On ExposureRoom Photos, Videos, Music, Graphic art etc. are collectively called "Assets". Blogs, Tutorials, Articles and Reviews are collectively called "Journals". All assets and journals have a title, description, tags and equipment (assets) and categories (journals). The following is an attempt to help you understand how best to use these attributes so as to gain the most benefit while at the same time help other viewers (members and visitors) better find you and their assets and journals.

As soon as you publish an asset or journal entry, the system publishes your asset/post with global search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN etc.) and over 60 blog directories and various portals. Within moments search engine spiders and crawlers start to crawl your pages in order to index your asset or journal entry. The ExposureRoom search engine does the same. Now all search engines have a few things in common.

1. They love text. Loads of text. The better you describe your assets the more they love you for it. They feel they're indexing something worthwhile and they lap it up. But be careful, they also seem to be really good at figuring out if all the text is nonsense.
2. They hate duplication. When they see duplicate keywords they think you're somehow trying to fool them and they stay far way. You don't want that.

Keeping these two important aspects in mind the following is our recommendation for setting up your assets and journals posts. Remember, these are recommendations and not rules.

Title

Provide a title that best describes your asset or journal post. The length of the title should be such that it does not wrap in the space provided on the Asset display page. This is the page where you see a singular asset or journal post. Note also that the title you see in search results pages for search engines such as Google is the same as the title you see in the browser window while viewing an asset on ExposureRoom. This title contains your name as well.

Description

Describe your assets such that it is interesting to the viewer. Provide background information, intent, difficulties, how you achieved what you wanted and things to look for and other points of interest. The description should include "keywords" from your title as well as tags you tag your asset with and equipment and software you used in order to create your asset. If you are crediting other members in the credits section it's best to describe their role or interesting things about the collaboration that will interest your viewers. What's important to remember is that your title, tags, equipment and credits are really the keywords that should be found in the description of your asset. Having just tags and equipment is almost go without a description to go along with it.

On ExposureRoom we breakdown search tags into two different areas in order to further improve searching. Asset search keywords are broken down into Tags and Equipment, while journal search keywords are broken down into Categories and Tags. Your name is always included in the list of search terms so don't include it in your tags (remember, search engines detest duplicates). We break down your search tags into tags and equipment (for assets) so members and visitors interested looking for assets made using certain equipment or software can find those easily.

Tags

Besides wanting to break down search terms for assets into tags and equipment for the reason explained earlier, we also wanted equipment names to be consistent as correct as per the maker of the equipment. That way when people search for equipment that you've included as part of the attributes of your asset, they'll be found. So if you've added equipment in tags instead of in Equipment, your assets won't be found in our search by equipment pages. So please be mindful of this as the search by equipment pages are one of the most common pages on ExposureRoom.

Breaking down Tags/Equipment

Another aspect to note is that, when a Tag contains multiple words or the name of the equipment (or software) you use contains multiple words, we break these down further and include them as search terms. For example, if you listed the Canon XH-A1 as one of the items in your equipment, the search terms that actually get associated with your asset are:

1. Canon XH-A1
2. Canon
3. XH-A1
4. XH
5. A1

Similarly if one of the tags you associated with your asset is New Mexico the search terms that actually get associated with your asset are:

1. New Mexico
2. New
3. Mexico

Synonyms

Certain keywords (be it tags or equipment) also have synonyms associated with them and these synonyms are also associated with your assets as search terms. For example if you've used the Letus35 Extreme in the making of your video and you've listed it as part of the equipment we include the synonym 35mm Adapter as part of the search terms. As a result this synonym gets further broken down into the following search terms:

1. 35mm Adapter
2. 35mm
3. Adapter

Flagging a Video as HD

If you flag your video as an HD video then we include the following synonyms (HD, HDV, High Definition, Hi Def, High Def, HD Video, High Def Video, High Definition Video, 720p or 1080p depending on the dimensions of the video you uploaded). You can image what each of these synonyms break down to.

I hope this post helps you understand the way things work behind the scenes as regards tagging your assets and journals.

One of the first things I wanted/needed to do when I first started down the route of videography was to do some corporate interviews. This obviously meant that besides buying a good HD video camera (I bought the Canon XH-A1 prosumer HD Video camera) I needed a lot of other paraphernalia such as tripod, microphone and lights.

Lights for Corporate style Interviews

This post focuses on lights required to shoot corporate style interviews. Of course like with everything else one doesn't just arrive at the answer in the first go and so it took me a few iterations to get it right. During these iterations there was a lot of frustration, time spent and money wasted. So I hope those reading this article and benefit from my experience and get it right the first time. First I bought one of those light kits you see touted by most video/photo light stores (Lowell for example). The kits sounded like they had everything I would need. As it turns out I didn't know I needed a soft box to make my interviewee look good, especially since most corporate types are not in their teens and so the kit I bought was one that did not include a soft box. I didn't know I needed one and secondly, those kits cost more than twice that of the one I bought.

So I went back to doing more research. Unfortunately, the more research I did, the more confusing it became and the more costly the whole affair of buying the right lights was turning out to be. And eventually you read about people saying they just went out and bought work lights from Home Depot and got the job done or they built their own soft box using compact fluorescent lights (CFL). Now this may be a solution for what you're trying to do, but it wasn't for me and once again, I only found out after having spent the time, money and effort.

Now I'm quite handy provided I have all the tools (which I don't) and so after buying work lights from Home Depot only to find that they're only good to light up the background and stuff at best (I'll explain this in the next section) I started down the route of making my own soft box using CFLs.

Soft Light versus Soft box

During all of this and in speaking with various people I found that people use soft light and soft box interchangeably. Without boring you with light theory, let me just tell you they are not the same! A florescent tube or bulb could be considered a soft light or a work light from home depot with it's glass sand blasted to give it the diffused look might be considered a soft light, they are NOT a soft box. What you really need is a broad source (of light) and not a point source and a florescent tube/bulb or a work light is a point source. A point source produces hard or stark shadows while a broad source produces nice soft shadows. Further a broad source produces a nice "wrap around" light in that even though your key light is on one side of the subject because the light it broad it tends to wrap around to the other side. Depending on the placement of lights and the look you're after, you may not need a fill light (or bounce card) when using a broad source of light. So If you want your subjects to look good (soft shadows and fewer wrinkles) on camera you need a broad source of light that is also a soft light. In other words you need is a large soft box.

Researching Compact Fluorescent Lights

The first thing I knew I should do is do some research on CFLs since these bulbs have a (bad) reputation and I wanted to see if it was even possible to get a good light in terms of quality of light using CFL for video. Ask anyone of any forum and you'll almost always be told not to bother since a CFL that produces good quality light does not exist or can't match up to incandescent or halogen lights the pros use.

Building your own Soft Box Versus Buying

Before I go into the how to choose your CFL bit I should point out that another aspect of building your own versus buying readymade began to stare me in the face. How do I mount the light? How do I control the height, pan, tilt etc? I quickly realized that building the light (head) itself was the simple part, but getting it to mount and being able to control the height and pan and tilt angles was actually going to be harder. It would mean that I'd have to buy the light stands and somehow rig my light heads to fit on these stands and somehow also control the pan and tilt angles effectively. Last but not least, did I really want to go to a client for an interview shoot using stuff that looks homemade and cheap? No way!

So I decided that I was going to buy a softbox (or two) that used CFLs) rather than trying to make my own. However, I needed to continue with my research on CFLs so that I could understand what the makers of these lights were saying and if needed, I could use other CFL bulbs in their lights.

CFLs and Quality of Light

So let me explain what quality of light means as it pertains to videography and photography. The best source of quality light is our sun. This is so because the light it gives out out covers the whole visible spectrum of light almost evenly. Simply put, when you see things in sunlight you see everything in their natural color and no one color appears more pronounced than the other. At least for human beings sunlight is the standard or point of reference and all other light is measure against it. This quality of light is also measured as Color Rendering Index or CRI. Light bulbs are given a CRI rating between 0-100. An "ideal" incandescent or halogen bulb is considered to have a CRI of 100. So now our point of reference shifts to these kinds of bulbs (also known as blackbody emitters) . So given that incandescent and halogen bulbs have the best quality of light (CRI) it would be pretty hard for a CFL to match a CRI of 100. And here is where all hell breaks loose because of the stigma attached to CFL and florescent tubes. Older florescent lights have 3 major issues.

1. A very low CRI
2. On video and Photos they would produce a greenish tinge. This is because the light these tubes produce has a spike in the green frequency and so things look kind of green. These lights also have dips in other light frequencies and so other colors don't show up as well.
3. You'd see a flicker in your video due to the shutter speed of your video and the fact that these tube kind of flicker. Something you notice when you look at them.

Now CFLs are a newer technology and so some or all of these issues can be fixed, however the bulbs you typically purchase at Home Depot are NOT the answer (at least not at the time of writing this article). The CRI rating of these bulbs is typically 82. That's not so good for what we intend to use them for. Some manufacturers call their bulbs "Full Spectrum". I assume this means close to a CRI of 100 but I've never been able to find the CRI rating on the packaging and so I assume this is marketing hype in most cases.

92 CRI CFLs

After doing some searching, I eventually came across NaturalLighting.com. They have a vast array of bulbs and they clearly indicate the CRI and other specs on their bulbs. The ones I bought are These

Steve Kaeser Cool Flo Light Kit

I bought my soft boxes from Steve Kaeser. Specifically, I bought this kit. The kit consist of 2 32x32 inch soft boxes with stands, light heads and bulbs. The bulbs that came with the lights are a bit larger than the regular bulbs including the bulbs I bought, but they fit in the same sized bulb holder (U.S house hold). Their specifications are:

• 150W light output/42W power consumption
• 2800 lumens
• 5100K
• CRI - don't know

Here is a frame grab from a test shot I did with these lights

Click on the image below to see the video

The intent was to shoot using the Letus35 FE, I had a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 with me. I should have had  wider lens (like a 24mm) but didn’t own one at the time. The sun was out that day and I found it pretty hard to focus using the camera’s tiny view finder. It was ok if I didn’t intend to pan or if the sun wasn’t behind me, but most times that wasn’t the case.

Eventually, I resorted to long shots using the XHA1’s zoom lens (without the Letus35 of course). So in order to achieve a shallow DOF I zoomed in fully and moved back as far as I needed so as to get the composition I wanted. I believe I made one big mistake here and that is that I didn’t use the built in ND filters. As a result, the iris closed down completely (translated to not so shallow a DOF) and the camera was having a hard time focusing. So you’ll see a few shots where things don’t look they’re in sharp focus.

The HV20 was used with the Steadicam Merlin so I didn’t have to mount and dismount the XHA1 from the Steadicam Merlin each time. I find that I’m more comfortable with the XHA1 on the Merlin than I am with the HV20. The heavier camera (XHA1) makes it far easier to control movements, especially outdoors where the slightest breeze can knock the HV20 off course.

The story I try to tell here is that people of all ages come to Vineyards. You see Families, including babies and children; friends, lovers and even pets come here for a few hours of the day. They bring their picnic baskets and buy wine from the Winery. The shots you see here were taken during the course of 4 hours. During editing and put the shots together in such as way that you see people arriving, then settling down and then drinking their wine.

Hope you enjoy the video.

Encoding videos in general is a very confusing topic since one has to understand and have a lot of technical knowledge about encoders and decoders and the multitude of video formats. To further complicate matters tools such as Adobe Premiere Pro C3 make the job even more confusing with a multitude of presets out of the box, none of which seem to really apply to what most of us are trying to do.

Essentially, you’re either trying to encode a video for the Internet or for DVD/Blu-ray production. Your source video is either SD or HD. This article is written for those whose source video is HD and the intent is to publish videos to video hosting websites that support HD videos such as ExposureRoom. For DVD/Blu-ray I’ve found Adobe Premiere Pro CS3’s default presets pretty good.

Encoding for the Internet

I believe most people reading this blog want to encode videos for the web these days since it’s a very effective delivery mechanism and website’s such as ExposureRoom retain the HD quality of the source video making it viable to show off your productions to customers and prospective customers as well as family and friends.

You might want to take a look at my Videos.

Deinterlace

In the Export Settings dialog in Premiere Pro C3, switch to the “Output” tab (top left hand side of the dialog) and ensure that the Deinterlace check box is checked. This should be check by default, but make sure in any case.

Format

I’ve found that the Adobe Flash Video format renders the best contrast and color saturation. Quick Time videos tend to look the most faded, while the Window Media format is in between. Be aware that in order to play Adobe Flash Video files, you’ll need a Flash Video player (Not Flash Player, but Flash Video Player). If you need your raw videos (meaning you’re making your encoded files available directly via an FTP site or similar) playable on a PC as well as MAC, you should encode in Quick Time format, unless you’re providing the Flash Video player  as well.

Dimensions

Most video players perform best when the dimensions of your video are multiples of 16. I’m not going to get into the technical details behind this here, but just remember that. So you’re wondering why the 1080 HD dimensions (1920x1080) are not multiples of 16, right? Well, that’s because HD was not made for computers and when I said video players earlier I meant computer video players (Adobe Flash Video Player, QuickTime, Window Media Player etc.). Having said that, don’t be hell bent of this rule. It’s a good rule to know and to stick to when you can but it’s not a must.

Video Bit Rate

The Video bit rate is by far the most important from a quality stand point. It’s also almost entirely responsible for the physical size of the encoded video file. And you thought the dimensions would play a part too didn’t you? Dimensions do play a part, but an insignificant part. You can see for yourself by encoding the same source video to two different dimensions and keeping the video bit rate the same (and all other settings the same).

Too high a video bit rate can also be detrimental. For instance if you plan to make your videos available for download to your customers and friends and because you want them to see the best quality you encode your videos with say a video bit rate of 8,000. Some of your customers will be able to view the video while others may not. In general, a video with a higher bit rate requires a faster computer. You see in order to played back the video the player needs to decoded it while it’s being played back and the more bits the player has to decode per second the more work it has to do. A video encoded with a higher bit rate needs to be decoded at a higher bit rate as well. So if the video is jerky, it’s more than likely that the computer can’t handle the bit rate.

Even DVD players have a limit to the bit rate they can handle. This limit is usually 9,800. But this limit includes the audio bit rate as well. More about audio bit rate next.

There are two factors that really determine the video bit rate you should use:
1.    The dimensions of the video – Larger the dimensions, the higher the bitrate should/may need to be.
2.    Movement in the scene – If there is a lot of movement (especially fast movement) or a lot of panning or tilting, you’ll need to encode using a higher bit rate in order to make the video look decent and not be jerky.

CBR, VBR 1 Pass, VBR 2 Pass

This is another complicated topic. Suffice it to say that 99% of the time you should use VBR 2 Pass. VBR in general takes more time to encode and VBR 2 pass takes even more time to encode. VBR 2 Pass produces the smallest files. CBR tends to be the fastest to encode but produces larger files. If you’re burning a DVD or Blu-ray and you have more than enough room on the disk you can encode your video as CBR. VBR also taxes the playback computer more than CBR does.

Audio Bit Rate

By now you’ve probably figured out that bit rate is directly proportional to quality. And the size of the file is directly proportional to quality as well. And you’d be correct. Encoding is therefore a fine balance between quality and file size. Typically an audio bit rate of 224 is pretty decent (Close to CD quality) and most viewers won’t notice any loss is audio quality. Most MP3 download sites encode their audio files at 128 kbps. So if that quality is good for you then choose an audio bit rate of 128. Don’t try and encode at a higher bit rate than the original source audio, since that has no meaning. You’ll get a bloated file with no increase in audio quality. So the best thing to do is find out the source’s audio bit rate first and accordingly decide the audio encoding bit rate you should use.

HD Video encoding for Internet

Well a lot depends on the website you intend to upload your video to. YouTube will massacre your videos so encoding using a high bit rate (both audio and video) has no meaning. ExposureRoom supports HD video and allows playback at 720p. Your best option is to encode your videos at 3000kbps - 3,500kbps, with an audio bit rate (if the source audio bit rate supports it) of 192-384 kbps. Since dimensions don’t really influence the file size, you should probably use 1280x720 as the dimensions.

If you’re making your original files available for download, such that the viewer downloads the file to their computer first and then views them, keep in mind that even though a lot of people have high-speed internet access and wouldn’t mind waiting 20-30 minutes to download your videos, their computers may not be able to handle videos encoded at a very high bit rate. I’ve found a video bit rate of 5000kbps is a good limit to stick to.

If you’re making your videos available by embedding a video player such as QuickTime or Windows Media Player in a web page then keep the following in mind:
In order for a viewer to be able to view your video almost as soon as they click on the play button your video will need to be encoded with a maximum bit rate (audio    video) that is less than their download rate. For most home users this is around 384 to 768 kbps.

We went out to horse country near here in the late afternoon/evening so we could catch some evening light. Rebecca took out her Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime lens and set off down the road, while I setup the camera, adapter, rails and a Canon 85mm f/1.8 along with my Libec LS 55M tripod. This is a "built" tripod (read that as heavy). So off I went lugging my rig over my shoulders (Not sure how anyone else does this).

During the course of an hour or two we did some casual shooting. The horses.well, they had the weekend off (honest, I didn't know they got the weekend off). We got a few shots of them, out in the distance though. Oh, and I tried very hard to get Rebecca in the frame but each time she discovered me, she'd walk off in the other direction, knowing full well that I won't be able to keep pace with her (what, with my rig and all).

I wanted this shoot to be different; I wanted to move to the next level (level 2 I think). I'd regurgitate the words of wisdom in every book I'd read off late (on cinematography/photography), every piece of good advise I was given by people in this field. People I hold in high regard. Pan slowly, tilt slowly. Be thoughtful of your composition, don't just concentrate on the subject (foreground), watch the background, etc. etc. Oh and for those of you reading this blog who don't know, the Letus35 Extreme, like all other 35mm adapters in the market today, it's all manual focus. And to make it harder still, I was using an 85mm f/1.8 (read that as shallow depth of field). So while I'm trying to keep all of the above in the foreground of my brain I'm also trying to having to focus using the camera's view finder (no, are you kidding, I don't have a field monitor, that'll be too easy). You remember the feeling you had when you started driving and you had to remember to do all these things simultaneously; the clutch, throttle, break, steering, gears, look in front, behind, on the sides and you were supposed to keep the car on the road at all times *and* not hit anyone? That's kind of how I was felt. I know one day I'll be doing all this without thinking.

The shoot's over, the sun's set and we're headed back. "I definitely got a few keepers", I think to myself. That's usually what I think anyway. I'll shoot about an hour of tape and end up with 5-10 minutes of usable footage at most. I've only just begun as a videographer, what can I say? The facts are blatantly obvious after transferring the footage onto the editing bay. But I also got to thinking that I've seen some truly incredible and inspiring videos shot by very talented people and sure I can produce a video with various (good) takes all edited into a video I can post online and get people's feedback so I can improve my skills. But what I'd really like to do is tell a story with my Canon XHA1 and Letus35 Extreme. Shucks, I should have had this thought *before* I started shooting, not after (stupid).

After looking at the footage I had and clipping out the good takes, I looked at them and re-looked and them to get some inspiration. Something is happening. It's all looking pretty good to me. Actually I was very excited with what I was seeing. But what story can I tell?

With video editing software  (Adobe Production Premium) at my disposal I set out to tell my story. I picked a sound track I'd recently work with for a customer and started down the editing route. Folks, editing makes the movies you like and so editing is key. In fact I love the editing part. Editing HDV is a bit slow, even if you have the baddest, meanest hardware available today (which I do). It's when things start falling in place that it gets really exciting and a lot of fun. It's important to  get the music to tell its own story. By that, what I mean is that the music you choose plays a very important role in setting the mood for the viewer. Also keep in mind that your cuts, wipes, fades, dissolves etc. should ideally be in step with the music. So while I'm trying to tell a story I'm also "listening" to the music and making cuts/dissolves etc. in step with the beat or using certain footage in a certain place because the music and footage go well (at least I think so).

Let me know if you enjoyed the visuals, the story and anything else you might want to say.

See the Video here

Anyway, once the good takes were neatly compartmentalized I needed a break, so I decided I'd try my hand at story telling. A story that had nothing to do with what the customer's message was but rather, a story that could be told using the footage I had.

The setting is in a small town near Denver Colorado called George Town. This is a small little town with a history of mining that is now a tourist spot. We happened to be in Colorado at the perfect time for the Aspen. You see the Aspen go into full bloom for a very short time (a few days) during October. George Town also has a little train that has a history to do with coal mines and transporting coal from one location to another. The route the train takes through the mountains was quite an engineering achievement for its day. Today people ride in this train for fun. Of course with my Canon XHA1, Letus35 FE (the Letus35 Extreme was not out then) and my Libec LS 55M tripod, I was quite an attraction myself. No, I don't mind the attention if it doesn't get in the way (more on that later).

On this day, the idea was to get some beautiful shots of the area. These shots may eventually be used as "B Roll" in the final cut. So there wasn't any agenda of shots per se. Heck I didn't even know what to expect. Becky our guide for the day (the beautiful blond you see in the opening shot) was showing us around. I'd just stop and shoot a shot here, a shot there, anything that took my fancy.

We were waiting at this tiny station (the kind you see in old Westerns, I kid you not) waiting for our train to arrive. I didn't know which direction it was coming from, nor if I'd be able to see it well before it actually got to the station. You see, I knew I wanted a few shots of the train in motion while I was NOT on the train. We hear the whistle in the distance so I started looking around to see if I could spot the train in the mountains, but I couldn't. As the train got closer I was beginning to get very anxious. I was certain I was going to miss my opportunity, when suddenly I noticed a cut in the side of the mountains in front of me that, to me looked like it might be for tracks. So I hauled my gear and started running as fast as I could towards the (imagined) tracks. They were a hundred feet up the mountains from where we were and I wanted to get close to the moving train, hopefully right at the tracks. So started up the treacherous slope, huffing and panting making sure none of my gear was in harms way. I was about half way up, when the train appeared on the other side (the mountains behind me). From my new vantage point I could see the path the train was going to take. So down the slop, (carefully) I went and then across the parking lot and down another slope. All this time, Becky and Peg were watching me and laughing their heads off. I mean I must have looked like an idiot running around trying to catch a glimps of a train as if I've never seen one before. I'm pretty sure they had a side bet going as well.

Well, I couldn't get too close to the train, given the time I had. The first shot I got was while the train was making its way across the very high bridge. I had just enough time to set up the camera before the train started its journey across the bridge from right to left. Much later, while on the train, I took a complementary shot from the train looking down at the road I was standing on. In the video you half expect to see (at least I do) someone there with a camera pointing up towards the train. Continuity, they call it in the film world.

Remember the part about being an attraction and getting in the way? Well, so we're on the train, and there's about 30-40 other people (tourists) each with at least one camera. You know the small digital point and shoots? Anyway, during the ride I'd constantly get up to shoot and literally the whole train got up to shoot as well. If I went to the right side, the whole train would move over to the right. I'm not sure what they saw, but I couldn't get a single shot in that looked out towards the front, since everyone was standing up trying to get a shot of what I was trying to get a shot of. The only shots I could get were those directly to the side of the train. All the shots from the train were hand held and the train wasn't smooth as at all. It would jerk (yes, jerk) from left to right. I used a trick to get this one shot, where you see the engine negotiation a left hand curve. This was towards the end of the ride so I had time to plan it. I got up, so now everyone got up. You should have seen it, it was like a wave where the closest to me would follow my sight and movement and then those next to them and so on, so there was a kind of delay (wave like motion). I moved across to the right side of the train and hung out with my camera. So now all of them were straining to see what I was seeing when I quickly moved back to the left side of the train, hung out and got my shot before everyone else caught on.

Before I end, I should say that I got a lot of footage but very little of it is usable for one reason or the other. I guess that's how it's going to be for a while.

See the Video

]]>CinematographyVideographyCanon XHA1ColoradoLetus35 FEStory TellingTrain