Dress for Success - Making your Camera Package Look Professional at FreshDV

FreshDV @ PVC

Dress for Success - Making your Camera Package Look Professional

Published by Matthew Jeppsen February 1st, 2010 in Featured Content, FreshDV, Hardware, News

Why do tools like the follow focus, mattebox, rods, shoulder supports, monitors, jibs, dollies, and camera stabilizers exist? There is no question that these tools are real-world solutions to common problems. But there is also another, less obvious, reason to use these tools.

A mattebox allows you to keep light flare off your lens and to quickly and easily add filtration and problem-solving filters in front of the lens (a polarizer is a great example of a problem-solving filter). A follow focus enables the operator or 1AC to efficiently and accurately pull lens focus and to set consistent marks for multiple takes of the same action. Rods, support kits, and shoulder supports are the structure that you build your camera and it’s accessories on…without a solid, configurable base, even the best accessories in the world are basically useless. Good production monitors enable you to accurately see critical focus, framing, and color information in the frame. Cranes, dollies, jibs and stabilizers were created to enable specific camera moves and smooth motion. These tools have arisen to fill a need, and in many cases they have been directly inspired or engineered by the very people on the ground who use them on a daily basis (Exhibit A: Garrett Brown).

Let me expound now on another, more controversial reason, to outfit your camera kit with accessories. And that is appearance. Before you hang me for heresy, let me explain. Or, in Paul Newman terms, “Don’t shoot, Boss. Shaking the bush.”

We’ve all heard the phrase “dress for success.” Well guess what? There are legitimate reasons why this principle also applies to your production kit, and the current crop of compact HD cameras and HDSLRs in particular (and Red Scarlet, soon). This new breed of compact camera systems are tiny in comparison to traditional broadcast and what the public considers to be “professional” gear. In many cases, this small size is an advantage…documentary work sometimes requires a stealthy presence, so this diminutive size is a huge advantage in that field of production. But for people working in other levels of production, bigger is, at times, better for appearances.

In my recent review of the Genus mattebox system, I took a few minutes in the video review and talked about how the mattebox enhanced the professional look of my 5D MKII HDSLR camera package. This little rabbit-trail is about 6:40 into my review. For instance, if you are filming an interview with a corporate executive, they are likely used to seeing a large camera package like a Varicam. In almost every shoot with my HDSLR, I am compelled at some point to explain “yes, this is a real video camera.” It’s a fair concern from the standpoint of the client…the camera body is tiny, and it doesn’t even look like a video camera. I don’t blame them for asking. Now, when they see the footage, there are never any questions. In most cases, the client is floored. But in that critical first few moments of a shoot, you have to make a good first impression, and one way to deliver a more professional appearance is to build a camera package up with accessories. Maybe it’s not entirely necessary to shoot that two-camera sit down interview with a mattebox. But if I’ve got time, I’ll still mount that mattebox, because if the client or agency I’m dealing with isn’t worried about the camera, then they can concentrate on the interview or task at hand and deliver a better performance.

This also applies to experienced actors (perhaps moreso). There was an interesting side-note from a 2006 Showreel article from “24″ DP Rodney Charters. They were testing small HD cameras and 35mm lens adapter systems on the production set, and Keifer Sutherland made the comment that he feels that he delivers a better performance to a more professional-looking camera. I wrote about this back in 2006 in this blog post, the exact quote from Rodney was:

“I told Keifer we were testing more small cameras for drama use and he said again that he doesn’t feel he can perform as intensely in front of a small camera as when he faces a large Panaflex. So I’ll start by reiterating a point I made last time: it’s a good idea to use large matte boxes if you intend to use HDV for drama, so that the actors feel there is something of substance there they can address obviously not for taking an eyeline down the lens, but at least to act as an audience.”

I know what you are thinking, and it’s exactly what I’m thinking…these issues shouldn’t matter. The final result is what should really matter. And I agree 100%! A competent shooter with DIY gear can nearly always deliver better results than a subpar shooter with the best gear in the world. But so many times we are thrust into situations where the client or on-camera talent doesn’t have a previous relationship with the shooter, and all they have to draw on are those first impressions. It’s important in these situations to put forth the best possible image, and in some cases, if you’ll pardon the euphemism, that means having the biggest rig in the room.

7 Responses to “Dress for Success - Making your Camera Package Look Professional”

Feed for this Entry

1 Frank Glencairn Feb 1st, 2010 at 4:35 am

I experienced the same thing when (many moons ago) I did the first shots with a HVX200.
The Agency looked at me like

“are you kidding me? You have the nerve to show up at a 60.000 Euro shooting, with a cam that looks like my dads home video recorder?”

Well I learned. Got me a rail system, a big mattebox, monitor, all the bells and whistles andwhatnot.

The next time the clients where pretty impressed about that “new camera generation”.
Also actors take you more serious when they see a big matte box (heavens know why).
But it´s a fact. People respond to big extensions. ;-)

Frank
2 Dave Taylor Feb 1st, 2010 at 7:03 am

This is something I’ve been saying for a long time. Even on the small market basis I work in, there is a good bit of “technical expectation.” For the past few years, I’ve been using a Canon XL1, which is very outdated now, but it’s unique look gets me by that first hurdle. It doesn’t look like anything they’ve seen before. I’ve considered replacing it with one of these lower end prosumer cameras that will undoubtably give me a much better image, but I certainly couldn’t show up to a shoot, even the one for the local bowling alley, with one of those tiny handheld HD cameras. A lot of what I do is just “smoke and mirrors.” Business that cater to the ultra-rich know this fact all too well.
3 Jason Prisk Feb 1st, 2010 at 9:49 am

The more junk the better the shoot all-around. Clients feel more important when there appears to be a major production in the works with lots of tools and grips and professional camera. For some clients I will hire an additional grip and bring stuff I know I will NEVER need just for appearances (setting up a big scrim or two is huge even if a little handheld reflector could do the job).

It is frustrating sometimes to realize you are taking extra time or shelling out a little more than you had to. However, for the bigger clients, it is just something you have to do. On the other hand, you had better not come home with crappy footage after all the hoopla or you will be the talk of the town.
4 Moving Still Media Feb 1st, 2010 at 5:10 pm

This is very true. I think of it as putting on a show (all while recording another show).

There is a performance element to this, but that’s true of any business dealing. Charisma and personality matter. In technology-oriented fields like ours, a show of force with an arsenal of weapons communicates status.

We send a lot of signals before the final deliverable that a affect cleint’s judgment.
5 Robert Feb 2nd, 2010 at 4:04 am

Some clients also order extras like a crane or dolly and once they realize that it takes a lot of time to set this stuff up or move it around they decide that it is better to shoot handheld.
But don´t show up without it…
6 Rob Ruffo Mar 5th, 2010 at 5:46 pm

I think good communication with clients and real mutual trust goes way further than making your camera look “fancy’.

@ Jason Prisk: I do not consider what I and my crew does to be “smoke and mirrors” - we work hard to do great shots, and communicate the why behind our choices effectively to those who pay for our services. There is no scam, no hidden anything. Just skill and dedication at a reasonable price. They feel that, I think - and this gets us a lot of trust and latitude. People always sense it when they are dealing with someone with little integrity who does not respect them and is trying to “pass one over”.

Unlike you, we do not have negative preconceptions against people of means. Just because someone is unsuccessful financially or had uneducated parents does not make them superior to someone who is prosperous and comes from a more genteel background. There are good and bad people, making good and bad choices, within all stratas of society. Bill Gates is investing billions in the education of children poor countries and the United States, using a hands-on creative approach - what have you done to make the world a better place lately that could even vaguely compare to his achievements? He is one of those super-rich you seem to feel so self-righteously superior to.

There is nothing more nauseating than reverse-snobbery, as it has all the ugly prejudice of the usual kind mixed in with holier-than-thou pretension.

I can see, with this kind of attitude, why you can’t afford to upgrade your cam to something better.
7 Jason Prisk Mar 6th, 2010 at 1:30 am

Wow, Rob. I don’t know how we got into all the “preconceptions against people of means” and “reverse snobbery” stuff. And yes, somehow even without knowing me, you have guessed correctly that Bill Gates has given more to charity than I have. However, in my defense, roughly half of my work is for non-profit organizations at severly cut rates or pro-bono. I will be in Africa in three weeks shooting one of these projects in the same place I was nearly burned alive by Muslims five years ago. I do, occasionally, think of others.

It is important to understand here that we are only dealing in this thread with a very limited topic–how the client sees your equipment.

Unfortunately, someone who has used production companies for years does not understand that I can get better results with a little EX1 than the big BetaSP camera they had last time they did a video. Therefore, they might immediately assume that I am not giving them the best. Believe me, I have dealt with comments many times when I have used smaller cameras and (as mentioned in my previous post), it is all about making the client feel comfortable with what is happening on set. The CEO will not be at his best if he feels like he is “performing” for a consumer camera. Therefore, why not put it on rails with a mattebox even if it is not necessary for the shot.

In response to the comment about getting a better camera. There is always a better camera, and I am happy to use HDCAM or RED ONE cameras when the subject matter calls for it. But why charge that client more than necessary when you are shooting b-roll footage for an internal training piece? The end result is what matters in the end, and my clients are usually very happy with not only the product I deliver, but the quality of service that I provide.

To be fair, my previous post did sound a bit harsh and flippant and I am sorry it came across that way. It was an assessment meant only for others in the business, but I did not mean it to come across as disrespectful to the client. I hope we can still be friends even though I cannot afford a better camera. :-)