• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Homeless in Brighton - 13 min investigative documentary

Hi IndieTalkers,

I have just uploaded my first film, which is a 13 minute short documentary involving covert recording in the world of the homeless in Brighton, England. It's not BBC worthy breaking news, but it's likely to upset some people in Brighton, and I'm hoping to follow up with them.

https://youtu.be/jvl48nWre5Y

I would really appreciate your recommendations on how I can improve my next film!
 
Last edited:
Hi! I am writing the script for a documentary on a social issue as well, so when I saw your post i immediately checked out your documentary! I really liked it! I am of the opinion that if the content is important and well explained, the viewer will overlook other things such as color/photography and so on, because once you capture the viewer those become small detail. At the least that's for me (who bear in mind, don't represent the audience of tv/cinema).

I am not a professional, so take my tips with a pinch of salt, these are the points I think are worthy to be pointed out:

- The subtitles were a bit intrusive especially on that semi-transparent banner which occupied 1/5 of the screen, next time try to use a smaller size for the font and stick with that.

- I am planning a micro budget documentary so I know that money is scarce, but from what I learned on this forum is that audio really matters. If you can invest on audio, that's the weak part of your documentary. For instance, maybe it is me but at around min 2.30 the audio quality drops and at ~ 3.00 it becomes scratchy ad echoing.

Now my questions:
How long did it take to make the documentary?

What software did you use to edit your software?

What equipment (audio/video) did you use?

Where did you hide the camcorder for the interview? (or did you use a micro camera?)

Thanks for sharing your work and well done!
 
Hi! I am writing the script for a documentary on a social issue as well, so when I saw your post i immediately checked out your documentary! I really liked it! I am of the opinion that if the content is important and well explained, the viewer will overlook other things such as color/photography and so on, because once you capture the viewer those become small detail. At the least that's for me (who bear in mind, don't represent the audience of tv/cinema).

Thank you for taking the time to critique! Let me know when your piece is done and I'd be happy to return the favour.

- The subtitles were a bit intrusive especially on that semi-transparent banner which occupied 1/5 of the screen, next time try to use a smaller size for the font and stick with that.

Agreed. I needed subtitles because some of the audio is so bad you can hardly hear what the person is saying. I wanted conventional subtitles, but there is no built in way to do this in iMovie, which I use for editing. This is the closest I got with the built in titles, so I tried to convince myself I was being artistic. Next time I will probably make transparent .png images in a separate program and add them as picture in picture, which is tedious, but needed.


- I am planning a micro budget documentary so I know that money is scarce, but from what I learned on this forum is that audio really matters. If you can invest on audio, that's the weak part of your documentary. For instance, maybe it is me but at around min 2.30 the audio quality drops and at ~ 3.00 it becomes scratchy ad echoing.

Yes, audio was difficult in this one, much because of the varying environments, including windy and noisy streets and covert recording where the person being recorded cannot know that they are being recorded.

if you compare 3:34 with 6:49, it should be clear that the audio quality in the latter is an improvement. That is because 3:34 was recorded with my spyglasses and no external mic, while at 6:49 I hid a shotgun mic in my sleeve, and pointed it towards the speaker. It's the same person, the same place and pretty much the exact same circumstances.

So can I ask you this: Was the audio recorded with shotgun mic good? That would be mainly 6:49 and all statements by Jon Harley in the second half.

The narration should be crisp clear. It's recorded at home with a Zoom H1 with a windshield to better handle plosives.

Now my questions:
How long did it take to make the documentary?

2-3 months or so, not full time. I still have a day job.

I had to throw away tons of material because interviewees said nothing clear or sufficiently relevant. I have hours of useless footage with homeless people.

It hurts to throw away so much material when you worked hard for it, travelling all over the city, but the respect for the viewers' time must come first.

What software did you use to edit your software?

iMovie for Mac, which I'm not entirely happy with.

What equipment (audio/video) did you use?

Camcorder - Canon Legia HF R606 .
The parts with the best video quality comes from this one. However, it has no input audio port (in America it does, but not in Europe strangely). The interviews with the homeless was done with this camera, and no external mic. I have also had a lot of difficulty transferring the footage to my computer, and Canon customer service cannot help.

DSLR - Canon EOS Kiss X5 with the standard 18-55 mm lens
Often out of focus, probably because of my lack of skill. Can't video long scenes in high quality. Has an audio input port. Overall a good camera.

Audio Recorder - Zoom H1
Does the job. I'm very happy with it, although I rarely need it. I had it in my inner jacket pocket connected to a shotgun mic when I did covert recording.

Shotgun mic - Audio Technica ATR6550
In the interview with Jon Harley, I used this mic connected directly to the DSLR. It was placed in the hotshoe of the camera and pointed directly at him.

Where did you hide the camcorder for the interview? (or did you use a micro camera?)

I used spyglasses for $70;
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/5MP-HD-720P-...-Recorder-Sun-Eyewear-Cam-CMOS-/161282221992?

The cheaper ones have thicker frames and a visible - albeit tiny - lens. These glasses are very discrete and nobody ever seemed to suspect anything. However, the mic is rubbish, and the camera needs a lot of light, probably because the lens is hidden behind a sheet of black/semitransparent black plastic. Also, after using it only for this project, it now doesn't record anymore. I wouldn't say it was worth the price. Spyglasses is a great idea because you will be able to easily get your subject in frame and (s)he will look straight into the camera, but it's difficult to find a high quality product.

Another idea would be to use a smart phone. It's small and has a good camera, but it's more difficult to hide while also pointing it on a subject.

Thank you for your feedback, and I hope my answers also helped you!
 
I am of the opinion that if the content is important and well explained, the viewer will overlook other things such as color/photography and so on, because once you capture the viewer those become small detail. At the least that's for me (who bear in mind, don't represent the audience of tv/cinema).

There appears to be a fundamental contradiction/fallacy contained within your opinion. If you don't meet TV or cinema specifications, your content will not be screened/aired, so there will be no viewers to "capture" in the first place and you'll never know what they would be prepared to "overlook"! Your only available distribution platform would therefore be Youtube (or similar), where any level of production value can be acceptable and indeed much of the most successful content is amateur home video (with little/no production values). But here of course you are looking at exceptional content and exceptional marketing to get noticed/drive viewers.

I would really appreciate your recommendations on how I can improve my next film!

The basic pacing of your doco is good. There are picture and sound quality issues which can be significantly improved and then there are a host of other additions/changes which could be made, depending on what you mean by "improve". For example, are you looking to improve general documentary aesthetics or specifically just investigative journalism?

On the purely investigative journalism side, I have a bit of a problem with your focus. For example, I don't get why you vilified the BHT charity? You didn't investigate or vilify BHT for failing to provide the service they advertised (support for local families who become homeless) instead, you vilified them for not providing a service which they apparently don't claim to offer (support to single, non-local homeless people)! Likewise with the local council: Were they lying when they said it wasn't their responsibility to provide support for non-vulnerable, non-local homeless individuals? If so, where's your evidence that it is their responsibility and, why are they failing to fulfil it? If not, whose responsibility is it, is it a central government failure or is it a failure on the part of the public/electorate? In other words, was this just an exercise in creating a short in the style of investigative doco or, if it's supposed to be an actual investigative doco, what were you actually investigating?

G
 
Thank you for your feedback AudioPostExpert! I want to improve all aspects, technical and storytelling.

The purpose was to show the difficulties one faces as homeless in Brighton, and what help is available. The "vilifying" of BHT and the council was mostly a consequence of the events that unfolded, but I feel it was fair.

I do think that BHT's advertisement is deceptive, for more reasons than my documentary makes apparent. I also think that many people living here expect the local council to help homeless people regardless of their background and marital status. Nevertheless, I see what you mean; the reasons for vilifying them is not made entirely clear. This is much because I want to encourage people to form their own opinion to some extent. Should BHT and the council help non-local people? Well, it's up to the viewer.

As for audio issues - I'm painfully aware. What do you think about the audio in the interview with Jon Harley? I'm asking because it's recorded in good conditions and I don't know how to improve it without buying new equipment, which I want to avoid if possible.

As for video, which weakness stands out the most?
 
A short off topic for AudioPostExpert: unlike 99% of people here filmmaking is not my ultimate ambition: it will be (hopefully) part of my future career but not the core, I am not (and I don't want to be) a movie director or make a blockbuster movie. The topics I want to talk about (social problems) are not mainstream, and despite not being niche they would never be comparable to commercial movies. My goal is to raise awareness on social problems, among as many people as I can (bearing in mind that only a small fraction of viewers are interested in such topics), if there is a financial return better, but that is not the main reason behind my documentary. I think (and hope) that viewers who have a certain attitude towards such problems are considered enough to overlook if someone working on a budget makes mistakes. I might be wrong but I am one of those people, that's why I was captured by the content of Vox Alii's documentary (this does not mean that I can't point out what could be improved). For this reason I want to use a donation-based system and release my work under a creative common license as alternative to copyright. In this way I don't need to hope to be aired/screened, I give the people the chance to download my work, watch it, and if they like it chose to reward me. I want to conclude citing two good examples of of works that follows a philosophy similar to mine: The cartoon "Sita Single the Blues" and the documentary "La Educacion Prohibida". They are both available for free online and their creators were able to monetize their work in an alternative way. The former (4 copies on youtube) was viewed (keeping in mind only the views on youtube) ~ 1.4 million times, the latter (according to their website) was downloaded 8 million times and was shown in independent screens over 900 times. Not all cc licensed works have such impact, however these numbers are way higher than most of the copyrighted material produced by indie artists, and in my case it is worth trying.

@ Vox Alii: Thanks! It is always good evaluating other people's works and learn from it!

I checked the Canon Legia HF R606 on amazon.co.uk and for £185 that's a good video! I am planning to buy either a canon XA10 orXA20 (small and lightweight camcorder)


- About the software I can't recommend you anything as I am using how to learn Cinelerra on a Linux box (it is Linux only). I think for Mac there is final cut a bit more advanced than IMovie but I have no idea if its worth the price (300 dollars). But subtitles when you are not working in perfect conditions they are fundamental (IMHO).

- The trick of the mic in the pocket sounds good! I will have to try it when I get a portable mic :)

- About the spyglasses I think you are right, most of the models are cheap and not usable unless you are in a good situation, I think investigative journalist use micro cameras but I doubt they are cheap :/

- About the Audio after min 6.00 and the interview at the end you are right, the audio is way better!
 
I do think that BHT's advertisement is deceptive, for more reasons than my documentary makes apparent.

By definition, a documentary "documents" the facts, if you don't document the facts, is it still a documentary?

I also think that many people living here expect the local council to help homeless people regardless of their background and marital status.

You didn't investigate or document any facts to support this view. And, assuming this view is correct, you did not investigate what has led those "many people" to this expectation? Is there some central government law or regulation or some electoral promise the local council is breaking by not fulfilling this expectation or are those "many people" in fact getting exactly what they voted for?

Nevertheless, I see what you mean; the reasons for vilifying them is not made entirely clear. This is much because I want to encourage people to form their own opinion to some extent. Should BHT and the council help non-local people? Well, it's up to the viewer.

This doesn't make any sense! Criticising an organisation does not encourage people to form their own opinion, it encourages them to adopt your (critical) opinion! Furthermore, you not only failed to justify your opinion but by stating ONLY your opinion, rather than all the relevant facts, you have actively stopped me (the viewer) from creating my own informed opinion! To a certain extent you have effectively made a "rant" in the style of an investigative documentary, rather than an actual investigative documentary.

My apologies if my criticism appears overly harsh. It's only my intent to help you appreciate the difference between an opinion piece and actual investigative journalism and that this difference can unintentionally (and very easily!) become blurred.

What do you think about the audio in the interview with Jon Harley?

The audio quality of that interview is poor. It sounds like the mic was incorrectly aimed/positioned, almost certainly a consequence of attaching it to your camera rather than using it on a boom. The post processing is also generally very poor; little or no attention to differences in noise between edits being one, obvious example.

As for video, which weakness stands out the most?

There are many inconsistencies, not the obvious inconsistency between covert footage and HD footage but even between various HD shots. On an aesthetic level, you could have included more establishing shots, say of the beauty of Brighton counterpointed by the harsh realities of being homeless.

1. I am not (and I don't want to be) a movie director or make a blockbuster movie. ... 2. My goal is to raise awareness on social problems, among as many people as I can ... 3. I want to conclude citing two good examples of of works that follows a philosophy similar to mine ...

1. Obviously I was referring to documentary filmmaking rather than Blockbusters or non-factual filmmaking.

2. There is a dichotomy here. To get to as "many people as you can" means providing entertainment value beyond that tiny niche who not only want to watch social awareness content but who want to watch it so badly that they are prepared to overlook relatively serious technical and aesthetic weaknesses. If you are talking about as many people as you can within that tiny niche (rather than generally), then you have the increasing difficulty of getting noticed by that niche in a rapidly expanding sea of content.

3. I'm not sure a cartoon musical is an example which can be applied to social awareness documentaries and I don't know anything about La Educacion Prohibida, it's success or reasons for it's success, to make any informed comment. Nevertheless, you raise some interesting points about production values, the future of documentary filmmaking and monetisation. Maybe, like has happened in the music industry, the future of documentary filmmaking is very low production values and little (or no) direct monetisation? Personally, I very much hope not!

G
 
Harsh advice is the most useful type, so thank you!

Although the story/content takes priority, I do think that audio and video quality is important. I agree with your criticism of both the audio and the video quality and lack of consistency. I will work on this!

Although using a boom pole would be unpractical for me, I will consider getting lapel mics for planned interviews. I failed to find ones that are sufficiently convenient to attach to interviewees. I imagine that taping wires etc to them will take time and make them more uncomfortable. A small piece with a clip that connects wirelessly to a larger device carried by me would be ideal, but I'm not sure if it exists.

For the post editing, I used iMovie's built in noise reduction. I could try using something like audacity instead, if that would improve it? I try to have a silent minute in the interview to identify background noise, but iMovie doesn't let me specify where in the clip that silent minute is.

As for your critique of the content, I respectfully disagree. Through the investigation I showed that it's not easy for rough sleepers to get a warm bed, and I showed that BHT's ad was at least somewhat deceptive. Mission accomplished. I had to limit my focus, so I cannot investigate every aspect of the issue, which is indeed very complex. That said, I appreciate your point. Perhaps I could have included a couple of short vox pops to show people's opinions and expectations. Perhaps I could have focused more on the difficulty for the homeless and skipped the vilification of BHT and the council altogether. That would have been perceived as more balanced. But I think that would have been boring and largely useless.

No documentary is ever entirely objective. The choice of facts and how those facts are presented always reflects the opinions of the film maker.
 
AudioPostExpert I find your feedback very useful and I think Vox Alii agrees with me. I think you are a professional, are you used to work for big budgeted projects? How much do you think a scarce budget influence on the quality of the final product?

Regarding your points:
- You are right that's why creative commons licenses allow your content to spread and reach a wide audience. Yes Sita is a cartoon but i suggest you to sitasingstheblues.com anyway because the authors explains her choice and her views in a very good way. Releasing her material online she managed to reach an audience that had she followed the "traditional way" she would have probably never reached because her distributors either did think the cartoon was good enough or had offered too little money.

- I think for independent filmmakers alternative ways of distribution are worth to be followed when the traditional ways appear unavailable. To put the thing short is is better not publishing your work because you can't find a distributor (for many reasons e.g. your product is not mainstream, the quality is not deemed good enough etc.) or release it online and ask for rewards if people liked it? Vox Alii as an independent (I assume), filmmaker would have had problems finding a distributor for his short, but he was able to publish it online and people can watch it. I have a lot to learn about making documentaries but I do believe that the future of information is away from big multimedia corporations and traditional forms of distribution (tied to the big corporations).
 
I think you are a professional, are you used to work for big budgeted projects?

That depends on how you define "big budgeted projects". My documentary work has been mainly in the high 5 to low 6 figure range and my film work has been mainly in the low 6 to mid 7 figures.

How much do you think a scarce budget influence on the quality of the final product?

Significantly! Not just in terms of the equipment one can afford to use but the experience and expertise of the personnel to operate it.

You are right that's why creative commons licenses allow your content to spread and reach a wide audience.

That's the theory, although in practice there's a huge difference between allowing your content to spread and reach a wide audience and your content actually getting a wide audience. Sure, there are a number of videos on YouTube which have gained a wide audience but there are probably 100 million or so which haven't. That's the difficulty with that type of distribution, actually getting that wide audience to even be aware that your content exists.

I think for independent filmmakers alternative ways of distribution are worth to be followed when the traditional ways appear unavailable.

This raises a couple of points: 1. Traditional ways are not unavailable. There are thousands of documentary filmmakers making content for those traditional ways every day and they are just normal people like you and me. I think many amateur filmmakers only think the traditional ways appear unavailable because they are impatient and/or because they really want to make films/docos for themselves rather than for audiences. 2. Given that many amateur filmmakers don't want to put in the time and effort required to work one's way up to making content for traditional distribution channels, then alternative distribution can be worthwhile. It depends though; Putting your video on Youtube, spending hours/days/weeks trying to publicise it and only achieving a few hundred views is common and maybe not so worthwhile, maybe that time would have been better spent studying or practising filmmaking skills for the next project? That's a question only you can answer.

I do believe that the future of information is away from big multimedia corporations and traditional forms of distribution (tied to the big corporations).

You could be right but history indicates that big corporations (existing or new ones) eventually find a way to take over and dominate new forms of distribution.

Although using a boom pole would be unpractical for me.

Why? Even very simple electronic news gathering usually has a two or three person team. One operating the camera, one operating sound (inc. boom) and a presenter/interviewer (who might also be the camera operator).

I will consider getting lapel mics for planned interviews. I failed to find ones that are sufficiently convenient to attach to interviewees.

Wireless lav mics are extremely common in both documentary and non-factual filmmaking. Decent quality, reliable ones are not particularly cheap though. Lectrasonics are the best but a Sennhieser G3 system is probably the best value. Audiences will generally accept poor audio quality plus subtitles for covert footage but are far less forgiving for staged interviews.

For the post editing, I used iMovie's built in noise reduction. I could try using something like audacity instead, if that would improve it?

There were indeed some very unpleasant noise reduction (NR) artefacts. Audacity is not used professionally and I personally have never used it, so I can't really comment but I would guess that it's NR capabilities are probably a little better than iMovie's. Even with the very best NR processors, experience and a certain amount of skill is required to get the best out of them. Usually less is more when it comes to NR processing and adding more noise to the quieter shots (along with judicious use of NR on the noisier shots) is usually the best solution to consistency between shots.

I showed that BHT's ad was at least somewhat deceptive.

We'll have to disagree on that one. Your personal experience has obviously satisfied you that BHT was somewhat deceptive but your documentary has not shown that to the viewer, as I described in post #4.

Perhaps I could have focused more on the difficulty for the homeless and skipped the vilification of BHT and the council altogether. That would have been perceived as more balanced. But I think that would have been boring and largely useless.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't include the covert footage, which certainly adds interest and helps demonstrate that there is effectively no help for single, able-bodied, non-local homeless people. I also think is fair to vilify the council for giving you the run-around which your footage also clearly appears to demonstrate. While your footage appears to clearly demonstrate that the council (and BHT) effectively takes no responsibility for this particular homeless demographic, you can't publicly vilify them for that unless you provide evidence that they are actually supposed to have that responsibility. You can't, for example, vilify a pilot for loosing your baggage, unless you provide evidence that the handling of your baggage was in fact the pilot's responsibility.

No documentary is ever entirely objective. The choice of facts and how those facts are presented always reflects the opinions of the film maker.

True, the difference between an opinion piece and a documentary is often just a matter of degree. If you are going to describe your work as a documentary though, you bare some responsibility to try and be objective and to demonstrate that any conclusions/opinions you do state are effectively inescapable.

G
 
Last edited:
I'm a one man team and I'm not going to ask my wife to come with me to every interview holding a boom pole. Also, I plan to travel a lot by land with my equipment, hopefully as far as around the world, so I want to travel as light as possible. I assume a stand to hold a mic is large and heavy. Even if it's not, you then want to add lights and stands for lights, which will not be easy to carry around. Also, the more I buy, the more I lose when it's eventually stolen. If there's a workaround I'd be happy to know what it is.

The Sennheiser G3 system is $629.95 , which I just can't do as long as I'm intending film making to be a hobby rather than a profession. But thanks for the tip! I will keep it in mind when I want to take it to the next level. Would it improve the audio if I place the shotgun mic somewhere else than on the camera, but still out of frame, e.g. on a small stand on a table next to the interviewee? There might be entire guides written on this, but I didn't find any.

Increasing some noise to create consistency was not something I had considered. Interesting!

Your points on documentary style are fair and I will let them sink in.
 
I'm a one man team and I'm not going to ask my wife to come with me to every interview holding a boom pole. Also, I plan to travel a lot by land with my equipment, hopefully as far as around the world, so I want to travel as light as possible. I assume a stand to hold a mic is large and heavy.\

Yeah my C-stand to hold the boom pole is heavy, but i like it that way. It doesn't need a sandbag.

CB3-BTS.jpg
 
I'm a one man team ...

That is always going to be a limiting factor. I'm sure commercial producers would love to reduce their costs down to a one man team, they don't though because that would most commonly result in a compromise in quality which would dip below most consumers expectations.

Would it improve the audio if I place the shotgun mic somewhere else than on the camera, but still out of frame, e.g. on a small stand on a table next to the interviewee?

That of course depends on where exactly you position and aim the mic. If you imagine that the sound coming out of the interviewee's mouth travels in a single straight line, you ideally want to position the mic about 20" away from the interviewee's mouth, pointing in a direction which bisects that straight line. In sfoster's photo, you can see the mic is well above that "straight line" but pointing downwards to bisect it. Given the choice, I would rather the mic was a little closer to the presenter (lower) and a little further forward (towards the camera) so that the bisecting angle is a little less than 90deg. Obviously though, one rarely has the choice to perfectly position the mic, due to framing considerations. Also obviously, the further from that ideal mic position you go, the poorer the audio quality you're going to end up with.

From this, you'll notice that mounting the mic on the camera places it along that straight line from the interviewee's mouth and usually considerably more than 20". That's why you've got relatively poor audio. Although having the mic above, pointing downward is generally the preferred approach, the opposite can also produce good results. IE. Placing the mic below and pointing upwards. Therefore, using a small stand on a low table, close to the interviewee and pointing upwards is an option likely to significantly improve your audio quality. My advice is to get a test subject and spend some time experimenting with various mic positions/aimings. A couple of hours spent making a number of these recording experiments and comparing the results will, I'm sure, significantly improve your understanding of microphone behaviour/characteristics and therefore your audio quality.

Increasing some noise to create consistency was not something I had considered. Interesting!

When it comes to sound, particularly background noise, it's often worth thinking about the human brain as a pattern matching machine. While noise is generally undesirable, changes in the noise (pattern) are usually even more undesirable. Viewers are surprising sensitive to even subtle changes in the "pattern" of background noise! Although they often cannot specifically identify very subtle variations to the pattern, they do notice that something feels wrong. Changes in this noise pattern isn't so much of a problem between different scenes, as it's expected that different scenes/locations will have different noise patterns, it's more of a problem when editing different angles/shots/takes together of the same scene. For this reason, filmmakers will often record 30 secs or so of just this noise pattern (known in the biz as "Room Tone") for each location/scene, purely as an option in post production, to potentially help iron out differences in the "pattern". In the commercial world, techniques and uses of room tone can be quite sophisticated/complex but for now I advise you just play around with it a bit. Even a fairly crude use of room tone, judiciously applied, could significantly improve the smoothness/appearance of your audio. Once you've played with the basics a bit, you can always come back and ask for more sophisticated advice.

G
 
This is gold! Awesome!

I just assumed that pointing the mic straight at the sound source would give good audio.

I will experiment.

Thank you!
 
@AudioPostExpert Your points about patience are perhaps true, everyone would like getting his work released as soon as possible, even those with little or no skills, but I think sometimes alternative means of distributions (I would be more looking for distribution through torrent rather than youtube).

For example products for TV must have meet certain criteria (on length, presence of nudity and so on), say you made a a documentary that does not meet their requirements (maybe it is 4 hours long or maybe it is on the dwarf ant of the Gobi desert nobody could care less about). You change (mutilate?) you work to adapt to the industry's standards or you go for an alternative way.

I think there is a substantial difference between consumers and viewers. Consumers just consume your product like just another youtube video, viewers are interested in the content. If one aims at "consumers" perhaps industry is the right choice, But I think if someone aims at "viewers" than other choices are worthy to be experimented :) (my 2 cents)

@Vox Alii I don't want to do postcrossing but since we have similar way of working (my project is a one man project as well), you can check out my thread where I asked for a good mic for interviews and got some good advice: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=59655
 
Your points about patience are perhaps true, everyone would like getting his work released as soon as possible ...

I wasn't just referring to the work but to the ideas. Filmmakers have ideas for films, amateur filmmakers are commonly impatient to film those ideas and will often spend as little time as practical to plan and organise the filming logistics. Serious/commercial filmmakers will create a plan based on making a final product suitable for distribution (of which the filming logistics is just one part). It will usually take many months or many years to create such a plan; identifying the resources needed to make their film distributable, obtaining those resources and then making their film. The impatient amateur will arrive at post-production much sooner but will then have to spend far more time figuring out how to edit all their footage into something watchable, then work out how to distribute their film and then finally, spend considerable time marketing/publicising their self-distributed film. Almost without exception, they are going to end up self-distributing because they didn't plan or make their film for any other platform!

For example products for TV must have meet certain criteria (on length, presence of nudity and so on), say you made a a documentary that does not meet their requirements (maybe it is 4 hours long or maybe it is on the dwarf ant of the Gobi desert nobody could care less about). You change (mutilate?) you work to adapt to the industry's standards or you go for an alternative way.

In my opinion, you are looking at this backwards. Ask yourself why TV must meet certain criteria? You're right, a 4 hour documentary would not meet TV broadcasters' criteria but, have you wondered why? ... TV broadcasters have learned that viewers won't watch a 4 hour documentary and their length criteria are based on many decades of research, data and experience of what wide audiences will watch. The same is true of most/all of their other criteria. Sure, TV broadcasters are not perfect, viewer/consumer tastes and expectations evolve and there is always potentially room for improvement/innovation but ignoring all that research, data and experience simply because a filmmaker is impatient and can't be bothered means trusting to pure dumb luck that they hit upon a successful formula. In other words, a 4hr doco distributed on youtube is likely to fail for exactly the same reasons as TV broadcasters would decline it!

From this and my previous paragraph, it should be obvious that you don't need to "change (mutilate?)" anything, you plan/design your doco to industry standards from the outset. And, if you don't plan/design your doco to industry standards, if "you go for an alternative way", what makes you think it will attract the "wide audience" or "many viewers" you are talking about?

G
 
Absolutely research behind a project is a must, especially if it is a factual documentary. I also agree on the much post-editing required for amateur stuff, it is the same thing for books written by people with little knowledge on the subject and then heavily edited.

You are right, but it is also true that the documentary on "the dwarf ant of the Gobi desert nobody could care less about" is unlikely to be broadcasted simply because it is a niche and not mainstream. So I wonder should niches be avoided or ignored at all? I think pleasing niches can be satisfying as well, and rewarding (Linux users despite being a small fraction of the video gaming market when asked to pay for video games paid more than those on Windows).

About the lengths you are right, everything can be condensed and summarized but I think if the topic is interesting don't people keep going? Aren't there 800 pages books? Or long films like Doctor Zhivago or the Lord of the Ring? (Yes they are main stream but they fit the example i think). Can't remember if it was on this thread but somewhere I read that artists make their art first for themselves and then for their audiences, too bad this can't be done in a for-profit viewpoint.
 
Back
Top