Aframe

8 Reasons to Forget the ‘Good Old Days’ of TV Production

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:37:00 +0000

I once remember sitting in a meeting at BBC Entertainment with all of the production managers. It was all a long time ago when things were very, very different. Even then, they were bemoaning the fact that it ‘wasn't like this in the good old days’.

I, being the usual quiet sort of person that I am, had to say something. My voice was still in the process of breaking and I was a little nervous to be round some of the most respected Production Managers in the BBC.

“If the good old days were so good, we would still be in the good old days.” I must have sounded like the cockiest little so and so ever, yes, even more than normal!

Fast forward to last week at the DPP on the 6th Floor of the BBC (and probably at a few production meetings across the country) discussing different workflows for tapeless productions. Some people were bemoaning the new technology and the new ways of working with media and how ‘it wasn't like that in the good old days’ and “why can',t there be just one workflow and one way of working?”

Fortunately the years have given me the good sense to ‘think it, don't say it’. So I held my tongue and remembered the good old days.

Things not to be missed from the good old days

1. Capturing on Film

Putting a piece of celluloid through a camera was fraught with problems. I don't miss taking it through customs and praying it isn't put through the X-ray or spotting a 'hair in the gate'. When the film is taken into a dark room I don’t miss someone opening the door at just the wrong moment or the chemicals in the developing bath not being quite right. A couple of days later you might find out if what you shot was actually worth it.

2. Editing on Film

An editor picks through each clip and manually glues them together, I bet that never had any issues and was really quick! Pity you couldn't broadcast footage from a war zone for two weeks back then.

3. Ingesting from Tape

I don't miss getting back from location and waiting 8 hours to ingest 8 hours of footage into the AVID. I suppose it gave you time to submit your expenses from the shoot (expenses – remember them?).

4. Having to go to the Edit

The only place where your rushes were available.

5. Waiting for the typed transcripts

They were delivered back to you on a bike and then you discovered that one page was missing or that they hadn’t started to look at that VHS yet.

6. The tape snapped

I once sat in an edit and watched an editor record over the footage. I kid you not.

7. Where is the tape?

I once discovered a missing tape propping open a door to another edit. A friend who used to work at the BBC would send out amnesty emails to all of the Sport APs asking them to return missing tapes.

8. Sorry, we don't know how to operate that deck

Some of the old decks required skill. I am told they used to VT edit using a razor blade and a magnifying glass. There was an old joke at LWT, what’s the difference between an oil sheik and an LWT tape op? The oil sheik doesn’t get London weighting (maybe that was the good old days for them).

Image source: http://www.mikefisherorganisation.co.uk/film-and-tv-production.shtml

Is it time to take the cheese grater to your video production budget?

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:31:00 +0000

First off, here are some jokes:

How many runners does it take to change a light bulb?“Shall I send a bike?”

So how many directors does it take to change a light bulb? “I don't know, what is the light bulb’s motivation?”

How many production managers does it take to change a light bulb?“Can’t they do it in the dark?”

For those of you that are either putting budgets together or managing them, there is always a moment when decisions about the production process will affect the way a show is made.

When budget negotiations are talking place, you are often asked if you can just shave some of the fat from the budget, “get the cheese grater out”. I am sure that a couple of you have just spluttered at the word FAT! What fat? Who has fat in their budgets these days?!

So when you are asked to start cutting the budget (or should that be gutting), what you are shaving off isn’t fat, but the things that you use to make the show to the high production values that appeared in the pitch document sent to the client, commissioning editor, distributor (delete as appropriate).

You normally start with the things that make your job easier, so that production coordinator that you so desperately needed has to go. Maybe that extra runner or the people that were going to log the rushes all go. You tell yourself that you will manage, though you don't know how. When it comes to it, because of the professional you are, it gets made and you tell yourself ‘never again!’

Here’s the thing; ‘cheese grating’ only works when you are giving a number to someone so that you get the green light. It doesn’t deal with the key issues you need to look at with editorial (speaking to the person who wrote the proposal and asking them to change it) or looking at the tools you are using to make the show.

Over the years, things have changed with the process. I can remember turning up at Youth and Entertainment at the BBC and they were using Hi8 cameras for additional shooting and for the look it gave the production. They were sending out researchers to shoot, they had the first AVIDs in the BBC and were reducing the time taken and the cost of post producing their shows. I can also remember the techs being quite unhappy…

To make that crucial dent in the budget, sometimes you need to be the first to use something and be a trendsetter. In years to come you will be the one with the smug grin, saying “yes, I was the first”.

To inspire you, here are my top examples of previous trends that saved time, money or both:

1. NLE – Avid was the first, but Apple is up there too because they made it even cheaper. Great for saving time during the edit.

2. Audio Network – paying for the 3 seconds of music your Director just had to have or the whole piece won’t work, used to be such a hassle. Now, just pay once, no alphabet soup of people waiting to be paid.

3. Mini DV cameras – yes I know that they have been overtaken now by file based, but Mini DVs paved the way. Easy to use domestic cameras took the job from expensive cameraperson to untrained less-expensive-person.

4. Predators – fairly new compared to the others, but a producer that operates and then edits on their own kit at home, independently of the rest of the production has helped take a massive chunk out of costs, but collaboration needs to be worked at here.

5. File-based delivery – possibly the most controversial of the lot? There are still a couple more links in the chain for this to really take off, namely dealing with the vast amounts of media that come from high shoot ratios and file delivery to the broadcaster. Work out a solution to manage the media and share it that doesn’t require spending millions on servers, and this can be a real new and we can be ahead of the rest.

6. DVD – Sending DVD by courier is the norm. Remember the days when the client had to come to the edit because it was cheaper than dubbing a tape and they might not have a player their end? However, FTP looks even more attractive now.

Managing Technology on a Video Production

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:11:00 +0000

Thanks to budget constraints and the rapid advance of technology change, the job of the modern day television producer or production manager (PM) is not what it once was.

Today, alongside their many other responsibilities, the people at the top of the production chain are being forced to get to grips with what used be someone else’s domain: technology.

In the ‘good old days’, the PM or producer knew that if they could make the logistics work, balance the books and hire the right people they – and the shoot – would be OK.

Why? Because until recently the responsibility for managing technology on a television shoot was someone else’s problem. Regardless of whether the programme was being shot on video or film, it was possible (and encouraged) to hire small armies of highly experienced and knowledgeable people who just took care of everything.

A sound recordist would record the audio. A cameraperson and his or her assistant would capture the images. The gaffer would sort the lights and the electrics. And an editor would take the pictures and sound away at the end of each day and cut it together into a beautifully crafted show. Job done.

Things have changed a bit since then.

It’s not simply that producers or PMs can no longer employ a camera assistant. In some circumstances they can’t even employ a cameraperson at all!

This means that they now must send a researcher or assistant producer to shoot broadcast quality footage and, as a result, they are now in charge of making sure that these junior people are properly trained to do so.

More pressingly they also need to be in control of where the footage is. And in this new tapeless era, that can be a big task.

In truth, the best person to look after footage on a production is someone who thoroughly understands how to manage data and how to store it properly so that when it arrives at the edit it slots quickly and easily into the pre-determined workflow.

In these modern file-based times this is the job of the DIT (Digital Imaging Technician), the Data Wrangler or, more commonly, the Media Manager.

These roles are fundamental now if producers and production managers want to avoid problems when shooting with solid-state, tapeless cameras.

It is possible for the producer to perform the role or to get an AP or camera operator to do it, but it’s not recommended. And here’s why.

On a tapeless shoot someone needs to do the following:

- Check the footage back to make sure that it is all there.
- Maintain logical and agreed file-naming conventions.
- Ensure all codecs, formats and standards match.
- Confidently duplicate and back-up the footage.
- Report any problems back to the floor.
- Liaise with the camera operators and shooting directors to ensure that rushes make it safely and quickly back to wherever they are being stored.
- Ensure camera settings match across all cameras.
- Liaise with post-production to ensure a smooth flow of footage and that rushes are in the correct form.
- Provide access to rushes for viewing.
- And so on.

Basically, dealing with tapeless cards, disks or drives is a bit like dealing with film stock. You have to be really careful not to lose or damage it.

Tape was fairly robust but accidentally dropping a compact flash card, for example, could result in it becoming corrupt. And that means precious footage is lost forever.

Dealing with technology on a television shoot has got more complicated as times have moved on. But, by taking the right steps, disasters can be avoided.

And one of those steps is hiring a media manager. Even if producers don’t have the budget for a sound person, a camera assistant or a gaffer, employing someone experienced to manage the media is worth every penny.

[Thanks to Dan Studley, technical manager at broadcast equipment hire company HotCam , for providing additional material for this article]

Why did you want to work in TV?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:59:00 +0000

There has to be a reason I'm sure. People rarely "fall" into working in TV or film. After all, let's be honest, there are lots of jobs out there which pay more, don't involve such crazy hours or levels of stress. Nor do they have the same levels of competition just to get your first job. Plus, that first job might actually pay you something!

Based on all of this, there seems to be one thing that binds everyone together – they know that all their hard work brings enjoyment to a lot of people. And this tends to make them passionate about what they do.

Everyone has a slightly different answer as to why they wanted to work in the industry if you ask them, but it certainly isn't that they saw an ad in the local job centre and thought "I'll have a go at that".

I've just been at Ravensbourne College giving a talk on the Cloud and Aframe to 30 first year students. They are all absolutely committed to getting a career in the industry. They know the competition is fierce, the odds are stacked against them, and yet they are investing everything they have, both personally and financially that they will do it. Judging from what I briefly saw, they have a great chance.

Perhaps for these guys, but certainly for a lot of people, it's a light bulb moment. A documentary they saw and it really got to them, or a religious, fanatical cinema-going habit where they devoured the images presented to them. Or maybe they already knew someone who worked in the industry who came back with stories of times on set with the stars, or productions where everything went wrong but the end result was a hit, and it inspired them. And all of this could have happened while they were just a kid, and that inspiration just wouldn't go away.

After all this, it seems only fair to share my light bulb moment, as there really was one. I grew up in the Scottish Borders, where rugby is king, and if you didn't know how to shear a sheep you were at a bit of a loss. As a rather small, not particularly sporty (read – rubbish) kid this wasn't the easiest of places to grow up in. I bumbled along not really having much notice taken of me.

When I was seven, the time came for us to do our first school play, the Wizard of Oz, which would be performed in front of the whole school, teachers and parents included. I ended up landing the part of the Wizard, and set to rehearsing (as much as you do as a 7 year old) with the rest of the class.

I can still remember, completely clearly, the moment I walked out on stage and performed. Suddenly people paid attention and even came up and said how good I was. I'd found something I was good at. From that moment on, throughout my school career all I wanted to be was an actor. I got parts in any play I could, taught myself to shoot and edit (as no-one else would) so I could present or act in things, and put on plays.

A long time later, I went to drama school, got an agent and even got paid to do it for a while.

Now, you're probably thinking that what I do now isn't much to do with this anymore. Acting didn't work out for me, as it doesn't for almost everyone. But the love affair with TV, movies and adverts, in fact anything with a moving image, continued. And if what I do each day, can help someone else realise their dream, or vision then I know, that the frankly dull conversation with another lawyer or accountant running through a tax issue is worth it.

It might not be me anymore appearing in, or making video (and I do miss it), but what Aframe does is about helping those that want to, to have the power and support to do it.

The picture in this post is of me, at about that age, jumping off a bank in the lawn of my Great Aunt's house. It think it's a suitable metaphor for what those who make video each day do – take a leap and hope it's ok.

If Aframe gives you a safe landing, then that's great.

Bringing Classical Music to the Masses

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:03:00 +0000

This Saturday will see the culmination of a project to improve classical music audiences as Aframe helps stream a live concert on the Guardian website and to a series of North East venues.

Five months after Aframe was awarded a prestigious contract from NESTA, The Arts Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Aurora Orchestra debut at London's legendary Camden Roundhouse with a perfomance of 'Love Song for the City'.

The project has been examining how digital technology can increase the size and expand the reach of audiences for classical music. Many arts institutions across the UK are keen to explore ways of finding audience growth in the face of tough economic challenges.

The project will connect traditionally hard to reach groups and lapsed audiences to live performances. Using the latest digital video production technology, Aframe will provide the backbone to enable the performance by the Aurora Orchestra to be simultaneously broadcast via Guardian.co.uk and to audiences at the Alnwick Playhouse, Gala Theatre Durham and Berwick Maltings.

Aframe CEO David Peto said the event represented a landmark in cloud video productions.

"We're delighted that Aframe's unique video production software is being put to such good use in this prestigious performance. We're already privileged to work with some of the world's great TV producers and now we're also enjoying showcasing the amazing music of the Aurora.”

To find out more about the performance, visit the Aurora Orchestra's site.

Are Tradeshows Still Relevant?

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:20:00 +0000

As it’s the first day of the UK’s biggest Broadcast Technology show, Broadcast Video Expo (BVE) at Earls Court in London, I got to thinking about how relevant shows like it are in the age of web demos and online or instantly downloadable software. Their days have to be numbered right?

The two big shows for the Television industry are, NAB in Las Vegas in April, and IBC in Amsterdam in September (we really do choose the most terrible locations to have to spend a week, don’t we?). NAB attracts 90,000 attendees every year, and IBC around 60,000. That’s a lot of people from across the industry all heading to one place.

Whilst these shows have had an understandably tough time over the last few years, they appear to be bouncing back. BVE itself is the result of two competing shows having to come together - Broadcast Live and Video Forum. However, the new show is now actually growing.

The key to these shows, and their continuing relevance, is that video production is an inherently relationship based business. Deals are struck, be it the commissioning of a new show, or the purchase of a bespoke piece of hardware, face to face, and frequently based not just on the product but whether the buyer think they can work with the person selling to them.

However, this is one of the industry's greatest strengths, but also one of its biggest weaknesses. It's had to be this way because when you are buying a piece of equipment for $500,000 or paying several million to have a show made, the reputational investment from you, the buyer/commissioner in that decision is huge. If it goes wrong, you’re probably out of a job.

This, unsurprisingly results in technology companies gearing up to sell in this way as it’s that the customer expects. Hence, big stands, direct sales teams – and trade shows.

But – and it’s a big but, this method of selling is not going to last forever. The relentless commoditisation of first software, then hardware, and now the move to instant on-demand cloud services has drastically reduced the risk element of any purchase a buyer makes. If you spend $1,000 and it isn’t right for your company, the CEO, funnily enough, isn’t going to summarily fire you. Spend $500,000 badly, and they probably will.

Witness what Apple did with Final Cut Pro (the old, good one, not the new one). When they launched Final Cut Studio in 2005 for under $1,000, they understandably got hit with huge numbers of support requests. The professional industry, used to costly support contracts, expected the same level of instant response that they’d had from the likes AVID. When they didn’t get it, they howled about it. Apple politely pointed out that the product cost $1,000 versus $20,000 plus and directed them to the growing support ecosystem online.

You’d have thought this would be a disaster. But Apple sold 2 million copies of the program in 4 years, and the rest is history.

This same thing is coming head on at the other sections of the TV technology industry, like it or not. You won’t need to meet face to face, as you can try a new product with little cost, or even for free.

So where does that leave the trade show? It’d be absolutely incorrect to think they don’t know this is happening – they do. The days of huge stands full of hardware are definitely numbered – a matter of when, not if. So they are focusing on networking, conferences, VIP attendees, and the business models of internet tech shows like South by Southwest. Their seminar programs are getting larger and better designed every year.

If they continue with this, then there is great hope for their future. I go to them all, every year, for exactly these things – to meet new people, and learn new stuff. I get that from being in a room full of people who you know have in interest in say, cloud working.

So it’s with as ever, great hope, that I’ll be heading down to BVE this week. I already have meetings booked with new people, and most likely new conversations awaiting me.

Do I hope it’s even bigger and better than last year – yes – but do I expect to see it in its current form in 5 years time – no. Will the industry still want a big event where they can all meet and swap stories before heading out to the bars and restaurants where the real business happens. You bet.

Private vs Public Cloud

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:16:00 +0000

Yes, we know, we’re back talking about that old chestnut ‘the Cloud’ again. But it’s important that we do. It has the capacity to change the way television production works so we’ll keep coming back to it.

For the purposes of this blog, ‘the cloud’ is defined as online computing that allows users to access, via a web browser, applications and data that are installed and stored on a server somewhere else in the world.

Right now we’re going to look at the differences between private and public cloud.

It’s fair to say that there are varying degrees of difference but the major way that we differentiate between public and private cloud is in the location of the cloud’s deployment.

These are the two extremes:

If cloud services are available over the Internet for anyone to buy and use, this is public cloud. If the services are found behind a firewall and are looked after by a single company for the benefit of that company, it is private.

To coin a phrase, it’s all about location, location, location.

If you’re sold on the idea of using the cloud but you don’t know which of private or public is best for you, here are some of the Pros and Cons of both the public and the private cloud.

Pros of public cloud

You have no need to buy expensive storage or software so your up-front costs are minimal
You pay for your cloud services on a month-by-month basis
A third-party is responsible for providing all the technologies required for your cloud-based services.
You only pay for the bandwidth and storage you use
You can store a myriad of different types of data in what appears to the end-user to be the same location.
You can access your data and applications from anywhere in the world that has an Internet connection.
The cloud services can be tailored for you according to your needs.
Because of extensive back-ups and redundancy public cloud, should be more reliable than private cloud.

Cons of public cloud

You have no control over the cloud service’s basic operations.
If you store your data for a long period of time, it can end up being expensive.
Because your data could be held outside of your geographical area, sometimes on servers in countries with different data, security and privacy laws and requirements, the public cloud is perceived to be less secure than private cloud.

Pros of private cloud

You have full control over the cloud service’s basic operations.
The service is bespoke to your company
You control who does and who doesn’t use it.
It is very easy to scale up and improve your cloud services.
In the long term, the cost of operation can decrease.
Your data is considered to be more secure.

Cons of private cloud

You have high up-front costs.
Your company has to buy, operate and maintain the technologies behind the cloud-based services.
To extend the reach of your cloud-based services to people or companies beyond your own can be tricky.
Because of the firewall, gaining access to your data and applications from anywhere in the world is not as straightforward as it is when using the public cloud.
Hopefully this has spurred you in to exploring more about the cloud and how it will benefit television production for you.

Popular cloud software services like Salesforce.com, Google docs and dare we say it, Aframe, are somewhere in between the two; offering a public service on a private cloud. With these kinds of products, you get the best of both worlds.

Like this? See 'Lucky for some – 13 reasons to love The Cloud' blog

Do I Miss Making Video?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:32:00 +0000

One of the questions I get asked most frequently, is do I miss being a Producer. As in, actually making video – be it film pilots, Corporates, TV Ads, Music Videos, all of which I've been lucky to have been part of making.

I always answer it similarly to this:

Do I miss being in a muddy field at 2am, when we just need to get the last shot, the generator's packed up, and it's started raining?

Yes I do. But equally, no, I definitely don't.

It's an odd answer, and so it needs some explaining.

One of the magical things about working in Film, TV or just video production in general is the seemingly instant ability for a team of people, who often have never worked together before, to suddenly become like a well-oiled machine. I can't think of any other industry that's like it.

A crew running smoothly is a thing of true beauty to behold. Set up to set up, flowing smoothly, the grips thinking ahead (while the DOP farts around tweaking his lighting – their words, not mine), the talent being shuttled back and forth, and at the centre of it all, the 1st Assistant Director, who is always a Brit, no matter where in the world you are, running the show.

When I did produce, I used to take it as a point of pride, if frankly, there was absolutely nothing for me to do. Except make cups of tea for the talent. Which as I was fairly young for the role, frequently resulted in my being asked to do the washing up as well.

So to take this back to why I do miss the muddy field at 2am, is that it's in these moments of crisis, that you suddenly get to realise just how good a crew you really have. Everything from new generators found in an hour by banging on doors, to rain covers fashioned out of gaffer tape, everyone's coats and some scaffolding poles.

Again, I can't think of any industry like it.

The camaraderie that comes with it, is plain to see in every pub and bar in Soho and beyond. The crises that at the time threatened to derail an entire show are now stories to be reminisced over and laughed about. Good times.

However, then there is the follow up answer, which, if you remember, was that no, I don't miss it.

Production, however well planned, well run, and how great the end product is, frequently is a process of lurching from one crisis to another. We all know there is never enough time, or money for any project in the first place, but everything always conspires to take it to an extreme. This usually culminates in the Post Production Facility having to throw everything it's got at getting the finished piece out the door and to air, and they are absolutely brilliant at doing this (I used to own one).

The sheer amount of stress involved is huge. I've seen production managers literally break down, sobbing under the burden of multiple projects, screaming matches, fist fights, deliberate sabotage and more. And before you ask, no, not on any of the projects I ran...

It was watching these things that galvanised me to start Aframe. With all the stress that comes with making video, wouldn't it be good to just know that at the very least, the most valuable thing you create every day, the raw footage, is safe, easily accessible by all of your team from anywhere, instantly, and continue to be so right from the first take to the end of the production and beyond?

If you can have all that taken care of, at the very least it means you are freed up to worry about something else. Or more hopefully, free to concentrate on being as creative as possible.

At Aframe, everything we do comes back to helping solve the challenges that we, and by definition, you, have faced as you go to work every day.

And if we get to the stage, where there is a line in your budgets that says "Aframe" and you can put a big tick next to it, breathe a sigh of relief, and go get your crew finding a purple Rolls Royce by Friday, that would make us very happy.

Give one of us a call and find out about the companies that have already done it – and ask us in the meantime for stories of what happened when we made TV and film. Trust me, we have plenty go round.

Like this? Go read Rory McVicar's 'From field to fork: bringing your ideas to fruition' blog

What’s in the Name, Aframe?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:12:00 +0000

Aframe's name, like many company names, was decided on after a series of protracted discussions with colleagues, friends and family. Aframe's co-founders, David and Stef, were determined that their company name should be something short and memorable, have some sort of meaning behind it and be a word or phrase that would stand the test of time.

Oh, and it had to be available as a .com URL of course!

The name Aframe has two meanings for us. An A-frame is ‘a basic structure designed to bear a load in a lightweight economical manner’ according to Wikipedia. The way how we handle large amounts of complex video data simply and efficiently are a neat parallel, don’t you think?

A ‘frame’ is also a nod to our film and video credentials. A frame in film and video describes the many still images that compose the moving picture. A frame is also a unit of time in filmmaking, which in turn depends on the frame rate being used.

When we write Aframe, it should be written as one, not two words and no capital F, as in Aframe either - thanks.

What do you think of our name? Love it? Hate it? Meh..?

Choosing the Right Camera for your Video Production

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:22:00 +0000

There are many factors that go into choosing a camera for a video production: demands of the broadcaster; what the budget can stand; what the camera operator knows how to use.

But another factor that can sometimes be forgotten is ‘what is the most practical for the shoot?’

When I was Director of Production at Sky 1, we where pitched ‘Ross Kemp in Afghanistan’. The Channel had just decided all of its content had to be delivered in full HD and camera choice was still quite limited at that time.

Naturally, we all thought that if we’re sending someone to a beautiful, wild and dangerous place, whilst being the first show to be fully embedded with the Army, we should make it look sensational. So they were told to use a Sony PDW 700.

After 4 weeks of filming and months of careful editing, a special screening was arranged at the House of Commons in front of a group of MPs. A Q&A was held afterwards with Ross and some of the crew.

The audience had loved the show and asked what it was like filming in such extreme conditions. Ross didn't have many complaints about the conditions, aware that many of the soldiers he toured with were still experiencing them, but he did have one comment to make about the choice of camera.

“What idiot decided they should go into a hot zone with such an enormous camera?!” Or words to that effect. He likened it to walking into battle with a golf bag on your shoulder. It also explained why Ross, the cameraman and soundman (with a boom mike in the air) had drawn so much fire and had to walk two paces behind the soldiers.

One of the most memorable images of the whole series was not the beautiful vistas, nor any of the many gun battles. It was the camera on its side in the grass as the crew had just dived for cover and the sound of an RPG just missing their heads and the British army returning fire. The team carried on for the rest of shoot with the “Golf bag”, however later episodes and series used the more portable Sony EX3.

The one major factor in selecting the right camera for the job is fit for the purpose. Ask yourself: is this practical to take into war / down a mine / into a riot, preferably before the, ahem, shooting starts.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Paul Goodliffe joined Aframe as Chief Commercial Officer in 2010 from Channel 5, after 20 years at the forefront of UK television production, at both independents and broadcasters.