I often get asked what my actual job is… people recognize my gear as video equipment, but from that point on, it is rather ambiguous as to how that all plays out. Do I film weddings? Shows? Commercials? What?

The answer is mostly yes… and to a lesser degree, not quite yet. We’re always looking to expand our services and take on new challenges.

The truth is, the project really defines the job. That’s one way of saying that Sheepshead takes on multiple roles – facilitating a script, improvising, finding models and materials, interpretation of marketing goals, technical direction, post-production, shipping and handling – the client pretty much has to name it. The main thing we go for is filling out a project to completion, making sure it’s appropriate, complete, but not lacking any of the bells and whistles. We don’t want to leave clients with the feeling they are not getting an all inclusive deal, especially since a project could be cut up into small sections, each one requiring a separate professional to tackle that portion. Realizing that most of our clients put an emphasis on value and cannot afford to hire separate companies for each (and many of them don’t know that that is even an option), SHS maintains a diverse skillset and workflow.

It’s easy to separate things into categories, but I’ve found no one really cares much about those distinctions – everyone, myself included, is interested in the final product. This is why I talk about this kind of stuff on a blog and not to a client (unless, of course, it is an important decision that will effect the direction of the project). So here are a few different areas of SHS development, and the things I see as being important components to project success:

Video

The trouble with live video (especially live video not run by a major studio) is that you are dealing with cameras that are usually not synced for broadcasting. If they are synced, then they are pretty expensive. Now, if you aren’t actually broadcasting live, this becomes less of a problem and you can find ways of syncing later. One to two angles can work when filming a live scene, but it is generally better to have at least three shots to choose from at any given time (unless you are making a kind of montage which highlights short sections). It is for this reason that a small company, like SHS, would choose to get 2-3 nicer cameras for live video than one awesome, studio quality camera.

Audio

One element that flies way under the radar is sound quality. You really don’t realize how produced most professional sound bytes are until you go on youtube and realize that the audio you take with your HD pocket camcorder just doesn’t measure up… I have found that hi-fi audio can bring a rather shabby video to a watchable state. In practice, getting as close as possible to the subject is the best option. From there, a balanced and informed stereoscopic feed of the scene will give you the sense of being there, especially if you are going for a natural and clear (not overproduced) sound.

That’s mostly how live video works, but we also record bands and other musical artists. For them, it’s a bit more involved – but a lot of the gear we use for studio recordings (whether it’s a rock song, or video narration) doubles in the field as our live audio gear. They don’t actually equate one-to-one, but it’s nice to have options and the ability to record multiple sources at once. The mantra for both audio and video is… record more than you need, you can always subtract.

Titling, Compositing, CGI

The wonderful world of effects is a place we’ve been exploring since the beginning. SHS was founded after the completion of a successful film project for a high school class. We were interested in doing unique things visually, from an effects standpoint and from a storytelling one. And these tricks, as I like to think of them, are not only for wild and crazy movies and creative projects needing a lot of visual flair. Sometimes, they solve logistical problems. A simple example of using effects in a practical way? Editing out a microphone placed close enough to a speaker to get in the shot, but causes an eye sore on the finished project. Without exploration there is no progression – and sometimes that means learning new methods, new programs, and new workflows. There are plenty of great apps out there (for free or for purchase) and all it takes is a little dedication to learn (since tutorials abound online). This can be a daunting thing, but SHS has found that adding that finishing touch often makes the difference, even though – strictly speaking – it’s not videography or editing.

Direction-Production

Despite what many people may think, any project – no matter if its a promotional bit or documentary or creative short – requires a considerable amount of direction. The only kinds of projects that don’t are the kind that have direction built-in (a show has a director, sports have rules and you know where you are going to find your subjects and what they will be doing). What is often a mystery, however, is who and how a project will be directed. Often, this is a collaborative process between the PR specialist or whoever is hiring SHS services. In each and every case, we size up the project and then determine how “hands on” the client intends to be.

Direction can be scriptwriting, it can be design related, it can have to do with the cast of characters involved – and it can be logistical. These kinds of considerations make or break a project, and good organization and communication make for the smoothest runs.

From a production side, there are a lot of graphical and audio considerations. If we use music, we can create it in house or purchase tracks to play alongside narratives. We can outsource design or do things inhouse or use client’s previously owned material. A lot depends on budget, but it is important to offer clients with options.

Well – this seems like a good place to stop, since talk is cheap and I’m sure if you’re reading this now you’d rather see some sample work… alas, the people who get excited about visual effects and working with digital video are not as many as I would hope for (as exampled by my waning interest in writing about it…). I’m hoping to have video samples online in the near future, just working out some things with our web designer – but be ready for video awesomeness…

There comes a time when ambitions exceed what one can actually carry out. Such is the case with my hopes to regularly update this blog – such was the case with the promise of streaming video for the VuVox recording sessions.

THEORY

It would have been easy to let fans in on the process – but it turned out that the schedule was tight, and the engineers were few. Setting up multiple cameras being manned by one of the guys – mixing a version of the control room with the recording booth – would have been a lot of fun and probably lightened the mood even more. Unfortunately, beyond not having time to set it up, we were missing some vital equipment. We still had a great time, don’t get me wrong, but there is always the sense (at least with most things I do) that if given another chance, the second time around would be better.

Waterloo-whop

This by no means applies to the singing. I hope I am not jinxing it, but I felt the focus of the group in this recording endeavor  was a great deal higher than in previous years. I’m assuming this will translate to a better album, but a lot rides on my mixing still. One thing is certain: I will not be designing the album or orchestrating all of the other album shenanigans – I will be completely devoted to the “sound”.

FINAL NOTES

I talked with a lot of the guys, and they felt the experience provided a time for the group to reconnect after a hectic year. That was encouraging, because I want to see this group of guys grow  – I want their album to propel them to even better things. New guys fill the ranks now, only one original member is left. I’m happy about the new leadership, but also understand the difficulties going forward with all the expectations from campus community. Since it’s inception, VuVox has been about balancing fun and music at a high level. I enjoyed my time in the group, and enjoy my role as alumnus, friend, and observer. I plan to do my part – whatever it is – to keep this tradition on a steady course.

One of the problems of live video is the live sound that always accompanies it. With limited degrees of success, videographers strive to achieve a balanced mix of “live” sounding material mixed with close mic feeds. The goal is a total aural experience that accurately conveys the best from the live event – but this is easier said than done. Unlike in the studio, live videographers are confined to certain types of mic placement and equipment (not to mention the fact that they only get ONE take of the entire event, well, usually).

For the past five years, I’ve been developing better audio recording techniques. I am far from being an expert on this subject, but I have found some great ways of capturing the essence of live events. Here are a few techniques we (as a company) use on a regular basis:

Direct from the mixing board

This is by far the most common practice for live shows, and it allows us to mix in post-production (provided the live feeds are sufficiently noise free). Often with raw tracks, we bypass the house faders and therefore get everything… the microphone is effectively never muted. This can make for the most work later, as many of the mics need to have some effects processing and/or automation, but it yields some of the best results, since you begin approaching the amount of control audio engineers have in the studio.

Direct or mic the instruments/pit/stage

A lot like getting the board feeds, directly mic-ing or taking direct outs from an electronic instrument yields fantastic mixing results. The trouble with this method is placing gear – you often need a xlr (mic cord) snake or wireless transmitters, since usually your gear is not situated right next to the stage. This kind of mic-ing also requires the most pre-approval – since stage managers, show directors, and conductors all want to know about anything that will potentially be in the way or in the line of audience vision.

Stereo mic from audience perspective or mic the audience

This is a pretty easy one if you have a stereo field recorder. Sometimes, it’s not possible to get direct feeds from the board or mic the pit and you have to resort to a more organic solution. By placing the field recorder in a position to get a balanced version (and by balanced i mean mostly show audio with a bit of audience in the background) you can get very accurate stereo audio of what it would be like to sit in the first row. The trouble is, of course, the field recorder will most likely be in the line of vision. Another possibility (if you already have sufficient audio from the board and/or stage) is to simply mic the audience from most anywhere in the house. This will supplement your existing feeds and provide a bit more audience when you make your final mix. I find this method extremely useful when you want to get the idea across of a sellout crowd for a show or something like a musical comedy, where audience laughs help create the humorous atmosphere. Don’t place the audience mic too close to the audience if at all possible, since individual audience members will then stick out in the mix.

In almost every case, sound recorded from camera microphones suffers from being too far away from the stage and too close to noisy audience members. This is why audio recorded this way (unless at something like a wedding, where the atmosphere of being there is desired) should only be used as backup or supplemental.

Tools:

We use a variety of audio capturing equipment, and here is a list with a brief description of how we use them.

Stereo Field Recorder – there are a variety of these, very good for accurate, POV recording that sounds like you are sitting right there. Stereo recordings can cause problems if you use too many of the close together or you you mix things without paying attention to how sound moves through a space and causes phasing issues.

Digital Audio Interface – until very recently, we used a laptop with an interface to record directly to hard drive. This is great since you have a lot of control over inputs and levels, but mobility suffers when you have to hall around a large rack with all of your gear.

Multi-track Recorder – essentially, this is a glorified field recorder that doubles as a digital audio workstation. We recently purchased a new Zoom R16, which records up to 8 channels at a time to solid state. I cannot express in very few words how much easier it is to take this half-a-pound board than our large audio rack and laptop and all the associated paraphernalia.

Our latest audio gear, the promising Zoom R16

The last bit of knowledge needed for successful audio recording of an event is making sure you have things connected, powered (esp in case of condenser mics which require phantom power through a preamplifier), and turned to record. Most things can be fixed, boosted, or cut in post production and in general, “more is better”. You can always cut stuff later.

When recording audio for video, it is important to remember that everything one hears in the mix should be both clear and probably have a “live” feel to it – even if that means recreating reverb or repositioning feeds in the stereo image. Some of the early signs of a “youtube” quality video (and I say this in the most negative sense of the word, there are plenty of high quality videos too) is the lack of hi-fi audio or bad mic placement. No matter how good your video or subject matter, if the audio suffers, the overall effect of the video will suffer greatly. On the flip-side, low quality video which is accompanied by high quality audio is often very watchable – especially if the video was originally shot and edited at a high quality. Obviously, the best of both is optimal – but just because one shoots “video” doesn’t mean careful (if not equal) amounts of consideration should occur for live audio.

UW Madhatters at the Orpheum

One of the most fun parts of my job is shooting at different venues with interesting people. Sheepshead has had the pleasure of working with the UW Madhatters before, and this time around, we went bigger and better!

The Good: The Orpheum is a bit smaller than Overture Hall (where we filmed them last time around), but it makes up in style – the Hatters had the place decked out with some great lighting effects and 3 giant screens (for which we supplied live video).  I have to give Mike Jurken and his Majic Enterprises a shout-out for their excellent setup – he and his guys are fun to work with.

As far as technical points go: getting our crane positioned in a way that suitably captured exciting shots was a fun challenge, but nothing we couldn’t master during the 5+ hours of setup. Sound was great. I’ve worked with a variety of sound technicians and not all of my experiences have been that good. However, working with Conrad St. Clair proved to be great, and we were able to interface with the live sound for post pretty easily. We had 4 Sheepshead staff members working that night – and while there were a few minor blips (what production doesn’t have them?!), everything came together in the end.

The Mad: As one who has been on the a cappella scene, I appreciate everything that went in to this production, from the technical to the showmanship – it was a crazy time, and as I watch the footage and edit I hope to translate all of that energy over and do the group justice. It was also a bit “mad” since I had to leave the show early due to a previous engagement, namely a Bucks game.

The Ugly: I won’t say anything bad about the Hatters and their highly entertaining act – the ugly comes from a depressing Bucks loss I would go on to see later that night… the good news is that they are in the playoffs!

To be continued? I hope so, I wrote “Part I” in hopes of enticing one of the others to weigh in and review the actual show. We’ll see what happens…

I realized (when talking to some friends of mine about technology and where it was heading and stuff of that nature) that there were a lot of applications that make my day-to-day computer experience more efficient. Here are the 4 big ones! And… they’re free… (click graphics for links)

1) Skype – With the decline of land-line use, I propose that internet voice chat will soon take its place as the stationary form of spoken communication. Instant messaging programs which also do voice and video chat provide the computer user with a way to virtually be in the same room. Conference calls are also a breeze with this kind of setup, as is sharing information, since you are always a click away from opening your browser. I feel this app is pretty popular and might be considered a gimme.

2) Google Docs – There are lots of useful stuff from Google, mainly the search engine and google mail. But I find docs to be just as useful as gmail, and mostly because it saves it in a way that is always accessible. Collaboration on docs is very easy and it’s great for group projects. Everything can be organized in folders and labeled and… as I just said, all you need is a browser to get at them.

3) Dropbox – I used this program to help sync some files I wanted to use on both my Mac and Windows partitions (or if I accidentally downloaded them in one OS and needed them in the other). Basically, this app copies everything in a specified folder to the server online. The files are always backed up and you can easily share them with people by simply right-clicking on them and getting the link. So handy!

4) Skitch – This app is screen capture wizardry. It lets you capture anything on your screen in a variety of ways, edit it/draw on it, and then share it on the web with anyone. It’s really fast and easy once you’ve installed.

I see all four apps helping me in both work and personal settings – they all back up the files remotely and deal with communication and media that surpasses what simple email or instant messaging can accomplish. Oh, and they are all FREE! (Really, what’s not to like about that?)

James Cameron's Avatar

There has been a recent explosion of catastrophic proportions – and it has everything to do with bringing people back into theaters. 3D is here to stay, and to many people’s disbelief and annoyance.

I had been a staunch supporter of Avatar before it came out – and while personally the story was a bit of a letdown, the graphics delivered in a way I thought they would. I also thought it would be the top grossing film that year. It was that, and then some.

Too Many Knock Offs

Unfortunately, in it’s wake, a slew of patchwork 3D titles are coming out – that is, movies NOT shot in 3D, but relegated for that kind of visual makeover after the fact. To me, if this trend continues (I watched Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland) it will be at the expense of art and will actually hurt theater sales in the end. Other than Tron: Legacy, I am unaware of any 3D title being shot in 3D… and this is a bit unnerving, as a 3D supporter.

3D is the natural next step

The whole point of 3D, or at least what James Cameron seemed to be pushing in Avatar, is taking the viewing experience to the next level. Hopefully, 3D will someday be considered an art form, a medium for presentation, rather than a gimmick that is tagged on for extra money. I really believe the historical progression goes from black and white, to color, to high def, to 3D – and that one day everyone will experience regular media of every type in three dimensions (not just action movies and sports). On that day, we’ll look back to the old “flat” movies with a sense of nostalgia. Avatar may very well be the “Wizard of Oz” for our generation.

Back in 1982, a movie was released that has steadily remained a part of nerd culture. It’s one of those movies that you watch and are like “Wow, this is pretty cool and innovative” but then there are a lot of awkward lines, weird pacing issues, and of course… 80’s special effects. Now in the 80’s, these effects were top notch – and I would still argue the design implications of the Tron world are still fantastic – but that was the 80s.

Jeff Bridges... but 25 years earlier!

Fast forward 30 or so years and you have the prospect of Tron: Legacy. With the original cast members and a slew of new ones, crazy cool special effects at their disposal, and an audience that is all too familiar with the tech world… I think it will be a blockbuster, and here are my top 5 reasons why:

5. Jeff Bridges – from the original Tron – will be reprising his role and playing a programmed version of his former self. The tech needed to bring to life a character like this hasn’t existed until now, and the glimpse we see in the teaser trailer is fantastically weird (it’s my favorite shot in the trailer). The original Tron, Bruce Boxleitner, is also starring in a non-cameo role.

4. Daft Punk will be scoring the film – I am not a Daft Punk fan (I don’t really know too much about them, actually) but this score has me more excited for the music than almost anything else. In the teaser, the movie begins with a very predictable kind of string underscoring, but this music transforms by the time we enter the mainframe and each shot is accented with retro distortion rock reminiscent of the first film (but at the same time very progressive and forward moving). If this trailer is any indication of how well the music will be integrated into the movie, my ears are in for a real treat.

The Recognizer reborn.

3. The director is an unknown – I checked a little in to Joseph Kosinski, and he has little experience with feature films. He is, however, a bit of a special effects guru. I am more than happy to see a fresh face approach something like this, especially after reading a little about his approach to the film. I am also happy to know the original director, Steven Lisberger, is involved in a producing manner (since I feel he gave the original tron its signature innovation and creative elements). In any case, it will be nice to see a non-Michael-Bay-esque action flick… I’m ready for something new.

2. Olivia Wilde with a bob and lightsuit – Besides speculating as to what role 13 will have in this sequel, I was immediately struck by the whole updated design of the Tron world: from the couch she is sitting on, to the stormy skies of the mainframe. It has a dark splendor to it all, in many ways reminding me of the Matrix or 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don’t know who or what the plot revolves around, but the updates all look very good.

House's 13 sporting the bob

1. Tron will be the next biggest step in 3D – because while a ton of movies are scrambling to 3-dee-ify their stuff (a process which yields inferior results), Tron: Legacy has built 3D into the original concept of it’s story and is using the next generation of 3D tech used on Avatar. Disc-battles, light-cycles, and recognizers all look better in 3D. Here’s hoping people don’t get sick of 3D before then!

Tron: Legacy, the next good use of 3D since Avatar!

All pictures taken from Tron:Legacy teaser trailer, released via Apple, Disney.

Now for something altogether unrelated…

There is a long standing debate between zombie enthusiasts as to which kind – fast or slow – is the more appropriate and terrifying representation of the undead apocalypse.

I view the whole zombie phenomenon as a modern fantasy popularized through cinema. Some notable representations come from MJ’s Thriller, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and the parody Shaun of the Dead. I should also note that my introduction into zombie-culture came rather late and via video games such as Left 4 Dead.

Mmmm….Brains!

I was watching an interview on Late Night with one of the actresses from Zombieland (a film I consider much funnier than Shaun of the Dead) and the controvertial topic of fast vs slow zombies came up. She argued that the zombies in Zombieland aren’t technically zombies… and this is may be true in the sense that they are infected people rather than reanimated corpses. However, when you look at what all infected or zombies try to do – that is eat people – and that there are hordes of them, you tend to lump them all together.

Now while I shy away from a “right” way to represent zombies, I can see clear differences in approach (and not just in the speed of the zombie’s approach). Slow zombies are part of horror films and fast zombies are part of action-thrillers. The emphasis is on a slow, dreadful anticipation in the former and a reactionary adrenaline rush in the latter. Slow zombies are a lot less sophisticated – and as far as I understand – they simply overwhelm you after a certain point. Fast zombies are trickier in the short run – since they pop up unexpectedly and you’ll be running a lot more to stay away from them – but eventually they overwhelm you as well. Slow zombies come from magic and fast zombies are scientifically explained. The most important distinction between the two is the relevancy of fast zombies in today’s horror culture and their evolution from slow zombies.

Stronger, Faster, Rabid-er

Much credit goes to Zach Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake and Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later… for introducing the higher paced, infected version of the zombie. The new sense of urgency resonates well if your goal is to make people in the theater jump or if you want to provide gamers with a frightfully relentless enemy to kill.

Would I rather survive a slow onslaught of corpses or take my chances with the faster infected?

I think the inevitable doom which lingers over either case really makes me choose the second, faster type of zombies. In those movies, the characters are a lot more concerned with destroying the infected than with always running to safety, and this seems very proactive and productive to me. Although, with my weapon skills, I would assume a shorter life expectancy. In either case, the survival of a zombie apocalypse requires one to be healthy, intelligent, and willing to work together as a species. These sound like good real life goals!

Zombie media referenced/seen/played: MJ Thriller, Dawn of the Dead (remake), Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, I Am Legend (not really a zombie movie… but it has zombie elements), L4D (1 and 2)

I’ve used Final Cut Pro for some time now, but it hasn’t always been this way. In high school, Andrew used an old Version of Adobe premiere and I had messed around with Sony’s Vegas – both PC only apps. I have no love for Adobe’s premiere (but I really don’t know much about the newer versions to make a solid judgement). Vegas, on the other hand, was a spectacular, intuitive editing program – and I would probably still use that if it not for a few considerations and a feature or two from Final Cut.

Crossover

Apple’s Final Cut Studio made sense for a variety of reasons: budget, our recently puchased Macbook Pro’s, and the newly added multi-angle editing support. What this last feature does is sync all of the feeds you have and have them playback in panes (much like a live video mixer would) and we are able to make edits on the fly by choosing the most appropriate feed in real time. The old method was to either cut segments and keep track of time (way too complicated!) or have two or more tracks of video in parallel and then “revealing” whichever angle we wanted. The main disadvantage of this last route was the inability to see both angles simultaneously. So that was, and still is a great selling point, especially since a lot of our work is recording live shows.

It’s Suite!

The cool thing about FCP Studio is that along with the editor (which is very powerful, even if sometimes annoying) there are some great supplemental apps that help with the parts of the project Final Cut would undoubtably butcher. I’m speaking mainly of audio and visual effects. Now I’ve messed around with effects apps like After Effects, Combustion, and the recently defunct Shake – and Apple’s revamped Motion (which borrows a lot from Shake) is gaining more power with each incarnation, but remaining very easy to use. I would definitely say it is is the easiest of those listed.

Audio is always a problem with FC, because it’s just not meant for all the nice plugins one uses in regular audio processing apps like Logic. Soundtrack is bundled with FC and it’s workflow is… nice. I would much prefer something that looked more like Logic with a better sample editor… but the ability to send sound files from FC to Soundtrack and then right back after things have processed is useful enough. I am not always pleased with the flattening/destructible edits I have to do, but I can usually live with the results.

Coloring was a new feature – I didn’t really get into color correction/grading until we had issues with some very “red” shots that needed cleanup for a certain job. FCP’s color corrector is fantastic, I find it very easy to work with. Beyond that, and for larger projects (especially creative ones) the application Color is useful for grading. This isn’t so much about fixing the color so much as styling it and making it more appropriate and/or vivid. It’s definitely one of the most fun apps to mess around with, even if it is one of the harder ones to master.

Final Thoughts

I can not justify giving Apple a full 5/5 rating for this suite of apps, because it really isn’t as good as it gets. I will give them 4/5 because they have a system that works well and beyond that, each new version comes with really useful tools. There are only a few real glitches and most of them have to do with updating the workflow. The way that the apps change and interact is very logical and organic and I feel this suite meets the needs of the current videographer/creative film-maker wearing all of these hats.

Many people curious about audio recording ask me about my setup. I am not an expert, but my preferred method on input to my computer is via preamp and audio interface.

The interface is (or can be) the point at which sound is converted to digital signal. I have used 3 interfaces – 2 by Echo Audio and one by MOTU, which I would not recommend. I currently use the AudioFire 12 (which is a successor to to the old Layla24 I had) and couldn’t be happier with the results. The one thing you want more than bells and whistles is something that works consistently and for long periods of time. You also want hi fidelity and as many inputs as you can get (since that gives you room to expand).

I like this piece of gear since it is central to everything I do audio-wise. Interestingly enough, it is the type of gear that will change the most (mics and preamps all working in the unchanging analog realm) as new computers and inputs will no doubt change the conversion parameters. If that day comes, I’m sure I will look again to Echo Audio.