3-D TV WITHOUT the Glasses!

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

3-D film and video making has been played with and then abandoned in pretty regular intervals since it came out in the 50s. What is it about 3-D that attracts viewers to see it (re: Avatar) but has failed to cause a permanent demand for this technology? The glasses!!!!

You might not mind grabbing a pair of those silly looking cardboard 3-D glasses while you’re at Disney/Epcot watching Donald Duck, Ellen DeGeneres and the bugs “squirt” you with water and bug juice. And, you might not complain about 3-D glasses being the “key” to your experiencing the alien world of Avatar. But….., would you really want to bother with those things on a regular basis for every movie and TV show??

Of course not! Most of us have enough trouble remembering to wear our regular glasses and contact lenses.

Sony and Toshiba know this and also know that there is tons (more) money to be made from getting us entertainment junkies hooked onto yet another “must-have” technology. That’s why each company is rushing to be the first to develop and manufacture the first 3-D television sets WITHOUT glasses! Both companies are rushing to get these sets into production.

“Without glasses” is the key. Samsung, Panasonic and others have had 3-D available for awhile now, and I don’t know of many (any, actually) people rushing out to replace their HDTVs for 3-D.

Will it be different once Sony or Toshiba perfects the “no glasses” 3-D TV? I personally hope not. Now that LCD HDTV has come down in price, do we really need to see “around” people, cars, furniture, terrain, etc.? Does this effect really make a movie or TV show better? I say after the novelty wears off, we won’t even notice it anymore! Those of you old enough to remember black and white TV will recall how “special” the odd color television show was. Do we even think about color now? Black and white is now the novelty!! And of course, one day not too far in the future, HD will be the standard and won’t even be HD anymore.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against new technologies; I’m against “upping the ante” unnecessarily. Sometimes things happen so fast that we barely have time to appreciate the technology we have, when another one replaces it. Picture this conversation.

SON-“Dad, I don’t want to watch this program”

FATHER-“Why not, son?”

SON-“It’s so lame! It’s HDTV, so primitive! I can’t watch anything unless it’s in

3-D.”

Don’t laugh! Ted Turner had the same idea in the 1980s when he made it his mission to “colorize” all the Turner-owned movies the station had. The only effect this had was to make the younger generation less appreciative of the art of black and white!

Back to 3-D. After 3-D is perfected, what next? "Feel TV" where you feel everything the characters feel and experience? "Smell-a Vision"? Where does it all end?

Read More

The Death of the TV Talk Show

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

I date 1988 as the “death” of what had been up ‘til then, (from the early 1950s on) the traditional TV talk show, at least nationally; Donahue, Oprah, and Art Linkletter’s Kids Say the Darndest Things;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMOhM31EyM&feature=related, etc.

These featured mostly family-friendly entertainment and discussions.

When Morton Downey Jr. debuted he threw all decorum out the window, berating his guests, smoking on camera, talking over people and letting them talk over each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGu6LjmgeL4&feature=related

The Jerry Springer Show, still seen today, took even that to the next level, expanding on Downey’s brand of shlock until it became the norm, rather than the exception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LQla5x_tfw

Eventually, A Current Affair, Maury Povich, The Jenny Jones Show and others, all getting high ratings, ensured that shows in the Pre-Springer/Downey mold, at least nationally didn’t have a chance after that.

The real shame is that since then, young people really haven’t experienced what a real TV talk show is like, or should be like! Sure, there’s still Oprah, and many local TV talk shows in the traditional vein, but Oprah is viewed as Oprah-ish, a common synonym for ‘preachy”. Local talk shows simply aren’t high profile enough for most audiences to be aware of and PBS and its affiliated stations, except to hardcore followers, is unfortunately seen as “boring” to the masses.

Sensationalism in the form of family confrontations, lurid happenings such as cheating spouses, battling ex’s, DNA tests to determine parenthood, physical and sexual abuse, incest, drug abuse, and the list goes on, today passes for “entertainment”.

Of course, what it all comes down to is money. As long as audiences support the sponsors of these shows, they will continue in the same vein. Jerry Springer himself admits that his show is tacky and tasteless, not to mention FAKE a lot of the time, but he rakes in millions upon millions doing it. Strangely, Jerrry Springer is a very intelligent person and entrepreneur. If you ever listened to his once-syndicated radio show, it was everything his TV show is not; insightful, tasteful and dealing with important issues. The way of the world is that people love making money and as long as a TV show does this, it will continue to be produced.

What I will never understand is how people like Springer, already a multi-millionaire many times over, continue to pollute the airwaves with this stuff. He, and many others argue “freedom of speech’ and they are right. I wouldn’t want shows like this to be forced off the air. But wouldn’t it be great if audiences refused to accept this as entertainment or better yet, if the producers simply thought a little bit more about their affect on society rather than further filling their own already stuffed pockets?

Read More

To Tweet a Video, or Not to Tweet a Video,

by Leonard Aaron Caplan

Not being in my 20s, I don’t automatically embrace all the latest technologies or what those technologies can do right away, if at all. Case in point. The ability to twitter or “tweet” a video. Ok, I can understand the need of some people, particularly those with businesses to get a short message out right away. But video? Actually setting a camera on a tripod, sitting down and saying……………..what? Pearls of wisdom about the weather? Your mood? The fact that you hate traffic? Your indigestion?

Now, I’m a video production person and I love using video to tell a story but to me, videotaping yourself for possibly less than 30 seconds is so trivial, as to be ridiculous.

On the other hand, doing a ten, thirty or sixty second promo for a TV show or a live event is quite common in traditional TV, so why not on the Net? Also, a video statement from someone can show subtleties of emotion that no amount of text ever can. For politicians, someone hawking a product, religion, a cause, there’s really nothing like a video, for all the reasons we know for longer form videos. Why should a “Tweet-like” video be any different just because it’s shorter.

As I said, I don’t automatically embrace all the latest technologies when they debut. I’m open minded. But,…………. I may have to be convinced……by a “Tweet” video?

Read More

Special Effects and the Death of Imagination

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

In film and video, special effects can be astounding! They can enhance reality as in a Western or war movie or help us imagine new realities as in James Cameron’s Avatar. From the early days of movies ‘til today, special video effects, along with their sound counterparts attract moviegoers and television viewers, even becoming beloved icons. Who doesn’t love and remember R2D2, the cute little robot on Star Wars, which in reality was an actor’s voice emanating from a lifeless plastic shell, animated by electronics? And who in this generation doesn’t recognize the “beam down” sound and visual effects of Star Trek both on TV and in the movies?

It’s when special video and sound effects BECOME the movie or TV show that it becomes a problem. Many may and have disagreed with me, but years ago, I found Jurassic Park to be a vapid, mindless showcase for special effects with a story and dialogue a chimp could have written, giving the actors little to do except look ridiculously scared while running. The book, Jurassic Park by the late Michael Crichton on the other hand was a clever “who (or what) done it” with engaging characters and a great plot.

Why and how does this happen? Evidentally, it’s cheaper, more profitable and easier to hire special effects wizards than it is to do numbers of re-writes in an effort to be more faithful to books or other original sources that stories may come from. And let’s face it, if a movie, TV show or home video is making money, what do the producers care about story?

Special effects are tools, and should not be building blocks for a story. Have you ever seen a play where the actors are so good and the story so engaging that you may not have noticed ‘til the end that there was very little or even NO sets or costumes? I’ve seen plenty and I can tell you that it is ultimately more satisfying to have your imagination stimulated than your eyes and ears.

I’m talking about the death of imagination here! Remember the sitcom Frazier when Niles mentioned his never seen wife Maris? Throughout its 11 season run, the audience never saw her, and there were dozens of stories written about Niles relationship with her. Why did it work? Imagination! No amount of special effects could have planted in viewers minds a better image of how she might have looked and sounded or the kind of person she was than the minds of the viewers themselves. You just can’t beat that!

Being a teacher, I guess it’s the young people, the next generation I worry about. With a steady diet of special effects movies, what must this do to their imaginations? If a mind isn’t stimulated, it regresses. How tragic it would be if one day when a well written story came along, with great dialogue, plot and characters if the majority of the populace simply doesn’t have the capacity to recognize it? In my opinion this could happen if TV and movie makers don’t put more thought and meaning into their projects instead of concentrating so much on money and special effects.

Special effects have their place, but give me the human mind and its imaginings. You can’t hire a better special effects machine than that!

Read More

Talent Can't Survive Alone!

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

Let’s face it, it’s glamorous to be on TV, as a host, reporter, narrator, etc. You can’t blame people for wanting the notoriety, the access to “exclusive” people and places and the good living a successful talent can make. But those who aspire to such positions need to realize that the video, audio, lighting and writing of these segments don’t simply get done by themselves.

Along with camera people and video editors are engineers , directors and production assistants. There are also producers who plan segments, making decisions about what a video segment or show is about, etc. These are the people whom on-air talents must depend, no matter how good they are in front of the camera.

I’ve had students and even interns tell me there is no need for them to learn the ropes of video production because “I’m the talent”. These people miss the point! I’ve been in video production since 1979 and I can tell you that the talent who are smart enough to learn the ropes both in front of and behind the camera are those who will be more in control of the segments they do and ultimately more in demand by producers and others in charge of hiring.

The behind-the-scenes people who make talent look good will very appreciative of the talent who understands what they go through for the production and often will go out of their way to make the talent’s job easier. The contrary is also true. Show production people you only care about what you’re doing and don’t appreciate what they do and you can be sure of only minimal cooperation, and in some cases not at all.

There is a lot potential on-air talent must learn if being in front of the camera is their goal. It’s called “paying your dues”. It’s a myth that someone is spotted and hired sight unseen for their looks or voice. Most on-air personalities will also tell you that it took years, many of them working for free or almost-free for them to realize their goal.

Television is a team effort. No one position is indispensable. Everyone depends upon one other, no matter how different their job is from yours or how little you may understand it.

Understand this and you’ll increase your chances of success. Don’t understand it or minimize others contributions to the whole and you’ll see just how hard it is to reach or stay at the top.

Read More

Stretch Your Abilities

by Leonard Aaron Caplan

How many of us non-techies are proficient in the use of certain equipment, especially applications we use daily in creating our projects? Well, we all are if we want to keep our jobs, right? Now, another question. How many of us are experts in these skills? If we're honest, most of us aren't because don't we tend to do just what we need to get the job done? I mean, do YOU know three ways to make a certain effect with Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere when you can just as easily do it one way? And if something out of the ordinary comes up, don't we usually leave it to the techies to explain it to us, ask the question on a video forum or even Google it?

The point is if we're used to doing certain things a certain way then there is very little incentive to change or stretch our abilities. But if we're conscientious and passionate about our work and don't want to repeat ourselves, every once in awhile we'll take a workshop or a class, update our skills and be that much more well-rounded in whatever discipline we're talking about.

Why? Look at it this way. Isn't it better to know all we can about something rather than wait 'til the day when we desperately NEED a skill or technique?

I'm following my own advice and getting out of my comfort zone. Next month, even though I have been teaching Final Cut Pro for eleven years, I'm taking a 3-day workshop in preparation for the Level One Final Cut certification test. This will be beneficial in many ways. First and foremost, I will hopefully be able to avoid one of those "I really need to know how to do that for this project but who do I ask" days. Second, third and fourth, I make myself a more valuable commodity to my company and in the job marketplace should I suddenly find myself looking. What do you think? Have any of you plateaued in your knowledge of a certain application or piece of equipment you work with daily? What did you do or not do about it?

Read More

When is HD taking center stage?

By Leonard A. Caplan

Making the switch from SD to HD is exciting, scary and frustrating with a pinch of accomplishment thrown in. “Exciting” is obvious. We’re moving into an unknown, unexplored realm in which the ultimate result will be an improved product, crystal-clear, sometimes wide-screen video with that “you are there” feeling. “Scary”, because when contemplating buying something you have little or no experience with, it’s easy to make a wrong decision. “Frustrating”, because the search for good equipment can be a long, round-a-bout journey. The accomplishment comes in when all decisions have been made, purchases have occurred, setup and installation are done and you’re up and running!

Having said all that, where do you begin? In my search for new and improved equipment, I always start with people I know who may have bought or used this equipment. As in hiring an employee, word of mouth from trusted sources certainly beats advertisements. After all, how do you trust someone who’s trying to sell you the thing? This is a lot like buying a house and trusting the owner’s building inspector instead of getting your own. Not a smart thing!

The next best thing to someone you know and trust would be online video forums. Ask some questions and see what the response out there is. If more than one person makes a complaint about the same issue, it’s a safe bet that this is a problem! And if it’s a big enough problem, I ain’t buyin'!!

After your friends and online forum buddies are through with their say, you’ve narrowed it down to maybe two or three brand names and models. Rather than taking a chance on simply buying online, why not go to a retailer and give this new HD equipment a test drive? Nothing beats handling a new piece of equipment yourself so you can be the judge! Ask plenty of questions, and make your final decision!

Just think! When you finally have your HD equipment in your arsenal, new harddrives have been bought, as well as other accessories you may need, you’ll be taking your video projects and your business to the next level!

Do you think that HD is finally going to take center stage in the video industry? Or can we squeeze another five or ten years out of the SD equipment we’ve got?

Read More

PCs vs. Macs-Which to Pick for Video Editing?

By Leonard A. Caplan

PC or Mac? This is a question I get most often from “newbie” video enthusiasts. There are a thousand opinions on both sides. This is my take on the subject. If you were a student in my video production class, I would definitely say “Mac” because the studio where I teach is Mac based. It’s a no-brainer that if you’re learning or working in a particular environment to go with that existing platform. If you’re working in a PC environment, it makes sense to get a PC.

But which is better? I’m not one of those people who is dogmatic about computers. I don’t go for the “war” between some PC and Mac users. That being said, let’s objectively compare the features of both. I see the value in both the PC and Mac systems. For the sheer number of applications, the PC is king of every program from car diagnostics to the latest computer video game. If a program for something exists, PCs have it.

Though there are less applications to choose from in Macs, it’s generally acknowledged that Mac based graphics applications are superior to those of PCs.

PCs have problems because of the sheer number of computer viruses out there. Because of this, I have dedicated one of my few studio PCs to being a character generator only machine with no internet connection allowed since it would inevitably slow down the machine in a very short amount of time.

Macs are the clear winner in terms of lack of viruses. Computer mischief makers have geared most viruses to PCs to affect the greatest number of users possible. And most computer users world wide have PCs.

PCs are generally cheaper than Macs and you can pretty much build them from scratch. Macs are customizable mainly when you order them directly from Apple so with the exception of specialty cards and RAM, you’re pretty much stuck with the same Mac you bought.

So which side do I come down on? My particular preference is for Macs, mainly because I am used to Final Cut Pro, available only on a Mac. I picked the Mac and Final Cut Pro for my studio after visiting several colleges and noting that this was the platform and program that they used. My choice was based on the fact that it would be good for high school students planning to enter the world of video to have a head start on editing with the same programs they will use in college.

In a future blog we we’ll talk about PC and Mac editing software. Until then, which do YOU prefer? Write to us and give your opinion!

Read More

TV Exploiting Desperation; Is it Only TV or is it Business in General?

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

Video in all its forms reflects the best of us as well as the worst. One of the more disturbing trends in today’s video is what is known as the “teaser”. In the 1950s, the “teaser” was used sparingly and harmlessly, meaning sitcoms and fictional dramas would produce promos, giving hints as to what and who was on a show without giving away the plot or climax. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, the “teaser” has spread like a virus! You see it in weather promos. They show a massive snowstorm somewhere and a voiceover will say “what are WE in for tomorrow?” and when the actual weathercast comes on, in about 20 minutes you find that the video was from some distant part of the country and that the answer to “what are WE in for tomorrow” turns out to be NOTHING!

Even the news itself isn’t immune to this phenomenon. From the dawn of television and up until the 70s, the likes of Huntley/Brinkley and Walter Cronkite simply read the news and that was that. No nonsense. News was simply a public service, not a show! In the late seventies and into the eighties, teasers began creeping into the news. People noticed and comedians would often joke, “world ends, film at 11”. Today, it’s even worse with newscasters at the beginning of a newscast teasing that “the hours on your cell phone are doing SOMETHING to your head! Find out in a few minutes!” Those “few minutes” often turn into the viewer having to watch the entire newscast and very often the very item you’ve been waiting for (and nervous about because they scared the HELL out of you) turns out to have been cut for time constraints.

The scary thing is how today’s comedians don’t bother joking about it anymore, because we, as an audience seem to have simply accepted it. We’ve accepted that just as we’ve accepted Walgreens putting out Christmas displays in August, Valentine displays when the box containing the just dismantled Christmas decorations isn’t even sealed yet.

All this in the name of money, profit, business. Nothing, it seems is as important as the next sale to be made, of getting that customer to open his/her wallet. Public service, informing the public, consideration, politeness, respect for the consumer/viewer, all this is out the window when it comes to the all mighty dollar.

Read More

What's the Difference Between the Stand-Up and the Sit-Down Interview?

By Leonard Aaron Caplan

In video, what is the difference between shooting a stand-up and a sit-down interview?

First, we’ll state the obvious. The stand-up interview is where the talent, usually on location is standing up. The sit-down interview is usually conducted in a studio with the talent sitting down.

There is just one difference, actually. But we’ll get to that in a moment

Now, what are the similarities? Ok,using one camera, in shooting a stand-up or a sit-down interview the videographer should use an “over-the-shoulder” shot. This is where the cameraperson literally is shooting over the interviewer’s shoulder so when the camera gets zoomed in on the interviewee during a long response, the resulting close-up will be a full-face shot. Otherwise, if the two on-air talents were sitting horizontally from each other in a straight line and the one camera is exactly between them, any zooming in on either one of the talents would result in profile shots of each of them.

Also, in both stand-up and sit-down interviews, the camera should be the same height as both talents. If the camera is higher than the two talents, the talents will appear to be weaker, less powerful, more insignificant. If the camera is lower than the subjects, the opposite effect will occur; they will appear more powerful, more important than the audience watching them. So unless you are going for a dramatic effect either way, stay away from camera heights that vary one way or the other from the heights of the talents being shot.

So IS there a difference between shooting a stand-up interview and a sit-down one? Yes. It is simply the choice of microphones for each. In a stand-up interview, there is often little time and a lot of movement by not only the talent but by others who might be nearby. A microphone is needed that is durable and not vulnerable to any unexpected actions of anyone at the location.

For a sit-down interview, there is often more time and luxury to be able to clip on a mic that won’t be so noticeable to the viewer. Therefore a clip-on or lavalier mic is used because this is a more controlled atmosphere.

Obviously there is a time and place for both styles of interviews. It is up to the videographer to have the knowledge and experience to know when and why to pick one or the other.

Read More

Transferring Video from Tape to DVD

by Leonard Aaron Caplan

If your family is like most, you have a closet, attic or basement full of old VHS tapes. These are bulky, probably unlabelled and take up a lot of unnecessary space! You can solve not one, but TWO problems by transferring your old videotapes to DVD. 1. You can store DVDS in a fraction of the space those tapes take up. 2. While you’re transferring your tapes, watch them and make your ID labels for your DVDs.

There are a few ways you can do this. If you’re unsure or know nothing about technology, you can look in the phonebook or on the Internet for companies that either specialize in this or offer it as just one of their many services. If you’re not afraid of connecting wires, you can buy a DVD recorder, some blank DVDs and maybe even a label printing kit to not only identify each DVD but to give your collection a more professional feel!

Everybody asks what the difference is between DVD+R and DVD-R. I could go into a long explanation, but the bottom-line is both are about equally as compatible with standard DVD players. So buy the recorder that fits your pocketbook.

People say that DVD will one day be replaced by some other format that can fit more than 4.7 gigs of video information. Don’t let this stop you from making your tape to DVD transfers. As years pass, videotapes age and deteriorate. In my own collection, some of the tapes have lines through them and tracking problems. Don’t let indecision and speculation about what new formats MAY come along in the future stop you from preserving your collection! The truth is once your tapes are on DVD they will be in a digital format. Future formats are surely going to be digital so it should be a simple matter to transfer them from DVD to whatever they may turn out to be. Oxydation and time are your videotape collection’s greatest enemies. Act now and preserve your “forever” memories!

Read More

Microphones, Microphones, Microphones!

by Leonard Aaron Caplan

Microphones! Without them what would we have? Silent movies! Ok, so most camcorders have mics. We know that. But microphones are as different from each other as Coakley from Brown (a soon-to-be dated reference but it’s funny now) ! The first thing I tell people about mics is that the built in camcorder mic is tinny, noisy, low quality, horrible, GARBAGE! Ok, you get the idea, I don’t like them.

Why? The built in camera mic is usually omnidirectional, meaning it picks up everything around it, the sound wave being received in a 360 degree circle. The result is if someone’s speaking and a couple of other people are in the area you’re shooting in and they’re murmuring, the murmuring is likely to be recorded just as loudly as the voice you’re trying to get!

The ideal when someone is speaking is to put a lavalier mic on them. This is a clip-on mic that the person actually wears which is mostly hidden on their clothes. The next best thing for great sound quality is a stic mic, also known as a hand held mic. On location, news reporters use these for person-in-the-street interviews or other situations when there’s just no time to clip a lavalier on someone.

Now, what do you do when you can’t get close enough to a person to put a lavalier mic or shove a stic mic in their face? Here I’m talking about plays, dramas, comedies, situations where lots of people may be talking and responding to each other. This is when you use the “boom” or “shotgun” mic. Sometimes mounted on a camcorder “shoe” (on top of a camcorder), more often (and with more success) on a “boom” pole that can extend 10 feet or more and held by a “boom” operator, a shotgun or boom does the same thing as all the other aforementioned mics do. It draws the viewer/listener deeper into the video by providing crisp, clear sound!

Audio can make or break your project. Which video are you going to follow; the wedding from a camcorder that allows you to hear every word of the wedding vows, plus all the “I dos”, emotional statements of the bride and groom, or the one that despite its great camerawork, simply uses a built in mic that lets you hear nothing but crowd noise, the clattering of plates in the next room as the reception dinner is being set up and the inevitable crying baby? Weddings or commercials, industrials or political ads, great audio helps make a great video. Use an external mic! ANYTHING but the built in one!!!

Read More

Consumer, Industrial, Professional Video: What's the Difference?

Leonard Aaron Caplan


You’re a video enthusiast and you’re actually thinking of getting into “the business”. But before you make this important decision, you must realize exactly what you’re getting
into. Do you want to shoot video of the family? Friends? Do you want to make TV
shows? If so, are you interested in local TV, The web? Statewide? National TV? What
type of TV shows do you want to make? Fiction? Reality TV? Or are you interested in
event video? Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs? Quinceaneros? What equipment will you need? What can you afford? Do you want to do this full time or part-time? Can you make your living in TV?

Most or maybe even all of these questions can be answered by learning about the
three categories of video equipment ; consumer, industrial and broadcast.
The average person has what we call consumer equipment. Handheld camcorders (or
(smaller) for $200. Or less, that may be harddrive based or use mini-DV tape. The
microphone is built-in to the camera and if a tripod is used at all, it is extremely
lightweight and not too reliable. the cheaper camcorders have lower video quality, are
less good in low-light situations, and the on-board video light won’t make an appreciable
difference. You’d be using this type of equipment for family videos, vacations and
clowning around with friends. Nothing serious.

Industrial equipment is a step up from consumer. A three chip camcorder with a
harddrive, DVD or mini-DV tape typically costs about $800 and up. External
microphones such as a “shotgun” mic, stic mic and lavalier (clip-on) mic are used
For better sound quality. Sturdy tripods and dollys make for smooth mobility. Three point
lighting and small, professional light kits are also used for better quality. Cable TV
shows, cheaper commercials and in-house “industrial” (hence the name of this level of
equipment) is used. Professional video equipment features video cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars, professional sound equipment comparable to recording studios, complex
light grids, etc. This type of equipment is usually unaffordable for most people and
small companies. Reality shows, network TV shows news and national sports
use this type of equipment.

There you have it; consumer, industrial and professional video equipment represent
three levels of increasingly expensive, complex and professional video production.

Read More