My first broadcast shoot! What settings?

[Mark Suszko]

Vic, if you’re not in a relationship, I’d like to introduce you to Esther, from just down the thread a ways….

Esther, Meet Vic.

The two of you should get along because you have something in common: you’ve been assigned projects you are anxious to do well, but clearly are not yet experienced in doing or qualified to do solo. The persons assigning you to this are inept and should not have thrown you into this situation without appropriate practice and training. What I predict is a lot of future drama because it is almost a certain bet you are going to have to do this job over a time or two before it passes the broadcast specs. Hopefully, before the deadline. And it’s hardly your fault, since you don’t know what the specs are, or how to align the project to them.

I know turning down work is anathema to many in our biz, but it’s more honest and fair to say: “I don’t now how to do this, but if you want to pay me to learn how to do it on your time, I’ll do my best”, Than to just say “Sure, no problem”. Someone who is signing checks for all this is expecting a competent result for their money. They would be rightly upset that a “student driver” was piloting their broadcast baby, and flying it into a wall.

There is no shame in admitting when you don’t know something,and asking for help. We’re all here to help you, help each other, because nobody knows it All.

There Is a problem though with “fake it ’til you make it”, and charging full price for it. That’s not fair to the customer. I’m not saying you should do this for free, either. But you need to practice this stuff more before you get volunteered to do it when money is on the line. There is so much more to doing this job right than we can impart in a few short posts. The smarter play here is to hand off the project to a more experienced person, and shadow them thru the process, asking pesky questions at every step.

I wish you luck, I really do. And I’ll help where I can. But you should not be in this position to start with, and for that I mostly blame whoever gave you the assignment and responsibility without the necessary support. I don’t blame bad cooks at a burger joint: I blame their trainers.

[Mark Suszko]

Ernie, I think the corollary to your rule is: “If they paid a lot of money to the Sales department, making it work is Engineering’s problem, not the client’s” 🙂

[Mark Suszko]

U might mean “un-used” or “user-specific”, stuff like music, foley FX, etc. ?

DV in this context of audio tracks doesn’t immediately make any sense to me. But maybe they mean “Descriptive Video”, i.e. a voice-over narrator describing what the visuals are, as an aid to the blind.

[Michael Gissing]

Apart from the obvious 1 = Left, 2 = Right fpr stereo, none of the other audio specs make any sense to me and I have mixed and delivered over 800 broadcast documentaries. I suspect the U and DV are placeholders for when they get to finish the document.

Typically for a TVC there is only a stereo mix so just ignore the rest and deliver stereo. The hard thing will be the actual specs of level & loudness which you will need a pro to mix to those specs.

[Tom Matthies]

Amen to the “Engineering’s problem” comment. We run into this all of the time. If it’s not right when we get it, it’s our job to make it right and we’ve jumped through a LOT of hoops over the years to “fix” things that aren’t right. It’s amazing what kinds of stuff crosses our FTP site sent by people that, through no fault of their own, are just in over their heads. I like to refer to it as “they don’t know what they don’t know”.
The worst thing is that there just aren’t that many opportunities for people just entering the production business to learn things such as technical requirements or standards and practices. The solution is usually “what filter or plug-in do I use to fix this?” and the editor often has no clue as to what the filter is actually doing, if there even is one, or why there is a problem in the first place. It’s not the fault of the newer editors at all. There just aren’t a lot of ways to pick this stuff up anymore. Us “old guys” came up through the ranks, seeing an incredible amount of changes over the years. If we’re sharp enough, we keep current on what’s going on in the business. But it takes a lot of effort to do this. You do actually do need to pay attention is class. I started out editing by using Quad tape and doing machine to machine cuts on 2-inch tape. I still actively edit and engineer using today’s technology. Everyday, in fact. It helps that I’ve always found this business fascinating over the years. It makes it easier to keep up, but it still takes a lot of time to go to trade shows, read press releases and white papers, sit down and actually learn to “drive” a new piece of gear, pick up tips and actually enjoy doing it.
The old saying, “If it was easy, everyone would be doing it” kind of applies today. It’s much easier than ever before to turn out a finished project. Every high school kid can do it these days and some of them manage to turn out some pretty incredible stuff. But there is still that underlying, invisible layer of “getting it right” from the technical standpoint and that’s the stuff that isn’t getting taught in schools and isn’t getting picked on the job the way it was in the past. It still applies just as it did in the past. To make up for this lack of basic technical knowledge are those of us old guys that can fix things and also try to pass that knowledge down the line whenever possible. It’s working for now but years down the line…who knows.

E=MC2+/-2db

[Vic Noseworthy]

Thanks, Shane. Now I don’t feel so dumb. I’ve learned so much over the past 4 years, since I got into doing digital video. But, it seems, the broadcasters are intent on making things daunting. I will persevere. Thanks again.

[Vic Noseworthy]

Hey, Mark.
Thanks for your insight! FYI: I actually wasn’t assigned this project; rather, I had a call with a request for a quote. So, it was up to me whether I felt I could deliver the product in the format necessary. The potential client was in a hurry for the final project, and given I am busy with other (non-broadcast) jobs, I decided to decline the work. I did anticipate having to do the job more than once in order to meet the specs, and that isn’t something I have time to do right now.
Though, I will definitely be honing my skills/knowledge in the area of broadcast video/audio. Your input here is most helpful.
Having said that, I wonder about video specs, going forward. With everything (or, most everything) going online these days, how will that impact “broadcast specifications” in the future? I really like working to produce online video; specs are far more forgiving, allowing creators/producers more freedom to focus on content. I’m an artist at heart!
And, I agree with the issue of “faking it”. It’s not something I like to do. However, I think it’s necessary to a degree (in any business!) as one gets started; online work is much more forgiving in many regards, and, hence, a little easier to “fake”.
I will get there! I just need to go at my own pace. I don’t like to do work I don’t really understand, so until I have time to really wrap my head around the technical stuff, I’ll ease into it, reading and learning on forums like this, and from folks like you.
On that note, thank you very much for your thoughts and advice!
Vic