• Congratulations to Alex Bradley winner of the December 2024 Turning Challenge (click here for details)
  • Conversations are now Direct Messages (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Gabriel Hoff for "Spalted Beech Round Bottom Box" being selected as Turning of the Week for January 6, 2024 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Videography at the AAW Symposium

R

Russ Fairfield

RIP
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
116
Likes
0
Location
Post Falls, Idaho
Website
www.woodturner-russ.com
All of the comments about the recent AAW Symposium have been critical of the video in the demonstration rooms. Many have suggested bigger and better camera equipment, bigger screens, better sound, and experienced camera operators. Is bigger and better video really the way we want to go? Do we really want the AAW to emphasize video theater over the personal demonstration?

It seems to me that the folks at the AAW should be looking at what role they want the video camera to play in the demonstration. Should they be looking for ways to reduce the emphasis on the video by reducing the size of the audience, or should they be looking for ways to increase the capability of the video equipment so they can pack more people into the a larger room??

The video camera was introduced into the demonstration room as an enhancement to the demonstration. It was a way for the audience to see what was happening on the other side of the wood. That was a good thing, even for a small audience. The quality of the camera, the size of the screen, and the skill of its operator were not issues. Most of the time, the camera was set in one position, turned on, and forgotten about unless it was knocked over.

Over time, the video has become a means to pack more people into bigger demonstration rooms. We are now at the point where watching the video screen has replaced watching the demonstrator for most of the audience. Only the people in the first two rows are aware that the demonstrator is there. The rest of the audience is watching the video screen, and for them, the demonstrator might as well not even be in the same room. We are only one step away from having one demonstrator being seen by more than one audience, and the size of each audience being limited only by the size of the screen. In this theater setting, the production of the video, the video equipment, and the size of the screen becomes more important than the demonstrator.

The question for the AAW should be one of whether the emphasis is on more personal demonstrations to a smaller audience, or the production of video theater to a larger group. There is nothing wrong with going in either direction. But, it would appear that we are at the point of having neither.
 
One Russ to another. I find video very beneficial to show more of what the demonstrator is doing. My last demonstration was Kansas City and the biggest problem I thought was the videographer watching the demo and not working the camera. A polite gentle reminder might be in order. At demos of the Channel Islands Woodturners I am the videographer. I have received complements from members and professional demonstrators on the job I do. I have also received reminders to pay attention to the camera. The benefit of having the camera their is attendees get to see detail they cannot see from their seats. We also use an overhead mirror system. I can show closeups of the tool work, how the turner moves and closeup of turned details. Very important to learn techniques.

A suggestion I would make to the AAW is to try to give the volunteers more training. Perhaps first thing in the morning get them together. This may not be as easy as it sounds as there are many models of cameras being used. Remind them that they are there to operate the camera first and then enjoy the demo. Also a reminder during the opening introduction that these people are volunteers and need to be treated politely with gentle reminders to get the camera back on track.

Wow....my 2 cents worth and then some...
 
Many of the video camera operators did an outstanding job. There were however, some who were out of their element. Given the "investment" I made in the Symposium fee, the hotel, the meals, the travel cost, and of course the TOOLS I bought and smuggled in the back door, I feel strongly that there should be top notch video work if I am not going to be able to be close to the demonstrator and see the work directly. As someone said earlier, three hours of training in video camera operation is just not enough... at least for someone like me who would have trouble after 10 hours of training... 😀 I don't think it will ever be possible to have smaller demos given the attendance demand, so screens and video are a must. I don't really like that, and I don't know the answer to the problem. It probably is going to be found in recruiting of only experienced camera operators, rental of good equipment, longer quality training of volunteers... or even paid videographers. One problem is a camera operator more interested in the demo than the camera. Solve that one, and many problems will evaporate. One last thing is: Folks can be real glad I did not sign up to video a demo!

Ron Wilson
 
Another thought just occurred to me. Could the AAW devise a program to encourage clubs to "train" video camera operators? Perhaps the club could be given a grant to purchase a camera compatible with the symposium equipment? Given a year, a new video camera operator could gain quite a bit of experience in the art. Perhaps, as quality video is so important to the symposium experience, the symposium fee could be waived for those who volunteer and qualify... those certified by their clubs as able to do the job.

Ron Wilson
 
If I volunteer and AAW pays my way can I choose my rotations?

I wonder if someone at AAW could let us know where the cameras come from, are they AAW property, loaners?
 
Equipment is AAW property.

Volunteers are not paid and pay full price to attend. A Volunteer is just that, someone that doesn't expect something in return for "stepping up to the plate".
 
Well now, RonW's idea of EOG grant supported club trained and certified video operators sounds like the best solution to this problem I've heard yet. One of the keys to this is assuring that these folks are committed to attending the symposium and then volunteering their time. I know that the video operators in our club that attended, and videoed in Louisville were complemented in all their rotations by both the demonstrators and the audience.
 
This is not what anyone wants to hear, but "WATCH THE DEMONSTRATOR OF YOUR CHOICE FROM THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE." is not the way to get qualified camera operators.

AAW Directors and others have come on this and other forums to solicit volunteers with those words, they have been published in the Journal, and I have said them myself. And now everybody wonders why so many of the camera operators showed more interest in the demonstrator than in the camera.

We definitely need to change the message if some level of proficiency is required for a camera operator. There needs to be some level of enticement for those who already have the skills, and some means of training for those who don't. This not an easy task.

I agree with everybody who says video is important. Good video is not only important, it is essential when we charge several hundred dollars for the priviledge of watching demonstrations that are performed in front of a large audience. The problem is that nobody is getting what they are paying for.

Blaming the volunteers, and saying we will try harder next year isn't going to get it done. Someone at the AAW has to sit down and determine where they are now and what video capabilities they have, where they want to go, and lay out a plan for getting there. This has to be done by someone with experience in making video presentations to large groups. I may be wrong, but I don't see that experience in any of the AAW staff or Directors.

Somebody needs to start thinking outside of the box that has a bunch of folks gathered around the lathe to watch somebody turn something. The Symposium has reached the status of an "event", and growth demands that it be treated as one. That requires someone to start planning for production techniques to be added to the demonstration room. This is more than just picking a popular demonstrator, sticking them in front of a room full of people, finding someone to operate a camera, and hoping for the best. This will require the demonstrator, the camera operator, and a director all working together to make a good presentation, and that can require a rehearsal before the scheduled demonstration. We owe this to those who are paying to sit in that seat.
 
I agree with most of what has been said but I think Russ in the reply above is probably the most direct to the point. I'll admit that the line about "best seat in the house" grabbed my attention since this was my first symposium, and even used it myself in an earlier thread. But he is right, many volunteers got too busy watching the demo to watch their own video work. I have worked around video most of my life and have taught a very successful video productions program the last 10 years or so, so I felt qualified to stand behind the camera. I received a lot of compliments on my work and few complaints, but I sat through some other that were as bad as some of the comments on here..

I will admit that the minimal training was a problem and that can be improved I think. The bigger problem (in my professional opinion) is the age and quality of the equipment. Every piece of equipment I touched was old technology, and some of those cameras had to be 8-10 years old. I'm not sure it is worth it to AAW to buy that much decent equipment that will be used only 3 days per year, but I am also not sure you can rent what they need either. The solution may be to do some of all the suggestions. Maybe just update what they have and let volunteers handle the smaller rooms, but hire a crew to do the big name turners. For example on Saturday Mike Mahoney had to solicit a volunteer from the audience (someone beat me to it) and then the camera in there would not focus except on it's widest settings, in other words no zoom. It bothers eveyone when that happens, as a videographer it was killing me to watch it. I started to go out to my truck where I had several cameras that would have worked nicely but I had the feeling I may have not gotten back in the room or been fussed at for reconfiguring equipment.

I'll volunteer to do all 11 sessions next time, and even help with set-up if needed, but after driving all the way across the country to get to Portland a little break on registration or something would be nice. To be honest as a videographer you really don't get to watch the demo if you are doing what you should so to "volunteer" just for a free t-shirt is not really a fair deal.
 
I began taping demonstrations for our club so I could have a record for myself for future reference, and "it was the best seat in the house". Making a tape for the club library was the right thing to do. Even though I have the best seat I realize I am also there to benefit the other members and guests in attendance. Occasionally I am reminded to wake up or requested to show a different angle. Being a founding member the members are friends and are polite to me. I do not know if I would want to volunteer for a symposium. Too many people telling me what to shoot in a not so polite manner. Volunteers do need to keep their focus ( pun intended ) on why they are there, to operate the camera. We owe a lot the anyone who volunteers. Without the volunteers there would be no video aids and probably no symposium. Thanks to all who do volunteer.
 
The cost of having fun

I have enjoyed each of the symposiums that I have been able to attend. And what should be more important is that I learned somthing new from each of the demonstrators, no mater how good or how bad they were.
Every year we go through this same thing, bashing the symposium and those who run it. They should have had more rooms,more camreas, more food, more tables, more volunteers, less lines,and so on and so on. The complaints have been endless. So to have been the seggestions and advice for next year. I have given my share.
One thing I do know is that if each of the ideas that have been made on this message board and others were to be implemented for next years symposium the regestration price would by much higher than most of us would pay.
The last thing is if YOU are not will to be a volunteer, to help when help is need to make the symposium run smothly then YOU realy don't have much room to complain.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Duane
 
A suggested compromise

Dear Angelo and others,

I agree that the idea of volunteer is that of selfless giving. No problem with that at all. I volunteer to do all sorts of things for all sorts of causes, and I am generally not rewarded in any sort of financial way.

HOWEVER, when I volunteer to be a bouncer at an event, and to watch carefully what's going on (IN THE AUDIENCE, NOT THE SHOW) to prevent troubles, I am generally not expected to pay for a ticket to not watch! Back stage passes were made for this. When I was paid as a piano technician to be on hand in case of piano failures at a concert, they paid me AND gave me a back stage pass! This is not financial reward. It's not even a perc. This is just not charging me to work for the cause. There's a difference, IMO.

A thought: What would happen if a cameraman offered to shoot two days worth of sessions, all in the same room(s)? [No, you can't pick your presenters, but consideration could be given when possible.] For those days, the cameraman will not see any other room(s), so the cameraman pays no entry fee for those days, since he will not benefit much if he's doing his job well. He still paid transportation and room and board to serve, but just not paying for the classes and demonstrations that he won't see. In at least one other large nonprofit where I was a member and national officer, those who were the go-fers paid their own way, paid their own room and board, but did not pay for the conference/symposium/workshop fees since they were not going to get to see any meaningful portion of it. Those included camera folks, audio folks, bouncers, facilitators, etc., all "behind the scenes folks" even though cameramen were up close and personal. Because those conferences were serving more than 1000 people, and because the servant volunteers were paying their own room, board, and transportation, the costs to the organization did not rise. Because the service was improved and streamlined, the members were increasingly satisfied with the conferences and attendance continued to grow. A win-win situation! The conference was one of the major money-makers for the organization, of course, and continued to be so, even with the small changes incurred by not receiving the attendance $$ from the volunteers.

I really think that it is worth discussing and running a few financial models.

Thanks for listening!

Oh, and Russ#1? Our chapter's monthly meeting regularly uses video so that the 80-100 people attending can better see what's happening. Most watch the tube to see the details of what's being turned, but their eyes go to "live" when it's discussion time. No big deal. The cameras are there to provide a basic record and to provide the details of the actual turning, not to be a broadcast production. Some cameramen and producers are better than others, obviously. Some are so jerky as to require dramamine handouts with every session! Others are creative and do what's needed to get one camera to show the things that are of interest both to the live audience and to those who will watch the record.

One man's thoughts. YMMV and that's okay! My thanks to the volunteers and the price they've paid.
 
DeanGThomas said:

A thought: What would happen if a cameraman offered to shoot two days worth of sessions, all in the same room(s)? [No, you can't pick your presenters, but consideration could be given when possible.] For those days, the cameraman will not see any other room(s), so the cameraman pays no entry fee for those days, since he will not benefit much if he's doing his job well. He still paid transportation and room and board to serve, but just not paying for the classes and demonstrations that he won't see. In at least one other large nonprofit where I was a member and national officer, those who were the go-fers paid their own way, paid their own room and board, but did not pay for the conference/symposium/workshop fees since they were not going to get to see any meaningful portion of it. Those included camera folks, audio folks, bouncers, facilitators, etc., all "behind the scenes folks" even though cameramen were up close and personal. Because those conferences were serving more than 1000 people, and because the servant volunteers were paying their own room, board, and transportation, the costs to the organization did not rise. Because the service was improved and streamlined, the members were increasingly satisfied with the conferences and attendance continued to grow. A win-win situation! The conference was one of the major money-makers for the organization, of course, and continued to be so, even with the small changes incurred by not receiving the attendance $$ from the volunteers.
Click to expand...

Amen brother, amen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top