Video for Improv - and why I'm sick of this 40 hour marathon

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » July 5th, 2009, 6:23 pm

Video for Improv:

1) Don't use copyrighted music. It doesn't prevent you from putting stuff up on YouTube, or sending it to festivals, but it -does- mean that the work can't be resold as a DVD or online download. Licencing music isn't an option. Trust me, it would be easier to literally throw out the tape and record a new show than it would be to get licencing for music. Maybe the theatres need to invest in buyout music.

2) Audio is much more important than video. You want the microphone to be as close as possible to the stage. Some people use shotgun microphones on stands, other people use portable recorders and synchronize in post, though that creates a lot more work. Either way, the microphone should not be touched, should not be kicked, and should be out of the way of everything before you start recording.

3) For most cameras, the stage lights will be too bright without dialing down the exposure. Of course, if you dial down the exposure, then what you're ending up with is any place not directly hit by the light as underexposed. This is especially true for spots, for colored lights, etc. "Mood lighting" may work well for the stage, but for video, you want to not vary lighting very much at all.

4) The cameraman needs to test Exposure and Focus. If you only give the cameraman 20 minutes to set up (for example, recording a 6:00 show when he gets off work at 5:00...) you're going to get a 'best guess' as to those things. It'll usually suck.

The best way to test exposure is to have someone On stage, standing there, and moving to the front of the stage, back of the stage, and wings, to make sure that the video isn't blown out when you move in the front, and isn't blown out when you move in the back.

This is also very important because you can't use autofocus on an Improv show without getting a "shifting focus" effect every time you bring the lights down. It's distracting. So the best bet is to use Manual focus. The problem with this is that if you move toward or away from the camera, you can end up out of focus. So you deal with that by increasing the depth of focus (or Depth of Field) so that the entire stage is in focus. But the way to do that? You have to close the aperture, which means more light gets in, which means it affects exposure.

Again - the best way to do all this is to have someone on stage.

5) The cameraman needs to test audio levels, as well. It's best if you have everyone in the improv group there, because you all have different voice levels, and you are all different heights, and sometimes you move around.

6) The cameraman needs to test framing. If you're going to be using a part of the stage you rarely ever use (for example, the stage right alcove used in This Week Tonight, Start Trekkin, and Ka-Baam) please let the cameraman know so that he gets it in frame. Same deal if you're going to be moving to the audience.

7) Finally, Time: It takes a cameraperson 20 minutes at home to pack everything up and make sure all the equipment is there, and secure. Then there's travel time, which, especially for the Hideout, means carrying the equipment down Congress.

Then there's setup time, which SHOULD take an hour, but usually the cameraman is rushed, and has to do it all in 20 minutes.

At that point, recording begins, which is all the troupe actually 'sees.' That's the 1 hour show.

It takes about a half hour to break down the equipment. (One of the reasons it takes 20 minutes to pack everything up at home is because you're already attaching pieces for quicker setup at the shooting site itself.)

Then there's transfer time, which is a 1:1 ratio for tape, but since I moved to digital, it's merely a 3:1 ratio now... so the hour show takes 20 minutes of transfer time.

Editing: It's hard to tell, because it's different for each project, but a general rule of thumb is that each hour of filming takes about 2 hours to edit. That's just editing, mind.

Mastering: I usually create a master file at high quality for each video. This master file is what I use to create everything else - so that if you want a DVD, you can have it, if you want to put it on YouTube, you can have that - so that it's ready to go in multiple formats.

It usually takes 2 hours to master a video for every hour of footage.

Rendering: If you want YouTube, it used to take 4 hours to create a YouTube quality video, but since I spent $300 on a graphics card, I can now do rendering at a 1:1 ratio for YouTube. But for each different type of rendering, it takes another hour. So if you want copies at 1080p (for the future), 720p (for YouTube) and 480p (DVD quality) that's three hours. I'm glad I spent that money for the graphics card, because otherwise it would have taken 12.

Authoring: If you want DVDs, that graphics card doesn't enter into it; and in fact, Authoring the DVDs can be much, much, much slower than rendering the high definition stuff for YouTube. For every 1 hour of footage, you're talking 3 hours of authoring.

So, let's do some math.

For a 1 hour show, there's:

20 minutes packing
+ 30 minutes traveling
+ 1 hour setting up (though often rushed for 20 minutes)
+ 1 hour recording
+ 30 minutes breaking down
+ 20 minutes transfer time
+ 2 hours editing
+ 2 hours mastering
+ 1 hour rendering for each type of Internet file]
+ 3 hours DVD authoring.

All total, that hour-long show takes the camera guy about 11 hours. Now, to be fair, 6 of those hours are rendering, which means that only 5 of those hours, but while it's rendering, I can't use the computer on other projects.

-----------

And this, I think, is the cause of my frustration. When you do an hour improv show - to you, that's it, all the work is done, good or bad, it doesn't matter, so who cares if things aren't perfect - it was an hour, it's over. You can always do better next time.

But I feel very frustrated because it takes me the same amount of time to render a very good Improv show as it does to render crap - and it's frustrating to spend all that time on doing something that you know is crap. It's even more frustrating if you know that, ultimately, the video will be up on a shelf somewhere and no one's going to watch it.

Right now, I've got 20 hours edited, 7 hours mastered, two rendered for YouTube, and none authored for DVD (so far.)

And to be honest: I'm sick of it. I think the very fact that there's 40 hours of these shows cheapens the whole idea that any one of them is going to be watched.

-----------------

Now, if all you want is a quick DVD of the show just to have it? Don't ask me to record, because, believe it or not, I'm not actually set up to create "quick and dirty" recordings.

For that, your best bet is a standard-definition camcorder that records straight to DVD-R. Pop it out when you're done, and voila, you have your show. It'll look like crap, but that's actually closer to the 1-hour show, 1 hour work ideal.

In fact, to be perfectly honest, I would suggest it's a good use of funds for the theatres to buy this camera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... order.html

specifically for that purpose. [/b]

LeannRose · Post by **LeannRose** » July 5th, 2009, 10:31 pm

I must be set up differently than you because I don't seem to run into the same problems as you. I do take a bit of time to set up, but I can be set up in 15/20 minutes if I have to be. I borrow someone to help me white-balance and set the focus. I just use the audio from my camera on an auto setting, which probably isn't as good as yours, but seems to do the trick. I'm always active with my filming and am able to adjust the exposure on the spot, but I understand with the marathon, you had to just leave the camera because there was no plausible way to stay on hand.

Maybe you just have really high expectations for the videos? Often they're just used for troops to watch themselves or use clips for promotional material. I've gone fairly basic for all my videos and they have been well received by the troops. It's great to want all these great things for the videos, but I honestly don't think it's really necessary. Maybe improvisers can chime in with what they expect from the videos?

Post by **bradisntclever** » July 6th, 2009, 1:19 am

LeannRose wrote:Maybe you just have really high expectations for the videos? Often they're just used for troops to watch themselves or use clips for promotional material. I've gone fairly basic for all my videos and they have been well received by the troops. It's great to want all these great things for the videos, but I honestly don't think it's really necessary. Maybe improvisers can chime in with what they expect from the videos?

I think Leann's on the right track as far as how I feel about the issue. I mean, it's GREAT that Brian is so adamant about producing the best quality footage possible, but I think it's far too much work for a product that won't be viewed on a regular or semi-regular basis.

Improv shows are inherently fluid, which can wreak havoc on the structure required to produce a show in focus and entirely in frame. I know in any of the shows I've done, I haven't really planned to enter the audience ahead of time. If it happens, it happens... and that's the magic of improv. Everyone can be at different heights and have different voices, but character work and spacework tends to mean wacky unplanned voices and weird physical locations on stage. Sometimes, the lighting changes, sometimes it doesn't. For the most part, it needs to be bright enough to where it's going to irritate the average videographer. If I had to choose between sacrificing video quality or audience viewing quality, I'd choose video quality every time... even for an audience of one.

While an HD recording of a show would be neat, I wouldn't really think much of it. It's not like watching Planet Earth, where the visual quality is essential to the best possible experience. Some of the footage of The Starter Kit online is pretty mediocre by video standards, but still viewable and fine for our needs.

I don't mean to discredit your immense amount of work, Brian. I think everyone would agree that it's very impressive and demonstrates a lot of selfless work. I'm also a perfectionist in some of the things I do, so I understand your frustration. But I imagine most of the troupes in town, when looking for a show recording, would be glad with the kind of recording Leann mentioned.

If anything, I'd feel guilty about making you work about ten times harder than me on stage.

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » July 6th, 2009, 4:42 am

Brian, I want to address a few of the points you seem to be making repeatedly on the forum.

1. The work you are doing for this video is too much for the amount of compensation you're receiving ($0).
Brian, no one involved in the marathon did it for the money, because it was a fundraiser essentially and all the money went to the theater/AIC/TAP. I don't know if you were approached and asked to do it or told to do it. I doubt that because Andy was in charge and he doesn't really *demand* things of people, he just asks them. He's pretty reasonable, I think we all are, and I don't think anyone was out to force you into this job. I don't think any one of us is thinking, "Come on Brian, hurry up with that rendering!"
From my perspective, it looked like you came up with it and coordinated it on your own. I thought that was very brave/awesome of you because it seemed like a daunting task. I've seen Roy record, render, and burn many improv shows so I know it is not a fast task nor an easy one.
Much of the work we do to support a relatively short improv show is not fast nor easy nor well compensated. We do the behind-the-scenes work because it supports an artform we love. Yes, it can be frustrating. Yes, it can be thankless. But, we do it under the assumption or feeling that it supports something we care about.
I understand frustration but you are really going all out with these forum rants.
If it makes you "sick" to work on such a project - don't do it. Stop doing it. Hand the footage over to Roy and wash your hands of the filth of poorly-recorded-copy-righted-music-ridden improv. Use what you've learned to improve in the future, not to dwell on the past. *shrug* That's just what I've tried to do.

2. The stages in Austin are not well-suited for video recording and this must be fixed.
Okay. Perhaps this *can* be rectified in the future if optimal improv filming is needed. For now and during the marathon, my only thought was to the tech, performers, and audience that would be directly and physically involved with the shows and stage. We just got a full compliment of working lights for the Hideout and are working on many more improvements. There are a lot of improvements in the queue, hence the fundraiser. Nobody was trying to screw you or the video recording over, there were many things to be done before and during the marathon.
I didn't know you were trying to make a high quality extremely long film of the marathon, I thought you were recording the shows for the sake of fun and memory.

And to be honest: I'm sick of it. I think the very fact that there's 40 hours of these shows cheapens the whole idea that any one of them is going to be watched.

What??
The point was for there to be 40 shows back-to-back before a live audience. The point was not for there to be an award-winning film of the marathon made. We just didn't put the resources or work into place from the beginning for that. It wasn't in the plan for this year. We only had three weeks of ramp-up time. I know that I will at least want to watch some shows, if for the selfish reason of wanting to learn from what I see.
40 SHOWS IS GOD DAMNED EXCESSIVE! THAT'S WHY WE DID IT!
Very few people watched a large bulk of all the shows at the time, so I don't even know what that means for watching them recorded later. That's not even the point of it.
It was a challenge, the marathon. It didn't sound easy, it sounded insane. That's why we did it. That's why I did it, that's why I worked for it.

This video project is insane too. You didn't think it would be?

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » July 6th, 2009, 8:43 am

kaci_beeler wrote: This video project is insane too. You didn't think it would be?

This is definitely a learning experience.

My problem was that I came into filming with certain assumptions - one of them being that the reason I was filming was that we could put this out to sell and make more money for the fundraiser. Realizing in retrospect that we can't has me asking: Why am I doing this?

The only reason left is that video is an artform that *I* love.

Honestly, if none of you guys are really interested in having these shows on video - I could just give you the raw files and be done with it. It really would save me a lot of time and trouble, and if that's really all you wanted in the first place... then I'm clearly going overboard.

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » July 6th, 2009, 9:17 am

Honestly, would you guys be happy with 3 DVDs, with 9 shows, as the "Best Of The 40 Hour Marathon?"

That's a project that's a lot more doable.

Just let me know what those nine shows are and I'll make 3 DVDs.

djpenn · Post by **djpenn** » July 6th, 2009, 2:41 pm

Honestly, I just wanted to see the student showcases

acrouch · Post by **acrouch** » July 6th, 2009, 7:58 pm

Brian Boyko wrote:Honestly, would you guys be happy with 3 DVDs, with 9 shows, as the "Best Of The 40 Hour Marathon?"

That's a project that's a lot more doable.

Just let me know what those nine shows are and I'll make 3 DVDs.

That sounds fantastic!

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » July 6th, 2009, 10:33 pm

I think it would be fair for each of the 8 improvisers to pick their 10 favorite shows - and we'll just go with the shows that get the most votes!