Producing a decent dance event video

[Mac]

Boy that was quick! Um I have to confess the ghosting you refer to was deliberate I actuallly attempted to create a cross over effect to try to catch the mood obviously went down by like a lead ballon.! Sorry!

I agree the DVDs were and are far too expensive Unfortunately I have little control oer the retail price but I canm tell you its more than double my price to c2d Ceroc Champs is much better value

You cant licesnce oporators it doesnt work that way only specific events and only for a limited number of copies ( unless your going for it big time such as C4 or BBC or some corporate video makers. who do buy blanket licences but obviosly worth their while. Sorry if im harping on in the previous post but felt a real need to get it off my chest Thanks for your comments:sorry

[Amir]

I feel very strongly about this subject because I get very frustrated when I watch almost any jive-event videos. Fred Astaire formulated the fundamentals of how to film dance over 50 years ago, so there is no excuse for what we are seeing today. It is even more frustrating when we are told that private video-taping of these events is not allowed, when the official videos are so bad! Filming dance is not like filming a wedding. Fred said that either the camera would dance - or he would. In other words, special effects, fancy editing techniques, 'arty' angles have no place. The camera's job is to capture the dancing, not try make it look more exciting by clever fads, close-ups, quick cuts. Rebel Yell last year did a great job, filming the entire body, but allowing the dancers to fill most of the screen, and giving the dancers room to move into. As one of the dancers in the cabaret that year I was very excited to be able to see the result. I wasn't happy with my dancing, but I would have been less happy had my mistakes and inadequacies been covered up by dodgy editing. Also, the room was well lite, without any clever lighting effects. Ceroc this year was much better, but last year the lighting was appalling. If the dancing is so boring that it needs that flashing disco light then why bother? The fancy editing on MTV dance videos is often because the pop-stars aren't actually very good dancers, so it needs to be covered up. When you get a decent routine like on Thriller the editing will be much less involved.

In summary:

When filming one couple we should be able to see the whole body, almost filling up the screen, with more space in the area that you anticipate they will move next. The less cuts the better, and no close ups unless you know the routine and have agreed with the dancers that their facial expressions at that point are more interesting then their footwork, or the reverse.

When filming a group you should be able to see the whole group. If I'm buying the video because I or a friend is in it, I want to see them all the time, not the couple who happen to be in the centre of the room, or are closer the video. The viewer should be able to make the choice of who to watch, not the camera. This sometimes means that no individual is captured brilliantly, but atleast they all are.

Lily and I danced in the open category at Ceroc this year. We weren't allowed to tape it, but we danced two songs in all three rounds, so probably did about 6min x 3 = 18 minutes of hard dancing. And in the official video there is all of 2 minutes of footage. I'm not saying it should have focused on us the whole time. It should have been on everyone the whole time.


(I believe most people who buy a video either do so because they are in it, or know someone who is, or because they want to see a specific couple. )


And, while I'm ranting, the volume at these events needs to be loud for atmosphere. But the crowd is important for atmosphere as well, and if the music is so loud that you can't hear the clapping and cheering then it diminishes the whole thing. As a spectator I like to make a lot of noise, and like to be able to hear it! As a performer, I love hearing the crowd yell when we do something they like. Some times the music drowns it all out.

[Gus]

Originally posted by amir_giles
And, while I'm ranting........

If that’s a rant I wait with baited breath for a considered analysis

A number of excellent points well made. The main issue I would raise (for which I have no answer) is that a static shot of a dancefloor of 10 or so couples may result in the individuals being so small that the movements are not readily recognisable. Maybe there should be less couples on the dancefloor with a camera for each couple (especially for the final) ... and put it on a DVD that allows you to access your preferred dancer?

[Mac]

Thanks amir and Gus. Thats really helpful stuff! I guess we make the videos for the market as pointed out by David B 1 to try to entertain and 2 to try to give dancers a point of reference we cant do both but either way I ve been concentrating more on editing than dancing ( in My defence possibly to safe people from embarrising mistakes) SO I WILL DEFINATELY CORRECT THAT OVERSIGHT.

With Blackpool the problem (which I did not realise until after ) was that as the floor thinned out through the rounds so the floor became too big as people were really spread out. This meant tha we had to hunt for the dancers and which caused focus problems and visual voids (empty spaces)

The problem with Hammersmith is the opposit. Even with wide angle lenses you cant get the whole cabaret team in if its a large one ie as was the case of the winners this year (name escapes me but boy were they good!) I did get their facial xpressions from time to time as I found it difficult to fit them all in but never the less Im glad I did because they all looked great!

I did fit one camera with a "fish Eye" wide angled ense but it looked dire so I couldnt use it

Any other comments as the previous ones will be warmly received Thanks

[Amir]

Yeah, obviously if the comp is set up poorly then it will be impossible to video it effectively. The event should be set up together with the camera operaters to allow the best capture, judging and enjoyment by the audience. See the most recent Australian Champs video for very good result. You could see all the competitors in one shot. There were no cuts, pans, close ups etc, and you can decide who to watch uninterrupeted.

[Mary]

Martin, good to have your take on the matter. It's always easy for people to criticise without knowing the full picture (sorry - no pun intended). My comments are not so much about the sync/sound issue, however, I remember commenting at the time how poor the acoustics were at Blackpool (everything else about the event was superb tho'). I would like to re-inforce Amir's comments about framing. I was taught a long time ago, whilst filming a ballet, never chop off the dancer's feet, allow more headroom for the arms and hands, and give the dancers space to move into.

Why do I buy a competition video? I think most people (but I could be wrong) buy the video for analysis. To see themselves perform, how they perform next to other competitors, and how the other competitors perform, or maybe just to see how your mates performed. Maybe something to bear in mind whilst shooting the event. For showcase routines, these are choreographed to face an audience/judges, so camera positions should always be from in front as in a theatre. Having a camera behind is a waste of a position.

This is not a rant, just observations.

M

[Amir]

Totally agree. I think someone said people either buy the video to watch themselves or for entertainment. I don't know anyone who has bought a video purely for entertainment (and not because they know someone competing or would like to steal some moves / pick up some tips or watch themselves etc).

I would be very interested to hear if there is anyone that buys the video without knowing people in it and not wanting to see moves etc, but simply to be entertained. I'm sure we could produce a much more entertaining modern-jive show if there is a market for it.

I don't know if there are many comp organisers reading this, but I would be interested in a byo option. I understand that you need the video sales revenue to cover costs etc. But even with all my above comments taken on board no general video will ever meet all my specific requirements of who I want filmed and from what angles etc. I would be happy to pay the cost of the video (15 pounds or whatever) to be allowed to have my own camcorder in the room. It would also save you the hassel of producing as many videos, and would mean I wouldn't have to wait three months to see the result.

Man. Thats the best idea I've had all day.

[cerocmetro]

Originally posted by amir_giles
I don't know if there are many comp organisers reading this, but I would be interested in a byo option. I understand that you need the video sales revenue to cover costs etc. But even with all my above comments taken on board no general video will ever meet all my specific requirements of who I want filmed and from what angles etc. I would be happy to pay the cost of the video (15 pounds or whatever) to be allowed to have my own camcorder in the room. It would also save you the hassel of producing as many videos, and would mean I wouldn't have to wait three months to see the result.

Man. Thats the best idea I've had all day.

Thought it was about time I had a say

The jivemasters video is out, it took two weeks. It is three hours long, excellent quality and only £12.50 etc etc etc.

As an organiser I would stress that many of the events that are filmed make very little profit, if any. Video sales are one way to make up the losses, or make it a commercially viable event.

To let people use their own videos although a nice idea is not practical for several reasons :
Everyone would be pushing for a prime spot.
The event video would have no market as copies would be flying around.
Outsiders seeing an amatuer video would associate that with the event. personally I do not want six months hard work reflected in a poor home movie.

A well produced video is part of an event and should reflect the quality.

If you want to be filmed from all directions you have three choices, a) negotiate with the organiser, b) use a studio c) don't bother.

If this is harsh then sorry, I have just been pooed on twice after having changed four nappies

The JiveMasters video is possibly one of the finest quality dance videos ever produced. It is the longest, cheapest around. It has all the top dancers performing. It is a video everyone should have, it cover the heats, semi finals and finals.

Amir, if I have your address, your copy will be in the post, free of charge of course having been a competitor.

I am also curious to know that if you did have your own camera at an event, how would it cover you from all angles without driving the audience mad? Have you seen the quality of a camera when running round a room? To get a descent camera that would balance would cost several £100s if not £1,000. I think your offer of £15 may cover the batteries ???

Your offer of having to produce less videos is very kind, it also means less profit I apologise if anyone is offended but some of us are doing this for a living.

That was your best idea? Bring on the rest, either that or come round here and take on Nappy duty

Adam

[bigdjiver]

Originally posted by cerocmetro


snipped

To let people use their own videos although a nice idea is not practical for several reasons :

Everyone would be pushing for a prime spot.

The event video would have no market as copies would be flying around.

Outsiders seeing an amatuer video would associate that with the event. personally I do not want six months hard work reflected in a poor home movie.

I am also curious to know that if you did have your own camera at an event, how would it cover you from all angles without driving the audience mad? Have you seen the quality of a camera when running round a room? Adam

I think we are barrel scraping for objections here.

Everybody pushes for a prime viewing spot anyway.

Few outsiders are so dim that they cannot differentiate an amatuer movie from a pro one. I very few that can afford to attend and own a camera is not going to buy the pro video as well.

I suspect Amir may have friends capable of swapping who have cameras too.

I think that the real reason is that video of these events may be worth a lot of money one day, and the organisers want an exclusive market. The organisers making money for their enterprise and hard work is alright by me.


I detest the imperious clause at many events that the organisers can do what they like with the video regardless of the feelings of the competitors, and do not share any rewards with them.

The best reason, which relates to the welfare of competitors rather than that of the organisers, and thus does not get a mention, is that competitors do not want their embarassing moments broadcast. Possibly appearing on channel X with their boobs hanging out or on "Are you being framed" is not why competitors practise and display their craft. I take it as read that every organiser will deny that this will ever happen with the official video. It is much more likely to occur if anybody can video.

[David Franklin]

Originally posted by cerocmetro
Thought it was about time I had a say

As an organiser I would stress that many of the events that are filmed make very little profit, if any. Video sales are one way to make up the losses, or make it a commercially viable event.

To let people use their own videos although a nice idea is not practical for several reasons :

Everyone would be pushing for a prime spot.

I'm just back from Rockbottoms. The audience space for the cabaret was very limited. Video recording was allowed. There was no pushing or shoving. People just accepted there'd be heads in the way and stuff. Better than nothing. Sadly also better than the typical event video for anything other than spotlight.

The event video would have no market as copies would be flying around.

I do understand this worry. I do think most serious competitors respect the ethics of the situation, but it only takes one bad apple. But on the other hand, it's not like it's impossible to copy the event video. Personally I'd rather you just charged enough for the actual event. A lot of people spend enough on their dancing (practice, lessons, osteopaths ... ) that an extra 25 quid to bring in their camcorder (*plus* paying for the event video) is not a big deal.

Outsiders seeing an amatuer video would associate that with the event. personally I do not want six months hard work reflected in a poor home movie.

Adam - have you seen the C2D video? I've certainly done better with a camcorder (have videoed classes for the teacher at Camber). Also, amateur footage is clearly that - if people edit together 3 hours of footage, put in titles etc. you clearly have more room for complaint...

Your offer of having to produce less videos is very kind, it also means less profit I apologise if anyone is offended but some of us are doing this for a living.

I think you misunderstood. If I pay more to bring in my camcorder than I'd pay for the video, and you don't have the costs of making me a video, that doesn't hurt your profits. (Though in the real world I appreciate you have to worry about piracy, and can probably get a better deal with the video company if you can promise exclusivity).

As a general comment on piracy - some people will do it, some won't. Personally, I like having "the real thing" - enough to pay for it. (I also have better things to do with my time at a competition than play cameraman for the whole day). I also know how expensive making the videos can be, and that if I want people to carry on making them, I should pay up. Other people just don't have any problem with piracy, and almost do so as a matter of principle. I've been offered enough copies of event videos to think you're deluding yourself if you think digicams are your threat - it's the people copying the official videos.

Adam - I think JiveMasters is quite different from a lot of other events - the spotlight format eliminates a lot of problems. But if you're one of 8 couples on floor at once, you really want a camera focussed on you. Yes, it's going to be a fixed angle, and it's going to miss stuff, but it is still probably going to be a lot better than the event cameraman will do. That doesn't mean anyone expects to be able to run around the floor for differing angle shots (I hope!).

Dave (P.S. Do we get a free video as well, or is it only the finalists? Not sure I want to see our heat again...)

[Jon L]

Agree with much of amirs comments re filiming

[DavidB]

Originally posted by bigdjiver
The best reason, which relates to the welfare of competitors rather than that of the organisers, and thus does not get a mention, is that competitors do not want their embarassing moments broadcast. Possibly appearing on channel X with their boobs hanging out or on "Are you being framed" is not why competitors practise and display their craft.

I'd never thought of this before. Maybe there should be a 'Fair Use' clause in the video - the competitors agree to be video-ed (?), but the only agreed use of that footage is in the official event video. Any subsequent use of the footage (eg for marketing, or TV broadcast) should be negotiated separately.

On the subject of camera angles:
It is possible to have up to 9 angles on a DVD. You get the same soundtrack, but you can select which angle you want to see.
This would allow all the footage from all the cameras to be included.
Unfortunately not all the DVD production software allows the use of multiple angles. It has in the past been considered a 'professional' feature, and the software is priced accordingly (£3,000+) I think it might be available in some of the newer and cheaper software???.

[jiveclone]

Originally posted by DavidB
On the subject of camera angles:
It is possible to have up to 9 angles on a DVD. You get the same soundtrack, but you can select which angle you want to see.
This would allow all the footage from all the cameras to be included.
Unfortunately not all the DVD production software allows the use of multiple angles. It has in the past been considered a 'professional' feature, and the software is priced accordingly (£3,000+) I think it might be available in some of the newer and cheaper software???.

Presumably including multiple angles uses up more space on the DVD per unit time, so would reduce the length of the video that could be fitted on the DVD. So even if software cost was not a problem, it is likely that more DVDs would be required to fit the competition on, which would lead to increased cost.

[DavidB]

Originally posted by jiveclone
Presumably including multiple angles uses up more space on the DVD per unit time, so would reduce the length of the video that could be fitted on the DVD. So even if software cost was not a problem, it is likely that more DVDs would be required to fit the competition on, which would lead to increased cost.

Completely true. But the better software has another advantage - it allows compression of the audio. With the cheaper software the audio can take as much as 25% of the space. After compression this comes down to about 5%.

Using this, and increasing the compression on the video as well, makes it possible to get over 2 hours of footage onto a DVD, and still maintain the quality. Next year should hopefully see the arrival of dual layer recordable DVDs (similar to the mass-produced commercial releases). This will instantly double the space to 4 hours.

The DVD blanks are getting cheaper. The first ones I bought were over £15 each, but I can get them for about £1 each from Maplin. (I've no idea when it becomes cheaper to get them commercially reproduced - ie pressing them instead of recording them.)

I doubt it will be long before we expect all the footage to be included.

[Mac]

Ok Ive obviously started something here! Thanks for al your helpful comments that i will take on board when we cover events. There is an official take on piracy and licensing and to some extent the following explanation should justify why organisers should never allow free range of video.

1 All video of a public event has to be individually licensed. This means that technically before you get the camcorder out you will have to have registered your intent and got permission in principle to video the event. thats EVERYONE who wants record even one routine set to a relaesed track of music. The minimum licence fee is £17.50 that may not sound a lot but added to every thing else it all ads up.
2 naturally this rule is hard to police so very little notice of it is taken in practice. But heres the danger. anyone who records footage is the owner of it and can legally do what they want with it. They are also responsisible if its illegal but as stated its easy to get away with. What you cannot do is prevent someone who has recorded from showing it wherever they like. (You can get an injunction currentlty costing £120. 00 un refunded.)

Let me tell you its big business to sell peoples embarrising mistakes. They are called Bloopers and one piece of footage sold to Youve been framed doesnt stop there. its remastered and sold on around the world and makes ten times the £250 they paid for it. Thats why thay love the wobbly cam concept.

At the modern dance events there are more flashing thongs, sweaty thighs and boobs accidentally displayed than I could shake a stick at.

As a licensed operator we sign up to a code of ethics which demands a certain responsibility especially if you want to avoid becomeing Rated by the censors (currently the events are exempt but this could change)

We in addition to this make our own promise that we wont exploit the footage in any other way than its originally intended use.

One competitor or spectator may take the same stance but the guy recording next to you may not. Again its impossible to police. so its best not to take a chance as your hard work could recorded at one event copied into another routine and within a week be presented at another event ( and I know thats happned). No licence or no official ban on videoing means simply no comeback.

You will have noticed that on our products that there is a clear marker= MCPS this shows that this product is licesned. In turn that means if any ekement of it is copied or misused The society (a government department ) will investigate complaints. Phew!


One thought about the Jivemasters video. The showcases are the easiest and quickest events to edit.

Also what do people think of introductions are they aw aste of time? what about the awards David B says he thinks people would rather see maore dancing.

Also we are always happy to try to hunt for raw footage of competitors if asked

Mac

Confucious - he say , "Man under car with spanner not always mechanic!"

[Mac]

Originally posted by DavidB
Completely true. But the better software has another advantage - it allows compression of the audio. With the cheaper software the audio can take as much as 25% of the space. After compression this comes down to about 5%.

Using this, and increasing the compression on the video as well, makes it possible to get over 2 hours of footage onto a DVD, and still maintain the quality. Next year should hopefully see the arrival of dual layer recordable DVDs (similar to the mass-produced commercial releases). This will instantly double the space to 4 hours.

The DVD blanks are getting cheaper. The first ones I bought were over £15 each, but I can get them for about £1 each from Maplin. (I've no idea when it becomes cheaper to get them commercially reproduced - ie pressing them instead of recording them.)

I doubt it will be long before we expect all the footage to be included.

[Mac]

Opps sorry for spellig mistakes :sorry

David B is right about DVDs coming down in price but exercise caution here. Unbranded DVDs are usually second quality branded DVDS that failed to make the grade (over 96% recordable) only two companies promise not to redistribute failed blanks. Imation and Verbatum . Also these unbranded blanks are now showing signs of deteriation which is not good news for something thats supposed to last over 100 years! As a guide you should not be able to see through a disc as the dye should be of sufficenit strenght to prevent it.

We use a software compressor that allows compression of audio and thats how we increased the lenght of the Ceroc 03 champs DVD. This is fine but it wont sound so good on a 5-1 surround sound system.

We could have easily produced a four disc blackpool video. The irony is that all the footage is edited offline then half is discarded (actually I always archive it all, you never know )

It would actually have been quicker and more cost effective to include it all.

Someone told me that many USA event DVDs have eight discs!

DVDs at consumer rates could have been out 10 years ago but was blocked every step of the way by the major players (whats new) the same issue is facing the DVD format wars and until this is resolved we wont see duel layer discs at a level where we can use them. they recon another three to four years but again you never know.

With current editing techniques you could easily have indiviual chapters showing individual dancers but it woulld still take a lot of editing.

I have edited indiviual routines as showreels for professionals but it does not come cheap im afraid.

Mac

[Gadget]

Re: spectators videoing

Just a thought, but why not "sell" videoing rights to competitors with conditions attached;
eg footage not for re-sale.
One of the conditions would be the media recorded on was given to the organisers (to be later returned) so that the footage would be available for editing into the video release.

This would give a lot more footage from lots of different angles to choose from, but would increase the editing costs dramatically by the time it was looked through, quality assessed, sync-ed...

Sort of employ the people who want to video it anyway as your own small army of camara-men. Thoughts?

[David Franklin]

Originally posted by Gadget
Re: spectators videoing

Just a thought, but why not "sell" videoing rights to competitors with conditions attached;
eg footage not for re-sale.
One of the conditions would be the media recorded on was given to the organisers (to be later returned) so that the footage would be available for editing into the video release.

This would give a lot more footage from lots of different angles to choose from, but would increase the editing costs dramatically by the time it was looked through, quality assessed, sync-ed...

Sort of employ the people who want to video it anyway as your own small army of camara-men. Thoughts?

Seems like the big issue is what the actual legal position is. If you were to try to cut between all the footage the editing costs would be unreal, but in practice you wouldn't do that. What I imagine the process would be is much more:

1. View all the footage to ensure there's nothing "dodgy". Edit out anything that is legally/ethically dubious. This would have to be done for each tape, but wouldn't have to be a proper edit - you could just overwrite with black as necessary. You don't need experts or fancy equipment for this stage I think.

2. During 1, make notes of any footage that is particularly better than the official footage. If the event cameramen are any good, there shouldn't be much, but if someone did, say, a toss throw, it might well only get caught by J Random Cameraman. Cull all but the best stuff. The total footage to try to edit in should be minutes rather than hours. The culling process will probably be quite time consuming, and requires good dance knowledge but not editing skill.

3. Only take that footage into the final (online) edit session. [Not sure what the best way of doing this would be - I'd certainly try to do it using home equipment rather than taking hundreds of DV tapes to an Avid].

In this context, the real emphasis is on vetting the contents of the tapes to ensure legality, rather than on expecting to get better footage than the official cameramen. I suspect this legal dodge isn't actually legal though.

Dave

[Mac]

Interesting comments from Gadget and Dave. It all sounds a little complicated though and not unlike the current procedure but would involve more tapes. Hurdles to get over are Lagality of filming and handing back privately wned footage after using it. Both not insermountable problems. There are definately germs of good ideas here though. I feel a thinking storm coming on and will post when I come up with something (Possibly) Mac