable production. Sometimes the recording and sound balancing techniques are responsible whilst on other occasions the editor has taken the easy way out by leaving the original soundtrack untouched, warts and all . Alternatively he, or she, may have overwritten the track by 'Wallpapering' it with non-stop music, often unsuitable at that.

Eric and Ron do not possess audio mixers or VCRs with an audio-dub facility, so their soundtracking is effectively limited to replacing, on a shot-to-shot basis, those elements of the location sound spoilt by wind and other unwanted noises. However, they are more ambitious than that and have sought our advice.

I think they were a little surprised to be told that soundtracking is a lot harder than editing visuals, there's so much more to learn. The irony is that if you get the soundtrack right most viewers of your work will fail to notice the sterling effort involved. Get it wrong and I guarantee it will stand out like a sore thumb.

Basis for a good soundtrack

Normally the soundtrack should complement and not overpower the visuals, a possible exception being a pop video or the like, where the music might be regarded as the most important element.

A soundtrack can consist of three tangible elements:

1. location sound, enhanced or even replaced if necessary by sound effects from other sources
2. music, which may consist of specific melodies, rhythms, jingles or, perhaps, a few notes to emphasise a particular action
3. voice-over or commentary.

Professional film makers go to a lot of trouble and expense with their soundtracks. The location sound is extensively enhanced and replaced, many layers of sound effects being created on different audio tracks before being mixed with those parts of the original being retained.

Sometimes location conditions, perhaps giant windfans or the action itself, makes it impossible to attain totally audible dialogue. The film makers have to recreate and re-dub the dialogue with actors sitting in front of a screen and synchronising the newly spoken dialogue with the displayed lip movements. The result of all these machinations is that we, the viewers, accept what we hear as being authentic. That's the maker's hope anyway.

Obviously most amateurs have neither the resources, or often the competence, to fully emulate the above but there are other examples, on TV, which we can copy to good effect.

In the UK the Holiday guide programme is worthy of study. The sound is far simpler. The makers generally use the original location sound, sometimes enhanced with another effect and either use this an its own or mixed with music, voice and/or commentary.

The blending of the elements is smooth and each one comes through at its prescribed level. The whole seems natural. (If the script calls for other than a smooth blend then that's a minor departure.)

Actually this relatively simple soundtracking will cater for the vast majority of amateur movies and might be considered as the standard to aim for. It is attainable, both technically and financially.