Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
cameraman?

I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.

Any help appreciated.

Love

Crow

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Crow" wrote...
> Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer
> & cameraman?
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people
> where they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman?
> I'm assuming that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD
> screen, so that you can monitor the shot in a way that is not too
> obstructive.

Yes and no. Depends on circumstances. More details required.

If you are shooting "run-n-gun" short "sound-bites" from the
defense barristers(*) running down the steps of the courthouse,
or finishers in the marathon, a short shotgun mic on the camera
might be the optimal solution. Maybe an additional headset mic
for yourself if your voice will appear in the final edit.

OTOH, if you are shooting a sit-down interview with yourself
on-camera, it becomes MUCH more problematic. Likely not
something to plan on doing for any kind of quality production.

(*) I finally learned the difference between "solicitors" and
"barristers" in the UK. We don't have such a distinction here
in the USA.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow wrote:
> Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
> cameraman?
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
> they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
> that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
> can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.

Crow, here's the problem.
If you're doing a sit down interview and the interviewee
is supposed to be looking off screen at you, you can't
shoot a bunch of interviews with everyone looking toward
the operating side of the camera (well, you can, but
it's boring). If you try to sit on the non-operating
side for some interviews, you're not looking in the viewfinder.
I've tried rigging a LCD screen so I can see but still
it's hard and distracting to reach over the camera to do
some of the functions. Get someone to do your interviews or
at least look interested so the interviewee has someone
to respond to. They get a glazed look if you tell them
to look at a grip stand and respond to it.

my 2 cents.

--
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk> writes:
> Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
> cameraman?
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
> they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
> that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
> can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.

If you're ok with low-rent-looking results and you have reasonable,
steady lighting, it's doable. Just set up the camera on a tripod and
adjust the field of view to cover both chairs, and let it run through
the whole interview. The interviewee will have to be a little bit
patient with you as you set up the sound and maybe adjust the camera.
Consumer camcorders (I have no idea about professional ones) with
LCD's usually let you flip the screen so it points forward, and they
often have a handheld infrared remote, but you don't really need that,
since you can just leave the tape running and edit afterwards.

If you're trying to do a more professional job with a variety of
shots, multiple cameras, etc., then I'd think you really need a
cameraman.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10c3mvhoar1fae1@corp.supernews.com...
> "Crow" wrote...
> > Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer
> > & cameraman?
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people
> > where they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman?
> > I'm assuming that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD
> > screen, so that you can monitor the shot in a way that is not too
> > obstructive.
>
> Yes and no. Depends on circumstances. More details required.
>
> If you are shooting "run-n-gun" short "sound-bites" from the
> defense barristers(*) running down the steps of the courthouse,
> or finishers in the marathon, a short shotgun mic on the camera
> might be the optimal solution. Maybe an additional headset mic
> for yourself if your voice will appear in the final edit.
>
> OTOH, if you are shooting a sit-down interview with yourself
> on-camera, it becomes MUCH more problematic. Likely not
> something to plan on doing for any kind of quality production.
>
> (*) I finally learned the difference between "solicitors" and
> "barristers" in the UK. We don't have such a distinction here
> in the USA.
>

Oh I don't know that's necessarily a true statement.

In the UK - a solicitor is a member of the legal profession (lawyer) who is
licensed to practice law but not qualified to argue cases in court. A
barrister is a member of the bar who has "taken the silk" and is fully
qualified to represent defendants and also to handle prosecutions

In the USA - a solicitor is a prostitute. A lawyer is
a -------------------------? Come to think of it you're right - there is no
distinction here.

Nigel Brooks

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Crow" <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44j3c0tll836ag4uq7imus7liluapne6ef@4ax.com...
> Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
> cameraman?
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
> they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
> that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
> can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.
>

Another answer:

Interview from behind the camera. If your situation allows for you not
being in the shot, it isn't always bad to not see the interviewer. In fact,
you can voice over later in post.

I've seen some documentaries that were done this way. "Revolution" comes to
mind. That one is a documentary about the Linux operating system. It isn't
one of the best shot docos I've ever seen, but the subject matter was
interesting enough to support the way it was produced.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
>>cameraman?
>>
>>I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
>>they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
>>that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
>>can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.
>
>
> If you're ok with low-rent-looking results and you have reasonable,
> steady lighting, it's doable. Just set up the camera on a tripod and
> adjust the field of view to cover both chairs, and let it run through
> the whole interview. The interviewee will have to be a little bit
> patient with you as you set up the sound and maybe adjust the camera.
> Consumer camcorders (I have no idea about professional ones) with
> LCD's usually let you flip the screen so it points forward, and they
> often have a handheld infrared remote, but you don't really need that,
> since you can just leave the tape running and edit afterwards.
>
> If you're trying to do a more professional job with a variety of
> shots, multiple cameras, etc., then I'd think you really need a
> cameraman.

I did something like this a couple of years ago. It wasn't my original
plan, but my interviewer backed out at the last minute and I had to fill in.

I set up two cameras on tripods, one focused on myself and one on the
interviewee. I wired us both with lavs. Although my camcorder's LCD will
reverse, I chose not to use that feature because I didn't want to lose
the eye contact between the participants. IOW the LCD would cause eyes
to move in the wrong direction.

This is not an ideal arrangement, by any means, but it can be made to
work with some care and planning.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:37:36 +0200, Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk>
wrote:

>Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
>cameraman?
>
>I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
>they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
>that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
>can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.

The simplest way is to shoot and interview from behind the camera,
close enough miked so that the audio is clear for both of you. You
won't be on camera, but you'll have decent camera work and good audio.

The next way would be to set up the camera shots fixed, don't worry
about viewing the monitor. The interviewees don't need to see a
talent monitor, and neither do you as interviewer. You can do talking
head shots with two cameras for two people, add other cameras as
desired to fill in additional angles and details. Make sure that the
chairs don't roll or allow a lot of play, and that the subjects don't
stand or jump out of the chairs or whatever else would take them out
of the shot.

OTOH -- if you must be the interviewer yourself, maybe you can
recruit a helpful camera operator? It doesn't take a lot of skill to
beat out a fixed, unmoving camera. Though if you set it up right,
fixed cameras aren't bad -- you just can't easily get by with a single
camera.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I've seen it done using Vegas where both the cameraman & subject were on
screen at same time by using a mirror. Then using the pan & crop tool when
editing they zoomed in on a close-up of the cameraman now & then. It would
have been better if the cameraman was inserted as a cutaway shot after the
interview was finished.


"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:gp55c095mb6qbledsc02r87arc13ia4eid@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:37:36 +0200, Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
> >cameraman?
> >
> >I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
> >they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
> >that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
> >can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.
>
> The simplest way is to shoot and interview from behind the camera,
> close enough miked so that the audio is clear for both of you. You
> won't be on camera, but you'll have decent camera work and good audio.
>
> The next way would be to set up the camera shots fixed, don't worry
> about viewing the monitor. The interviewees don't need to see a
> talent monitor, and neither do you as interviewer. You can do talking
> head shots with two cameras for two people, add other cameras as
> desired to fill in additional angles and details. Make sure that the
> chairs don't roll or allow a lot of play, and that the subjects don't
> stand or jump out of the chairs or whatever else would take them out
> of the shot.
>
> OTOH -- if you must be the interviewer yourself, maybe you can
> recruit a helpful camera operator? It doesn't take a lot of skill to
> beat out a fixed, unmoving camera. Though if you set it up right,
> fixed cameras aren't bad -- you just can't easily get by with a single
> camera.
> --
> *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
> ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
> *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk> wrote:

>Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
>cameraman?
>
>I'm wondering if anyone has experience of interviewing people where
>they take on both the role of interviewer and cameraman? I'm assuming
>that you'd need to use a camcorder that has an LCD screen, so that you
>can monitor the shot in a way that is not too obstructive.
>
>Any help appreciated.
>
>Love
>
>Crow

It's better if both people are sitting down then you know they will be
within the range of the camera. Setup the camera either side on to you
and the other person or have your back to the camera and the other
person facing the camera. If may need an external microphone if you
don't have a quite atmosphere or the other person is not a loud
speaker. Tell the other person not to steer at the camera but look at
your face during the interview.
Filming yourself for a minute or so as an introduction to the other
person also helps.

Regards Brian

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Crow" <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44j3c0tll836ag4uq7imus7liluapne6ef@4ax.com...
> Is it feasible to shoot a documentary with me as both interviewer &
> cameraman?

Yes it is. I've done it. And - increasingly - as TV stations send out
one-man news videographer/reporters it happens all the time. It can work
fine thanks to the fold out screen and a couple of clip mikes.

Gary

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:59:20 GMT, David Marks
<lancastersummit@netscape.net> wrote:

>Crow, here's the problem.
>If you're doing a sit down interview and the interviewee
>is supposed to be looking off screen at you, you can't
>shoot a bunch of interviews with everyone looking toward
>the operating side of the camera (well, you can, but
>it's boring).

I think the convention that the camera is asking the questions is
well-established and works ok? If you want a sit-down interview,
book someone to do it. If it's just you and a camera, why try to
hide the fact? The audience won't care. They'll notice a kludge,
though.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks for all the replies.

I neglected to state that I won't be included in the interview shots
and very likely my voice won't appear in the finished footage either.
This is why I thought it might be feasible for me to conduct the
interview whilst keeping one eye on the LCD screen. Otherwise I doubt
I'd have considered this an option.

From what you've suggested it has given me the confidence to at least
try the one man and his camera approach. My concern was that having
to look at the LCD screen might compromise my ability to be present
with the interview process.

My remaining question is concerning how close I can get to the person
I'm interviewing, considering that the camera needs to be either
alongside me or slightly in front of me? I'd like to get close to the
interviewees because of the sense of intimacy that it can engender.
How close can I get with the camera before it just turns into a
headshot? Or would I need to use a special lens to give the shot more
'distance'? Excuse my lack of technical language as this is all new
to me.

Love

Crow

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:26:09 +0200, Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk>
wrote:

>I neglected to state that I won't be included in the interview shots
>and very likely my voice won't appear in the finished footage either.
>This is why I thought it might be feasible for me to conduct the
>interview whilst keeping one eye on the LCD screen. Otherwise I doubt
>I'd have considered this an option.

If you're not in shot, what good does it do you to see the screen?
If the subject moves out of frame, what are you going to do? Kick him
unobtrusively to move him back?

If you want a medium shot, both of you in view, you might get away
with abandoning the camera. If you're NOT going to be in view, it's
going to be quite a tight shot, isn't it? Get behind the camera where
you belong.


>From what you've suggested it has given me the confidence to at least
>try the one man and his camera approach. My concern was that having
>to look at the LCD screen might compromise my ability to be present
>with the interview process.
>
>My remaining question is concerning how close I can get to the person
>I'm interviewing, considering that the camera needs to be either
>alongside me or slightly in front of me? I'd like to get close to the
>interviewees because of the sense of intimacy that it can engender.
>How close can I get with the camera before it just turns into a
>headshot? Or would I need to use a special lens to give the shot more
>'distance'? Excuse my lack of technical language as this is all new
>to me.

Eh? Is this interview going to be the first time you meet the camera?
Play with it a bit. Try out this interview technique with a friend.
If this interview is important, don't make it the first time you
attempt whatever technique you decide on!

Can the nest we hear from you be a report on how your experiments went
and which technique worked best, please? Go on, get your hands dirty
:-)

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow,

Personally, I consider on-camera interviewing one of the most difficult of
skills to master. Actualy, I guess if all you aspire to achieve is to read
a question and have someone spout a lukewarm response, it's fine. But
that's not really "interviewing." Real interiewing is a much subtler art.
You need to be totally engaged in the moment. You need to watch your
subject's responses. If they're nerveous, calm them. If they're evasive,
build trust, and if they're motor-mouths - find a way to move them toward
short, simple answers that you can actually USE.

Most of the great interview responses I've gotten came because I followed
up on some little thing that came up during the interview.

If your brain is checking framing, worrying about the white balance, or
thinking that maybe you should stand up and zoom in a little since your
subject is getting passionate about the subject and you'd like to push in
to give the audience a chance to see more of the emotion on his/her face,
you're NOT listening.

So my suggestion would be that while YES, it can be done. It's NOT the
path to great results. Not unless you're working with subjects that are
used to being interviewed and can deliver canned content on cue.

Plus, and this is the big one - If you're not concentrating on the
INTERVIEW skills part of the equasion, how are you going to learn to be a
BETTER interviewer?

What you're suggesting is that it's OK to split your attention between two
difficult tasks, because you're willing to settle for mediocre results on
BOTH.

Doesn't sound to me like a very good way to develop your skills.

My 2 cents anyway...

If you aspire to be a realy good interviewer - start studing and
practicing INTERVIEWING.
If you want to be a camera operator - start studing and practicing THAT.

Hope that helps.

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0b67c0lf78gs1sr9phg7sksq2vgn1qafe9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:26:09 +0200, Crow <crow@vacionido.fslife.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I neglected to state that I won't be included in the interview shots
> >and very likely my voice won't appear in the finished footage either.
> >This is why I thought it might be feasible for me to conduct the
> >interview whilst keeping one eye on the LCD screen. Otherwise I doubt
> >I'd have considered this an option.
>
> If you're not in shot, what good does it do you to see the screen?
> If the subject moves out of frame, what are you going to do? Kick him
> unobtrusively to move him back?

You could, but panning works better.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks Bill,

Your comments make good sense to me. I think I knew from the
beginning that I would need to find a camera operator, but have been
resisting it. Now I'm going to put out an APB for an operator

The interviews are going to be fairly improvised anyway, so I'll
definitely need to be fully present with the process. Having a camera
operator should give me more interesting and less static shots as
well.

Love

Crow

>
> Crow,
>
>Personally, I consider on-camera interviewing one of the most difficult of
>skills to master. Actualy, I guess if all you aspire to achieve is to read
>a question and have someone spout a lukewarm response, it's fine. But
>that's not really "interviewing." Real interiewing is a much subtler art.
>You need to be totally engaged in the moment. You need to watch your
>subject's responses. If they're nerveous, calm them. If they're evasive,
>build trust, and if they're motor-mouths - find a way to move them toward
>short, simple answers that you can actually USE.
>
>Most of the great interview responses I've gotten came because I followed
>up on some little thing that came up during the interview.
>
>If your brain is checking framing, worrying about the white balance, or
>thinking that maybe you should stand up and zoom in a little since your
>subject is getting passionate about the subject and you'd like to push in
>to give the audience a chance to see more of the emotion on his/her face,
>you're NOT listening.
>
>So my suggestion would be that while YES, it can be done. It's NOT the
>path to great results. Not unless you're working with subjects that are
>used to being interviewed and can deliver canned content on cue.
>
>Plus, and this is the big one - If you're not concentrating on the
>INTERVIEW skills part of the equasion, how are you going to learn to be a
>BETTER interviewer?
>
>What you're suggesting is that it's OK to split your attention between two
>difficult tasks, because you're willing to settle for mediocre results on
>BOTH.
>
>Doesn't sound to me like a very good way to develop your skills.
>
>My 2 cents anyway...
>
>If you aspire to be a realy good interviewer - start studing and
>practicing INTERVIEWING.
>If you want to be a camera operator - start studing and practicing THAT.
>
>Hope that helps.