JUDGING THE GCA: HOW IT WORKS

Well the first two days of judging is over. Time for another blog entry!

I might as well talk a little bit about the slightly daunting task the judging task is and how we're doing it. There are two basic steps judges have to take. The first step, of course, is to narrow each category down to 48 finalists (4 per category) and 12 winners.

This poses some complications of its own.

There are 315 individual nominations between 12 categories. Assuming an average of 20 minutes a video/nomination, that's 105 hours of raw episodic footage. More than 4 and a half straight days, or 5 hours a day for 21 days. That's not including any additional time spent on the evaluation process. Everyone involved is a volunteer, so this isn't exactly realistic.

So let's talk about the process.

As mentioned in the previous post, there are 7 judges, including Robert. I want you to break that down mentally as 6 and 1, as Robert's a special case.

Each of the 6 judges will be charged with 2 Primary categories each. In these, the judge will watch and evaluate every entry and narrow down to 4 finalists. In addition, each judge will be charged with 2 Secondary categories (which are another judge's Primaries). Again, 4 finalists each.

At this point, every category will have been reviewed separately by 2 separate judges. There will be somewhere between 4 and 8 finalists. At this point, these 2 judges will debate and narrow these down to 4. If an agreement can't be reached, (i.e. each judge had 4 entirely different finalists) then the finalists could be extended to a maximum of 6.

Now, Robert has decided to watch all 315 nominations himself and weigh in on the finalists as well. In this way, the effects of any one person's bias will be minimized.

The second step is voting. Most votes wins. Second most becomes the runner-up. Simple as that... Okay, so not quite so simple as each judge now has to watch any entries they hadn't already in order to make the vote, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Do you have any questions about this process? I'm planning quite a few more of these, so hit me up! I'll do my best to answer any questions or criticisms you might have.

JUDGING THE GOLDEN CRITIC AWARDS: THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

For those not aware, the Golden Critic Awards are an independent award show intended to celebrate and recognize the work of the homebrew reviewer community.



As you can imagine, it has a bit of a PR issue right now.

The perception many have is that the show is little more than something intended to give more praise to the people of TGWTG. Or to give awards to people who really don't deserve any recognition for their work, people who's work is so sloppy as to be practically unwatchable in any other circumstance.

When Robert Million approached me to be a judge in mid-November, those were chief among the concerns I raised. You can be assured that if I didn't like the answers I got, I would not be willing to have my name associated with this thing. I did, and I am.

Though the tone coming across in the above video is flippant, the idea behind it is not.

Not including Robert himself, there are six judges who've been selected from many different backgrounds. In order to appear as unbiased as possible he is the only judge associated with CriticTV, through which the GCAs are organized. The rest where chosen from a myriad of different backgrounds and social circles, some of whom I personally recommended. Out of respect for those judges who want to remain anonymous, I won't divulge names; however I can say that I'm not the only person with formal training in film theory.

I've made the decision to be transparent about my judging process. In this way I hope to show these awards in a better light; to bring to light the process and perhaps counteract the hesitations many people have of these awards.

GUEST ARTICLE: HOW TO MAKE AN INTRO (CTG TV)

I approached several people about using their intros after the last article for a follow-up and a possible video tie-in.

Karen Demsko of Color the Grayscale TV blew my away by writing the following about the approach she took to make her very effective intro.

Coming up with the CTG TV intro, was an interesting experience, in that I was able to come up with an idea myself, without any outside interference.

Meaning I had free reign, creatively. Boo ya.

However, though I had the creative freedom to fly like an eeeeeeeeagle, I still followed the same process of creation that I always do.

The first was to ask myself “What am I looking to see?” I jotted down design ideas and thought about what CTG TV represented to me and how I wanted to convey my feelings and ideas to my audience.

From there, I took these ideas and made about four to five rough drafts, sketching out ideas and doing very basic storyboards.

More times then not, I buffet style through my ideas and come up with a Frankenstein of a project that I am truly proud of.

Something to note as well: I had to be aware, at all times, of my tools, abilities, and time.

As much as I may have longed to have a professional grade intro sequence, I may not have had the time (due to work or other priorities), the tools (such as certain computer software), or general artistic ability to create what my imagination might have cooked up.

Next was to figure out what music I wanted to use.

This seems like an odd one to add, but it’s one I feel I need to add. The likelihood that my intro would be silent was slim to none.

Music and/or voices can be one of the more challenging aspects of the creation process. I say this from my own personal experience, as I am not musically inclined. Places like istockphoto are a great for finding music that you can use (though it will cost you), but if you happen to know somehow who plays or creates music ask them for help! Having such a valuable resource should not be overlooked.

The next step was to storyboard.

People tend not to do this and I’m not exactly sure why.

Laziness perhaps? I can’t be entirely sure, but this process always, always, ALWAYS helps me further down the line (when shooting footage and animating).

This helped me organize my vision and the music down into one coherent idea.

Last, but certainly not least, was to actually get down to the nitty gritty and start production.

With my preproduction out of the way, it was time for me to get cracking on the intro.

I set up my camera and lighting so that the first two shots would have the light needed in order to look good in the gray-scale color scheme I was going to make. The third shot, in retrospect, could have been lit better, but I’m still pleased with the results.

That was the easy part. Now came the hard part. Animating.

The entire animation was done in Flash (yes I know what your saying: “what were you thinking?!” this was before I could acquire Adobe After Effects) and took about two solid weeks to complete. Making sure every patterned ribbon (there were four), every ball (there were eight), and every swirly line (there were three) was exactly the way I wanted it to be and matched the part of the music when the animation would appear. This intro was to encompass my entire brand in one short, complete burst and I knew it needed to be just right. I wanted the colors to be vibrant (representing the vibrancy that my shows would hopefully be), the logo to be revealed over a small period of time (building a small amount of anticipation that something awesome was just about to start), and, most importantly of all, to leave just as quickly as it came. I wanted it to be a small burst of something, but nothing that lingered too long on the screen.

After this was finished, I went into postproduction and I took both my live action shots and my animation and lined them up with the music in Final Cut Pro. And viola! The project was done!

Thanks so much to Karen for agreeing to do this. Check out her show, Animation Domination, if you haven't already.

...I have no idea why the formatting is so wonky.

It's at this point I should dedicate this to Montag for a talking about his own minimalistic approach to making an intro... does that even work with a guest article? Oh well.

SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF THE HOMEBREW VIDEOMAKER: TITLE SEQUENCES

Hey all, welcome to the second installment of my series on the common mistakes in Homebrew videos. In case you missed the last one... you should check it out.

Blatant self-promotion? Eh, why not.

A note about this article; though this could certainly be applied to a variety of different internet video series, this issue is most apparent in reviews.

Join the conversation below and suggest your own deadly sin!

DEADLY SIN NUMBER TWO: REGARDING TITLE SEQUENCE
I don't care how much you like that song, there is no purpose served in having a two minute intro to a ten minute video. Every second spent playing clips from previous episodes is a second the video is making an audience wait for fresh content.

Though it would be easier, I can't advise against title sequence universally; the reality is while a great title sequence can keep an audience interest sustained in an otherwise average review series a bad title sequence can turn the same audience off in their first episode.

The real problem is that most of those who use them don't actually understand the purpose of a title sequence. If you've got a show, be honest; do you actually know why you have a title sequence, or are you just including one because everyone else has one?

The Purpose of a Title Sequence
Guild regulations require that the key creatives be credited near the beginning of a film or television show. In all likelihood, this is where the practice would have originated.

Though movies had them in some form or another since the early 1900s, the title sequences of the homebrew scene really have their origins in television if only because episodic television, like serialized reviews, use the same title sequence in each episode (where a movie's will only be seen once). We can begin there. The following list should not be considered all inclusive, but is a start.

1. A title sequence is intended to set the tone for the show.
   
2. Every episode of an average TV series will have different writers, directors, and in the case of shows like The Outer Limits cast and settings. The title sequence gave a sense of cohesion and familiarity to the series.
3. A title sequence gives a buffer of time for those people coming in late to the program.

The third entry, as you can imagine, is the one that absolutely doesn't apply to videos for the internet.

Common Misteps in Homebrew Title Sequences
On the internet, the audience always starts the video at the 00:00 mark. Unlike the makers of Buffy or Batman, you know absolutely where the audience starts your video. Add to that the acceleration of attention spans and well... The reasons for a long title sequence on the internet are greatly diminished. There will always be exceptions, but think in the neighborhood of 30 seconds as a maximum.

Some other practices which diminish the effectiveness of a title sequence include but are certainly not limited to:

• REPETITIVENESS. Doing a montage of clips from previous episodes where each shot consists of the host talking or gesturing from the same camera angle. This highlights the limitations of the show. It also can send the message that the host is trying too hard with even having a title sequence.
• BAD MUSIC CHOICE. More than anything else in an intro, the music chosen becomes tied with the show. Choosing something that's over-used or something that's at odds with the tone and concept of the series really will leave a bad taste in the mouths of your audience. Plus, you know, that whole copywrite thing.
  
• BAD CUSTOM MUSIC. Commissioning a song for your video to avoid Copywrite issues is very admirable. Unfortunately most often a videomaker will go with the first musician who's willing and not the person who's the right choice for the role. This often leads to a song that's painful on the ears because of the musician's limitations or a song that's a sharp contrast to the tone of the show.
• HAVING A TITLE SEQUENCE. Not every show needs a full title sequence. Sometimes a title and a music sting is enough (What The Fuck is Wrong With You), and sometimes a video doesn't need so much as a logo (Nostalgia Critic).

Tips for Making a Good Title Sequence...?
There's not much I can say here, really. The reality is there's no magic formula because every case is different. To do it justice, I'd have to do some case by case looks at title sequences which work (and which don't).

Honestly, that may well be something that needs more than just an article. At this point I turn it to you, guys: is there any reviewer or videomaker who'd be willing to let me publicly do an analysis of their title sequence? Any volunteers can contact me in any way they can find to do so, including by posting in the comments or by e-mail: bdmacdonald.films@gmail.com

To be continued...?

This article is dedicated to Darren Maher for being an awesome dude and posting intelligently on a previous article.

Because, I do that. Comment people!

SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF THE HOMEBREW VIDEOMAKER: MICROPHONES

I spent a lot of time thinking about the most noticeable mistakes made by those in the Homebrew scene; this is the first of a series of seven articles looking at that. Or eight. Or twenty.

My blog, my rules baby.

Feel free to join the conversation and suggest your own deadly sin below!

DEADLY SIN NUMBER ONE - USING THE CAMERA MICROPHONE
Regardless of the quality of your camera, the attached microphone is not designed to give you good audio.

No really.

See, microphones are designed for different purposes. There are different pick up patterns and frequency ranges, each designed to record in specialized ways. The more expensive the microphone, the more specialized its use. A microphone designed for a drum set isn’t going to work as well in recording a trombone, and vice versa.

And your built-in camera microphone? It’s designed to pick up everything indiscriminately. You, the dog in the next room, and even the motor of the camera itself are all picked up with equal importance. Even in a best-case scenario, you’ll end up with a permanent hum from the camera’s mechanisms.

But there is a way to optimize the sound you get from any microphone: placement.

Makes sense, right? How close the microphone is to the subject effects how well that sound is recorded.

To give you some idea, your average directional shotgun microphone used on professional movie sets is at optimized distance at 2 feet from the actor’s chin. It’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s a decent ballpark.

The basic set up for reviewers is more likely to place the camera at least 6 feet away from the subject. Other videomakers will often go further. Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Of course, it’s always possible to place the camera to optimize sound quality, but then you’re highly limited in what shot’s you can get. Essentially, you’re being held hostage by the microphone. And even with the most optimized placement, you're still not going to eliminate the hum from the camera’s motor.

MICROPHONE TIPS
No getting around it, anyone wanting to make the jump into video making of any kind needs a separate microphone if they want good sound quality. There are several approaches you can take to get better sound. I’ll avoid the more obvious options such as lapel or hand-held microphones and get into more outside the box suggestions.

- Remember, it’s more about microphone placement then microphone quality. And just because a microphone is more expensive, doesn’t mean it’s best for your needs. I’ll reiterate what I said previously; as microphones get more expensive, they get more specialized. Do your research, and don’t be afraid to talk to an expert.

-You can take a page or two from the big boys. That carbon fiber extendable pole holding the microphone is called a boom. If you’ve a friend you can rope in, duck tape and a broom handle will give you the same function.

-Going back even farther, in the late 1920’s filmmakers would hide microphones in various props such as flower pots and have the actors perform the scene around them. This would likely have to be built into the concept of the show, but this can help to improve the audio quality while keeping the microphone invisible.

-Record the sound separately and after the fact. When filming the highly influential El Mariachi, Robert Rodriguez would have his actors re-do their lines immediately after he cut. In this way, the rhythms and pacing would be fresh in their minds. In editing, he would cut to another shot when the dialogue started to go out of sync. No reason you couldn’t do the same.

-Godzilla dubbing. Similar to the last tip, except the videomaker makes no attempt to sync the audio. Again, this has to be incorporated into the show concept, but in the right hands this could have a lot of potential.

TRIBUTE TO THE HOMEBREW SPIRIT

I have and will continue to be critical of many individual elements connected to the Homebrew Videomaking scene, but that should never be confused as disdain. I support this movement and what it represents. Beyond the obvious idea of the underdog and burgeoning filmmaker, my reason is simple: nearly every important movement in film history has it's roots in a rebellion against the status quo by someone embracing the same spirit I see in the Homebrew Videomaker.

THE BROTHERS LUMIERE AND EDISON
It's hard to say who got to it first, but these were the people we owe for the medium of film. And while the Lumiere Brothers created far and away the most interesting shots, it was Edison who embraced the medium as a way to tell stories. Also Edison was the first to make home movies.

So here I solute the innovators, the craftsmen, the insane entrepreneurs who got out there with their crazy inventions and laid the groundwork for an entire medium.

EISENSTEIN
At the birth of Communist Russia, and at the time when Communism was still full of idealsim, this guy had the crazy idea that editing was as important in filmmaking as the writing or the shot composition. This guy's theories, and the films he employed them in, are still used in film classes.

A toast to the revolutionaries.

THE FRENCH NEW WAVE
Rebelling against the vapid glamour of Hollywood productions, the leaders of this movement set out with micro crews and smaller budgets and broke every rule in the book. Hand-held camera? These guys did it first. Jump-cuts? Right here. Not everything they did worked, but the homebrew scene owes much to these guys.

Respect to the rebels.

MTV AND THE MUSIC VIDEO
The early days of MTV, music videos weren't exactly reknown for their artistic prowess. Prominent working directors weren't exactly knocking down the doors of musicians to make a music promotion vehicle. That role went instead to the guys who did. People like Spike Jones and Michelle Gendry weren't especially skilled in the technical department, but they had ideas and broke many-a-rule to make them happen on shoe-string budgets.

In one famous case, Spike Jones wrapped the camera lens in a sandwich bag so he could do an under-water shot. Ballsy.

Props to the ballsy gentlemen of the MTV age.

HOMEBREW IN THE INTERNET AGE
There is a quote that someone made; an artform can't be considered an artform until it's available to everyone. This, they proposed, was as true with paint as with music. If that's the case, then it's only been in the last 10 some odd years that we've seen the artistic legitimization of both animation and movie-making.

It's an exciting time.

It's a time when more videos are uploaded online than produced for television (at the 2008 rate of upload, it'd take 60 days to upload to youtube what American television stations took 60 years to make).

It's a time where ideas matter more than production values.

And yes, it's even a time where a reviewer can be a bigger draw than the media they review.

So here I celebrate the spirit of the Homebrew.

Author's Note
Why hey there! As stated in the previous post (part 2 of which is coming at some point), this article is dedicated to Pugsly6338 for being the only person to actually post a reply to my last article. Good for you, Pugsly6338!

CRITICAL TIMING PART 1: WITH APOLOGIES TO BILL WATTERSON

With my magic marker, I've turned this ordinary cardboard box into a TIME MACHINE! It's filled with some of the most high tech gizmos corrugated paper products can build, and it's built for two! Now, if you'll indulge your own child-like imagination, the two of us are moving backwards through the churning and wildly unreliable mists of time.

And we've arrived at our first destination, 1716.

That wonderful aroma is the smell of rotting fish. I landed us in the wrong part of town... um, sorry.

If we go instead to a concert you'll notice something unusual; you're at a live performance!

That's not too unusual, come to think of it. What is, though, is that this will be the only place you can ever hear music. In 1716 if you want to chill out and listen to music it'll be a full evening and a pretty penny.

Obvious, yes, but a couple things you should notice:

• At no time can you pick and choose the song to listen to.
• Every song you're guaranteed to hear from it's intended start point.
• Your average composition is going to be upwards of 10 minutes on average.
  
• Bach was pop, if you can believe it.
  

Well, okay, sure you could also listen to the bard playing on the corner, but *pfft* who goes to 1716 to listen to a 2-bit ukelele player?

Back into the time machine and forward a bit to 1915. A boring year, to be honest. Just avoid Europe. Films exist, of course, but these days you'd still be discovering music in the live concerts... but wait! Now you can actually take the music home with you on a record! Or on the radio!

Well, if you're rich at least.

Aaaaand 1956. Mind the smoke, I think we dropped a carburetor over New Mexico, there. Oh well, it's not like anyone ever goes to Roswell anyway... wait, you hear that? Music!

What do you mean this is getting predictable?

Radios are in cars and as an indirect result radio is now the prominent way people discover new music. Teenagers got to choose away from their parents what they wanted to listen to on a mass level for the first time. And, of course, the music itself has had to change because of this. Always does, mind, but this is the time where it gets fun! Well, for me at least... I'm a weird duck like that.

Music producers of this era have a lot riding on the music they make. In this era, it isn't unusual for some of the smaller music producers to bet everything they had on the next single (and then do it again on the next, and the next...). These guys couldn't fight with the unlimited resources of the big labels, so they fight smart. First though, what's the biggest thing this radio revolution means?

• Unlike live performances, there's no guarantee you're going to turn into any song at the beginning. You turn on the radio, you change the station, and it's just as likely you'll land halfway into a song.
  

So knowing that, here's what these producers did.

• Limit song length to less than 3 minutes to maximize rotation.
  
• Structure the song with the hook repeated as many times as possible to increase the chance you'll hear it when scanning the channels, catch the catchy bit, and stay to hear the rest.

Now isn't that cool? Now buckle up that corrugated seatbelt, it's home to the present! Huh, it's not starting.

That's not good...

Tell you what, you go ahead; I'll catch up in a bit!

TO BE CONTINUED...

Author's Note:
All dates are approximate and entirely unresearched. Inaccuracies are not only possible, but to be expected!

In fact, let's make this into a contest.

The first person in the comment section to correctly identify an error or expand significantly on a point from the article will have the next article dedicated to them.

And the person who brings up the most interesting idea related to the subject will have the one after that dedicated to them.