Why Are You Yelling At Me!

Maybe I’m the only person annoyed by announcers screaming at me.  I don’t think that’s the case but I don’t hear anyone complaining.  It makes me wonder if this is just an age thing.  I wouldn’t think so, I mean, among millennials, parents yelling could be considered child abuse so that demo must be attuned to yelling and its ill effects.

There was a time (What?  You want “once upon a time”? “It was a dark and stormy night?”) when announcers were trained to speak with their audience(s).  The thinking was that he/she was a guest in the home of the viewer and that he/she should be conversational – talking like a friend.

I can recall live commercials in all sorts of shows from Ed Sullivan to Milton Berle to Playhouse 90 and GE Theater.  In those commercials, the announcers actually did behave like friends.  You can go back and search for “cast commercials” to watch a few.

The best example I can find is an episode of GE Theater where Don Herbert, aka Mr. Wizard, is doing a sort of commercial demonstrating the development of General Electric jet engines.  Even through the noise, Herbert is conversational in nature, talking with the viewer instead of at us. You felt like he was a friend.

https://archive.org/details/GeneralElectricTheaterCommitted
(16:10 In)

Fast forward to today and what the heck happened?  Was it Billy Mays?  Did his screaming/yelping so bake his infomercials into viewers’ minds that standing out by being annoying became a requirement for any commercial?

Was it that the commercial had to be louder than anything around it?  There’s a lot to that.  And, of course, that led to The CALM act – legislation against the laws of physics and psychoacoustics.

Here’s the funny thing – it’s possible to yell softly.  I’m talking about the type of yelling where the talent speaks in an overly loud manner then his/her level is controlled so that it’s within FCC modulation limits If the level is controlled, how do we know that someone is yelling?¹   Without going into great detail, the larynx develops different levels and ratios of fundamental and harmonic tones depending on the amount of air being pushed past.  It’s the same as overblowing a horn The harmonics can get heavy and rough so that yelling gives a far different takeaway to the viewer than normal conversation.

Bottom line, yelling often makes the listener think you are angry at him/her.  And that said, why would I want to make someone angry while I’m telling him/her something I want to be believed? 
I want to take this one step further.  I sense this type of delivery in other “to-camera” presentations, too.  Newscasters.  Standups.  Sportscasters.  Sportscasters.  And did I say sportscasters?

I have a theory about why.  At one time, television worked with some pretty wide lenses.  (I saw that eyebrow go up…but hang with me.)  We did it for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the dolly.  A move on a long lens often put shake in the image as the pedestal rolled across the floor.  That meant using wider lenses so the cameras could make hot dollies.

Enter the zoom lens.  Dolly is out, zoom is in.  Why should they dolly?²  Instead, the cameras are parked – sometimes even locked off – in positions that produce a pleasing perspective, reduce the chance of shooting off the set, keep the cameras at a distance that would allow equipment and cables to pass in front, lessen the visible motion of the presenter’s eyes when reading a prompter, and otherwise satisfy the set designer’s vision.

If you look at some of the productions, it’s obvious that the camera is back and zoomed in for the proper framing rather than set up close and zoomed back.³  It’s usually a pretty long distance.  So, what happens?  The presenter is imagining that he/she is talking to someone 15 or more feet away.  That presenter doesn’t think about that lapel/lav/boom mic that’s, at most, a couple of feet away, tucked nicely out of frame.

The psychological effect on the presenter is that he/she tries to do his/her best to communicate to that imaginary viewer behind the lens – a long distance away.  The voice becomes strident and loud and becomes unfriendly.  Friendly or not, it’s not the least bit inviting.

If you want to prove it to yourself, first look at dramatic dialog and commercial breaks with the CALM Act in place.  When two actors are a foot apart, talking to one another, the voice characteristics are such that the laws of congress get blown away by the laws of physics.  If, by chance, the segue to a commercial break is to a standup presenter,that presenter will sound louder, dialnorm, BS1770, be damned.

If you listen to that same commercial running in a newscast, the level is probably indistinguishable from the preceding presenter’s delivery.  Go figure, eh?

What to do about it?  Well we could do nothing.  I mean, who cares how people feel about a presenter or product on a subliminal level?  We could keep in mind camera distance and work with presenters – of which there are many more and most with little real education about audio – to get them to talk in a more conversational tone.  Talking more conversationally won’t lower the station’s modulation level; you’ll still be as loud as before but with a smile rather than a frown.  It might even move an additional 2012 Honda Civic off the lot or attract a couple more viewers to a newscast. 
Just sayin’.

 ¹ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140506094441.htm

² If you don’t know the difference between a zoom and dolly, check this   https://youtu.be/AKOxbCx1LNc

³If you start with that “perspective distortion of wide lenses", we’re going to get into it.

In Memoriam, Robin Williams

Some things are real shockers.  Some passings are that way.  Definitely the case with Robin Williams.  From standup to Mork & Mindy on through dramatic, comedic, standup.  I don't think I ever watched him and didn't laugh. 

 

There was an adlib-off with Jonathan Winters that I think caused my hernia.  He did a piece about golf that hit me right between the pot bunkers.  By and large I think I got more laughs per minute from Robin Williams than any other performer.

 

Got to interview him one time - at the Sonoma Valley Film Festival.  The event is a nexus of film, wine and food.  He had some great comments and, of course, I couldn't help but laugh while stuffing a mic in his face.  He was totally approachable, completely willing to take a topic - any topic - and run with it.

 

He left with so much work awaiting his talent...so many laughs and smiles yet to be generated.  For that he truly will be missed.

 

Mr. Williams, thank you for everything you've given us all.  I don't know what else to say.  I'm saddened and we will all be a little less happy without you.

 

 

 

 



This Time, It's Political - Well...

As a Libra, I feel very strongly both ways on everything.  So, it's tough in the voting booth.  I'm troubled by the image of my mother-in-law going over a cliff in my new Benz.  And Shrodinger's cat gives me fits.

 

Aside:  Heisenberg and Shrodinger are driving down a road and a policeman pull them over.

 

"Do you know how fast you were going?" asked the cop of Heisenberg.

 

"No, but I can tell you where I've been and where I'm headed."

 

The cop noses around a bit and asks Heisenberg to pop the trunk.  The cop opens a box in the back.  "Hey, do you know you got a dead cat in here?"

 

And Shrodinger responds, "Well, I do NOW!."

 

OK, put that away.  I want to talk about politicians' websites.  I'll start with a simple question to the pols:  "What's the matter with you?"

 

This time the shoe's on the other foot.  People are lying to you!  Those fine men and women in your communications department are telling you that the Internet and social media are mass media. 

 

My fellow Americans, they aren't.  And the fact that you think they are shows your A) gullibility, B) arrogance, C) lack of attention, and/or D) usual willingness to take the easy way out.*

 

Listen up.  New media are one-to-one (1:1) that's you-to-him or you-to-her media.  Ya got that, McFly?  What a phenomenal opportunity to you to talk to someone and let them know that you hear him or her (I refuse to use the plural pronoun, it's one-to-one!) and to communicate with them at that level.

 

Wow!  I see the wheels turning in those narrow minds..."Hey, I can give a different answer to each correspondent." 

 

No you can't!  Well, you can but we constituents aren't quite as stupid as you think.  And we do talk to one another.  But that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Responding to a constituent's email or a post on Facebook is as personal as a handshake or a smile with eye contact.  It's a chance to connect.  And what do you do?  You have an aid or lackey select one of your prepared responses (based on the subject you force someone to pick) and send it in return, often days or weeks later.

 

How do I know?  I've checked out so many pols' sites that I'm nearly cross-eyed.  I've either submitted comments or questions or asked someone in their state/district to do so (for all those office holders who obviously plan to go no higher in politics so don't want to hear from - or respond to - anyone but their constituents.)

Courtesy Majix

Think about email.  Someone took the time to write to you individually.  To ask you a question or tell you how he or she feels about something.  It's tantamount to someone calling you by name and you saying, "Hi there."  What makes it really bad is that you choose to do that.

.

Now ask, how would someone feel if they got a note back that said, "Bill (Jeannie, Tom, Cucuzza, whatever), thanks for your note on the issue with the Department of Education."  Then make a specific reference and respond to his/her question with an answer.  No soft shoe, an answer.  And keep this in mind:  If, as they say, all politics is local, how can you localize your response for that particular person.

 

It might get you another vote.  With regard to that, I'm sure someone in your campaign has calculated the cost of a vote.  Simplest way?  How much did you spend and how many votes did you get.  You know that. Now do the math on the cost of responding.  Cheap, isn't it.  So, will you do it?  Think about it?  Yeah, I doubt it too.  Then again, if your opponent does..."

 

As for Facebook, if you want to be a propaganda machine, go ahead.  People will see it as that.  Can you afford to allow negative posts on your page?  Take a real look in that narcissistic reflecting pool and ask yourself why you shouldn't.  Are you a bad representative?  Bad legislator?  Wrong end of an idea because it serves you personally?  Is it really all about you?   Unfortunately, I know the answer to that one.

 

Twitter:  There is no better way to step in it than Twitter. Quips will be taken out of context. There is no context except with other sources.  There.  Did it in under 140 characters.

   

Now, on to your websites.  A couple of you have at least figured that part out. 

 

Visitors care less about your self aggrandizement and more about what affects them.  Pix of you at a bill signing?  Hint:  It's about the bill. On that very first page, give people information.  Give 'em a choice of finding out more about a number of things that might interest them.  Hey, if some of them link to a page where you are explaining the bill/movement/concern/expense/tax, that'd be great.  But many of those I've seen fall short.  Not because they have bad information but for two other reasons.  The first is the I, I, I POV that, like a lot of pix, makes it more about you than the topic. 

 

The second (Gonna get a little McLuhanish on you here) is production.  I see too many where you think you're giving a speech. Remember that 1:1 thing?  You're sitting just across the table or desk or kitchen counter with the viewer.  And he/she has lots to do. 

Get their attention, make the eye (lens) contact, and speak conversationally.  It is exactly that.  A conversation.  You do all the talking without listening; nothing new about that. (Couldn't resist)

 

Also in the production realm, I see a lot of shots that seem set up with the camera at a distance and zoomed in.  Maybe that's to keep from exposing too much of the background.  But that perspective puts distance between you and the viewer.  It's colder and if you're speaking conversationally, it fights with that aural perspective.  It's that inscrutable psychological stuff.

 

I have the feeling that none of this will be heeded since you're all a lot smarter than any of your voters.  But, what the heck. I learned a lot researching and had fun writing it.

 

"If I'm wrong, nothing happens! We go to jail - peacefully, quietly. We'll enjoy it! But if I'm right, and we can stop this thing... Lenny, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters." - Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ghostbusters

 

*Many of you ingrates fall into all four categories.

Everyone Wants to Be Normal

I ran into the whole "normalization" thing 10 or 12 years ago. We were working with a major IT company whose expertise we obtained in exchange for our licensing a bunch of rights to them.

We were in the early days of web audio.

As a quality facility, we supplied materials with the expected/required/proper audio and video levels. Nonetheless, we got our first bill - well, it was a deduction from the credit we had for licensing - and it included "Audio Normalizing." 

"We sent you abnormal audio?" I asked, imagining Gene Wilder saying it.

"I don't know," was the response.

"But we were charged for normalizing."

"Well, yes, all audio sent through our group is normalized. That way the levels are constant."

"But what if they're already constant?"

"Doesn't matter. Normalizing ensures it." Then he went into at best a poor explanation of digitization."

That exchange told me they were taking us were back to the wild west again. Like a dorm room carrier current station running unbalanced audio that was all over the place. And, sure enough, that's what their group usually saw. Of course, at that time, a lot of untrained folks bought camcorders and jumped into the business and there lay the problem.

But I hear it now, too - a lot! "Don't worry about the levels; I'll normalize them later."

Makes me reel every time. Also sends me back 40+ years to, "Don't worry about the levels. StaLevel® will catch 'em."

OK. I could say to consider normalization an indictment of sloppy operation. But when I hear someone say they want to normalize, I indict their ears.

Huh?

First, let me say, yes, I know, (oxymoron alert!) "good normalization" involves a more complex algorithm than simple gain adjustment or compression and expansion. But think about two things:

1. Once you get to digital, the mathematics of the process can yield numbers that can't be fully quantified. That is, when the process boosts a section by, say, 2.6dB, a lot of those new numbers don't fall into the exact level of the 16 or 24 bits assigned. Hey, McFly. That's distortion. Might be bad, might be inaudible. But it's there. Some ratios are worse than others. But you can be sure something's there.

2. As smart as normalization might be, it can't (yet) decide how to normalize in certain situations. Dialog, for example - dialog where one line steps on another. Record that with one person about 6 dB below the other. Normalize it and listen. Did a pretty good job, eh? Listen again - to the tails of each line - the parts stepped on. Big change. Did you want that? Normalize a single part or thread and, except for number 1 above, it functions fairly well. Normalize multiple parts already mixed and you get, well, number 2.

Recommendation: just watch the doggoned levels. Get it right in the recording. Your mix will be a lot easier, it'll all be audible, and you won't have to normalize.

Do you Care What's Comin' Out the Other End?

Most of us in this crazy thing we try to call a business work on delivering video, audio, and their related emotions to remote locations.  I’ve talked about production values and their influence on the overall message but I want to talk about receiver locations and guessing – guessing on those locations, the ones of our followers, then guessing on their moods, their friends, viewing/listening conditions, time of day, even their blood alcohol levels.

Yeah, you gotta guess about it all because, somehow, you have to use it to calibrate your thinking.  What am I talking about here?  OK, here’s the “duh” version.  Valentine’s Day.  What content do you offer.  Go for the goulish?  Ripping hearts out and roasting them on a Smokey Joe™?  I don’t think so.

Now, if you start paring it down, you get more granular.  (Is that the department of redundancy department?)  You start asking about which love story to tell.  Or about which love song to play.   Then you ask about timing.  You think about followers as individuals as opposed to this monolithic group, all with the same feelings.

The bottom line is, you can try to figure out your audience really is – make that are.  You create an average and shoot for that.  You can treat them as individuals, too.  But if you don’t have separate channels to deliver different versions to each individual, you’re kinda stuck.

Sometimes you luck out.  You can upload for Youtube, Hulu, Brightcove and others along with MP4, H264 and WMV players.  Then you can offer additional versions for iPhones, Android phones, and, hey, if you wanna, broadcast TV.  NBC Sports and The NFL are taking a big leap by offering the Superbowl online for the first time.

In doing so, they’ve recognized that they have different channels…and they’re delivering content tailored to each medium and, in some cases, to specific devices.  Son-of-a-gun.  They broke the code.  The found out they could deliver different messages and they’re doing it.  It caters directly to their audiences.  Note the plural.  The rabid fan will have multiple screens open alongside the broadcast.  Heck, so will the rabid gambler, but you didn’t read that here.  But the point is that they’re offering multiple angles, replays, facts, stats and sideline views – if you want them.  Cannibalize the broadcast feed?  No way.

Of course, not every event has all of those channels to the viewer.  You can open them but the cost may be prohibitive.  In these cases, you just have to guess at what’s out there because there’s only one medium and one channel reaching your audience.

Flashback:  once upon a time, I had a phenomenal idea.  I mean brilliant!  I sure thought so and I convinced my boss and his boss that it was.  We’d do research to find out what preferences viewers had in adjusting their television sets.  (Yes.  We called them television sets.)  The plan was that we’d find out what they did to “misadjust” their sets and we’d predistort our audio and video in the other direction.  That way, our products – these were commercials – would appear as they should on the screen.

Well, we actually did some research.  At a fine little strip mall in Bloomingdale, IL, we found out that, at least in our slice of the world, people adjusted their television sets way around to the red and with much too much saturation.  It may have been the “Hey, I paid for color, I’m watching color,” thinking along with the dislike of the green component in flesh tones (and that’s not just Caucasian…green seems to be objectionable to viewers in just about all skin colors.  Martians, feel free to take issue) but that’s what we found.  And on the audio side, we found what nearly anyone drawn to this writing would guess – the smiling equalizer…boosted lows and highs with the midrange down about 6-9dB compared to either end.

And the plan?  Well, that should be pretty evident.  Rotate all of our materials around to the green (we figured about 15 degrees.)  Back down the saturation about 10 percent.  Then re-EQ the audio to a frown so that the receiver’s “smile” yielded an overall flat line.

Anyone see the problem yet?  Fortunately, my boss and I figured it out before we went any further…if people want more red, they want more red – in everything.  Including their corn flakes package.  Including their double cheeseburger.  If they wanted lots of highs and lows in the audio, well, they wanted it.
 
So what do you do?  You may have your own ideas…I’d love to hear them.  Mine is, shoot it “normal”, edit it “normal”, distribute it “normal”.  If Mary Elizabeth Dudenclaber decides she wants more red, let her add it.  If she wants green, let her have that, too.  It’s her call.  At the same time, you still have to think.  Old folks will remember “the day” when nothing went out without looking at it on a black & white monitor.  And most places still listen to a mono mix before releasing the content.  That translates to thinking ahead about viewer/listener conditions. 

Bottom line is, you have to know your audience and know your channels.  So many possibilities.  You put it out there in 1080i, full bandwidth. Top notch quality.  Twenty percent of the people are watching on receivers that can handle it, directly off air.  Another 40 percent are watching on cable.  Your 1080i is transcoded to 720i and is being pushed through a bunch of cable as a QAM signal where, at the receiver end, 80 percent of that 40 percent (32 percent for those of you in East Bumquat) feed the signal to a cable box and the rest feed to an integral receiver card or other processor.  And don’t forget the issues created by writing to a DVR’s hard disc and then playing it back.  Then there’s the group of satellite…and on I go covering all the ways of delivering.  Downconverted, upconverted, 16:9, 4:3, limited, “calmed”, 8VSB, QAM, NTSC, you name it.  Don’t forget cell phones, PDA’s and Youtube.  And it’s not just the end format, it’s everything that goofy set of numbers had to go through to get to the viewing screen.

So give it all some thought.  In many cases, You Don’t Know.  But if you do a little digging and thinking, you might figure it out.  If you know your audience, know their preferences and their preferred channels and modes, then you can try to match their preferences.  But don’t leave the color bar chart at home.

Production Values

I’ve been giving presentations to various clients, organizations and civic groups for a number of years.  When I talk about content, my stunner – the one I hope is the takeaway for attendees is – “Nobody cares what kind of car brings their pizza.  They care about the taste of the pizza.”

And the translation?  Pretty simple.  Content is still king.  Delivery method doesn’t matter.  It’s that simple.  But, just for a second, I want to take it one step further.  I want to tie content to emotion.  I’m kidding, right? 

I can’t imagine why you’d think that.  Content usually begets emotion.  You see a news report about a theft or kidnapping and it evokes emotions.  Will kisses Alicia in the office and you have feelings about it.  Chris Rock lays a one-liner out there and everyone watching laughs.  Content brings emotion.  Uh, it’s not a McLuhanism.  It just is a fact.

Please!  Take one step backward and ask, as a producer/director/writer, what’s the goal?  To tell a story and trigger the desired emotional response(s)?  It’s true of fiction.  True in a lot of other places, too.  Not sports?  You bet, it is.  The excitement of a runback or two base hit into the vines; inbounding for a three-pointer with seconds left on the clock – all immediately generate feelings in the listener or viewer. 

In fact, sometimes it’s all about emotion.  I recall one sportscaster who couldn’t see Stuart Appleby on the screen without dredging up the tragedy that he experienced in his wife’s death.  That went on for years.

However, what a lot of folks don’t realize is that it takes a lot of elements working together to bring about the intended feelings…and a number of things get in the way.  Top of the list?   Production values.

Aw, Len, you’ve got to be kidding.  Just objectively tell the story and let the feelings generate themselves.  Oh yeah.  Right.  Just like pro sports expansions, the proliferation of video tools to just about everyone has diluted the production gene pool.

Now who’s kidding whom?  Telling the story is an art and the sum total of the aural and visual content generates the feeling.  Remember Mom or Dad telling a Halloween story…and their eyes got bigger, their voice became more urgent as the monster got closer? 

Well, by and large, production values have been forsaken.  Or have they just never been learned.  When the cost of entry to the production world was high and therefore limited the number of producers, directors, editors, scorers and the rest, there was commitment to telling the story.   The limited number of stories, then, meant a higher number of viewers/users of any single show/film/event.  Don’t agree?  Just look at the difference in the definition of a network “hit” in 1992 and twenty years later.  A six rating wouldn’t have lasted to the second commercial break in ’92.

The point here is that is that the fewer number of programs and greater number of viewers for each generated – or paid back – more production dollars.  That, in turn allowed for better production values.  NOT!  The values are still around.  They may be built into the switcher or step printer or the faders of an audio board.  The problem is the paucity of people who know coax those values out of the gear.  And that IS caused by the low cost of entry.

Anyone with a few, and I mean really few bucks can get a video camera of sorts and become a producer.  With youtube.com and break.com, you’re even a distributor.  But, by and large, you’re really not a producer.   You’re a, uh, let’s call you an “objective content generator.”  Your camera looks at a scene or person and you press a button to capture it.  The scene tells the story as best it can, with no help from you.   But you’re not creating or encouraging any emotions.  You’re letting the field-of-view do that.  And you’re doing nothing to help out.

Look.  If you’re a news stringer, pay no attention to what I just said.  We need more reporters who let the camera tell the story and don’t try to shoehorn in a political, religious or other emotional point of view.  Tell the damn story with facts.  Of course, even that can be tampered with.  In the distant past of grad school, a partner and I took footage of a major riot and cut it two ways…one pro-police and one pro-demonstrator.  Both were totally plausible and would have easily been broadcast as actualities.  Both were lies. 

And it’s troubling when I read quotes like SVP at Associated Press Daisy Veerasingham saying, “We are getting onto story-telling.  Just turning the camera doesn’t work in the 21st century.  Our subscribers and their viewers want informed narrative--and we will provide it.” What’s an informed narrative?  Does that mean a slant, angle, or coloration?  That’s for another blog.

Back to production values…I’ve seen a gang of content in the last couple of years.  A lot of it, decent.   Some really good.  The greatest percentage was just plain poor.

How so?  Well, start with framing and camera moves.  Let me be brief:

• What’s the center of interest?  Make it the center of interest!
• Effects for effects’ sake?  Why?  Don’t you have a story to tell?
• Lighting has, by and large, become available light.  Throw in the occasional LED on-camera lamp (don’t use the balancing filter indoors…it’s way too much fun watching someone’s face turn from red to blue as they move from the camera luminaire into the coverage of a house lamp) and you’re done.
• Enuf with the verite`.  Handheld to be cool really isn’t.  If it’s important to the situation, great but usually it’s not.
• Transitions?  At least make them fit what you’re trying to do.  Psychologically, a dissolve really does translate to a passage of time.  Argue that it’s conditioning if you’d like, but it works.

Whines:

Center of interest?  I frame everything just the way I want it.  Center of interest doesn’t just mean framing.  It’s contextual.  From a framing standpoint, of course center of interest means to include what you want the audience to see in order to tell the visual story you want to tell.  There’s more to center of interest.  New Year’s Eve.  The center of interest?  C’mon.  It ain’t tough.  What’s the center of interest? 

How ‘bout the countdown to the new year.  Yet at least one production – a BIG one – dumped the countdown most of the time, choosing instead to show full screen promotions for their owned properties…vacation spots, television shows…plush animals…you name it.  Between those and commercials, the countdown was on screen for less than seven minutes from 11:30 to Midnight.  (Yeah – I put a clock on it.  Don’t DVR’s really honk you off?)  Oops.  They missed the point of why they were there.

But I don’t have time for transitions.  NFL playoff game.  Fast cutting to keep up with the plays, the players, action on the sidelines.  Suddenly, after a touchdown, there’s a closeup on the football resting on the tee.  In a fast but absolutely beautiful move, there’s a defocus and dissolve to an MCU of the placekicker.  It was perfect.  Told a great story.  More importantly, I didn’t even realize it.  I was another 30 seconds into the game before I told myself that I needed to go back and look at it.  A production element that added to the excitement and tension of the game, didn’t get in the way of it, and was executed under about as much production pressure as you’ll find.

Audio: I’ve long given up on a seamless network rejoin or backtimed audio up to the hour.  Same with commercial breaks.  Up- and down-cutting is now de rigueur and, I suppose advertisers understand. Maybe they just build it into the buy.  They must because they’re allowing it to happen.  Silly me – I think about the emotional carryover (wait…now he’s REALLY BSing me) of a down-cut.  Does anyone think less of the Vegematic® because the spot was down cut?  Maybe not.  Does anyone think less of an expensive washer or dryer or automobile?  Underneath it all, maybe!  Hello, Kenmore…are you listening?  And, apparently they accept loss of lip sync, too, though if they did any research on how loss of sync affects credibility, they’d be crowing to every network ops manager in the business.

And when was the last time the VU meter hit zero?  I mean the “zero” on the left, not 0dBm.  I watched a radio program guy fool with his automation system for over an hour trying to butt up his network news join with the local ID.  He finally succeeded in smashing them together, no breaths, no nothing.  A different PD gave me an explanation – they use so much heavy compression that if there’s any dead air (to him a few milliseconds was dead air) the recovery would bring the noise level up to unacceptable levels.  Anyone else see the problem here?

Remember as you employ any of these that the production values you approve may get in the way of what you’re trying to say.  That hurts advertisers.  It may drive listeners or viewers away.  That hurts YOU.  And, more importantly, at least give passing thought to production values at all levels.  Even with that little handicam, it’s possible to reposition, reframe or reblock and tell a better (meaning one that’s more like the one you want to tell) story.  Move a light or turn one on…or off!  It might just get your point across in a stronger way and to more of your viewers.  Isn’t that what you’re after?

...it Makes Everyone a PRO.

Today's gear - hardware and software - makes everyone a pro, right? At least that's what the marketing for manufacturers of most cameras, workflow systems, storage systems and editing software will tell you. My take is a little different: Today's gear makes everyone an amateur. Yeah, a pretty broad brush, but look around. Watch a network or cable channel - see if they can go a half hour with an on-air refocus, accidental zoom, jump cut, closed mic...good luck. I know, I know: look at what's going on on the screen. So much that it's impossible for a production team to manage it all. Well, nobody cares about that part. They care about the content. That's another interesting point: if it is about the content, the way it's presented, production warts and all, shouldn't matter. Maybe so, but does that mean we should all sink to the amateur level just because that clip fed via satellite phone has such poor resolution? Or should we be trying a little harder to up the quality of production. An industry friend called awhile back and asked me for a definition. "What does 'broadcast quality' mean?" I don't have an answer anymore. It is about the content and if that means a YouTube clip makes it to air, fine. But if that clip is surrounded by sloppiness, well, that's not quite so good. But how to define broadcast quality? It's impossible. What to do? How about paying a little more attention to quality. Many techs I know will bust their hump to wring an additional 2 kilohertz of audio response out of a device - if you let them. Most editors will gladly work through a jump cut if they can. They have the pride. It'd be great if that ethic were more pervasive. Then it might be true - the amateurs may really try to emulate the quality that pros put out. Hey! It could happen.