This is the first video I have produced as part of my internship at redWEB. Shot on a small Panasonic HD consumer camera, using a couple of lights and the worst tripod I have ever owned. But. it works!

I have two similar interviews already filmed, and, later this week will be interviewing one of redWEB's clients, too.

I am planning to shoot the interview with the client in my Flip camera, using my h1 Zoom for sound. The Flip is a 720p HD camera, very basic, but, I feel it will suit the situation of filming with a client. It's small, unassuming, and doesn't look like a camera -- it's about the size of a mobile phone. It is also quick and easy to use. The client is a busy guy, so, an on-the-fly set up means I can concentrate on getting a good interview, rather than farting around with lights and camera, etc.

I am quickly learning that content is king. While I have  a "professional eye" on how things need to look, I also need to let some things slide … or, at least, make the best of what I can get, knowing that it is about capturing the content, not trying to make everything look like it was shot by Ridley Scott!

Having said that, I am really excited about getting my hands on some new camera equipment later this week. We've ordered a couple of Canon EOS 600D cameras, with 18mm to 135mm lenses, a Manfrotto tripod, a handheld kit, some LED Lights, and a few other bits to make up a basic but good quality shooting kit.

Why the Canon EOS 600D?

It's an amazing little camera. It produces amazing pictures. And. It isn't stupidly expensive.

I. Really. Can't. Wait. And we'll be using the Canon on my first video for one of redWEB's clients.

I am storyboarding the client's video over the coming days ready to pitch it to them at the end of this week.

I'm okay with it. Not so okay when I am forced to draw in some way. For example, our design teacher at school made us draw initial designs. She somehow believed that forcing us to draw a little would make those who couldn't draw suddenly talented at it.

I found. In no uncertain terms. That I didn't wake up one morning with the sudden ability to draw. The days of my childhood where I was comfortable with a pencil in hand are gone forever. Truly gone. But. Like I said, I am okay with that. What I don't like about being forced to draw for a project is that I know my drawings don't look good. And. I see that, pure and simple, as presenting something that does not reflect how it looks in my head. Something that doesn't look professional.

That's the essence of it for me. People who can draw can capture what they see, out in the world, or, whatever is inside their head. I see what is inside of my head. But. Drawing it. Showing it to others. Awful idea. Utterly and totally awful.

So, now that I am planning a video for one of redWEB's clients … Wuh! Yes. I skipped that little nugget of news didn't I? Yes. I am now going to be making a video that will feature on a client's website. Meaning, I have to come up with ideas. Present those ideas to colleagues and the clients.

I need to make a storyboard.

But. I don't need to draw. Neither do we have the budget to employ a storyboard artist. Long, long ago, in a galaxy far away …. Or, at least, on a hard drive that has been sitting in my desk drawer since my used-to-be-a-film-dude days … I remembered I had a copy of Storyboard Artist from Power Productions.

So, an-upgrade-to-the-latest-version-later, and I am making storyboards using this very nifty piece of software.

The idea of Storyboard Artists is simple. You have a timeline. You add to that timeline a series of shots. And. Each shot is composed of 2D or even 3D characters pre-drawn for you inside the software. Each character is customisable. So, you can really give each character an individual look. You can also choose from a range of backgrounds and props to add to each shot. You can pan and zoom. You can animate. Basically, you can make a storyboard-come-animatic of a scene to see how it looks.

You can also add music. Sound effects. You can pre-realise your ideas in as much detail as you need. Without having to draw anything.

I spent most of the day today (yesterday by the time you read this) using Storyboard Artist. The sequence I made was short. But. What I saw in my head was pretty much what I captured in the software. There are limitations of course. However. You can write as many notes as needed next to each frame, so, the resulting storyboard really reflected my imagination.

I felt free. To create. Not hindered by the fact that … I CAN'T DRAW!

The best part is that what I have to present to colleagues at redWEB, and, eventually the clients, will look presentable. I won't be standing there feeling embarrassed by my clumsy drawings. Storyboard Artist really makes it all about the ideas; which is what needs the attention when presenting and discussing storyboards in meetings with others.

I didn't quite finish my sequence today. I got to the point where I was about to try adding some sound effects. However. I had scheduled to re-shoot the interview I did with Christian some weeks ago. So, I had to set up the lights, etc, and film.

It didn't take me long to set things up. I have used these lights and the camera a few times now.  I know how it all fits together. This probably shows in some way. In fact, it totally shows because I took more than an extra 5 minutes to adjust the lights once Christian was in front of the camera; I felt comfortable doing that. I was determined to get it right. And. I did. The lighting looked perfect …. A little colour grading needed (as always), but, no harsh shadows from glasses. The lighting looked just right.

Compare this to what I got the last time:

I showed a few people part of the first interview I did. None of them thought the lighting looked odd. But then I pointed it out:

The thing with the window not being properly in frame is purely an esthetic thing. I had planned to have it in frame. I just didn't take the time adjust lights and frame up properly.

The shadow from Christian's glasses on the left side of his face might not seem big. But. Over a period of time. Watching the interview. Watching Christian move his head. That shadow really becomes a bother. The same goes for the spot reflections in the right lens of his glasses. They don't look so bad in a still shot (a photo). But. On video they get in the way. More importantly. They interfere with his eyes. They stop the audience from seeing his eyes fully, and, in an interview where the subject needs to convey his thoughts and feelings in an honestly … Those light spots just partly destroy that feeling.

When you compare it to the shot I had planned:

Then you can really see that what I filmed in the first interview really wasn't what I wanted to capture.

So, a rethink. A new part of the office. And. Now we have an interview that looks great, and, to be honest is a better interview. I have interviewed a few people from redWEB now. Each time I feel I am getting better at it. Becoming more focused on the things I need to cover with each person. In the first interview with Christian I felt that I had to try and cover everything. When. What I needed to do is just cover the things that are relevant to him.

The interview yesterday lasted 15 minutes. I will edit it down to 3 minutes and post it to redWEB's new YouTube channel in the coming weeks.

What I love about throwing videos out on Social Media is the immediacy of it. Making a film used to be about finishing it and finding an audience. With sites like YouTube and Vimeo, well, your audience can find the video and decide within a few seconds whether it is something they want to watch. And, the best thing is that once the video is live, unless you delete it, it is there for people to find months and even years after you've uploaded it.

Video has a life of its own thanks to Social Media.

I have now been at redWEB for a month. And, while they are treating me brilliantly, I feel as though I have had a tough week; nothing they have done, I just had one of those what-the-heck-am-I-doing spells. We all get them. You're confident one minute, and, the next, well, you feel as though you have no clue as to what you are doing. The worst thing in that situation is that no matter what you do, it feels as though nothing you do is quite good enough.

I am my own worst critic most of the time. And sometimes that makes me switch from a guy who gets things done to a guy who sits around thinking that what he's doing isn't good enough.

A couple of things have helped me snap out of it. One was my wife. I told her how I felt last night. She just looked at me and said, "Stop over-thinking everything and just get on with it." 

The other thing was some work I did yesterday. Last week I did an interview with Ronnie Christiansen, redWEB's director, and, the guy that started the company. I shot the interview with a single camera, static. The lighting looks great. Ronnie is also a great interview subject. Ask him a question and you get bags and bags of material from him; he's a passionate and knowledgeable man.

When I started logging that material, I started to get worried that perhaps a single static shot isn't that visually interesting. I then looked at the interview I'd done with Christian, too. Christian is the creative director at redWEB. The interview (all be it with problems with the lighting) was with a static camera, too.

I started thinking that maybe I should have shot them handheld. Moved the camera around a bit. Forced a little funkiness onto it, visually.

I will say at this point that I haven't really shot any B roll. All I have are the interviews. i plan to go out and shoot some B roll in the next week or so. B roll will be any shots I can get around the offices in Odense and in Aarhus, of people working, etc.

Then, yesterday, I decided to spend some time editing Ronnie's interview into a short version to upload on Youtube. I cut together some really cool things that he said about Joomla, Open Source, and why he does what he does. I mixed the sound. Added a little music. Made some simple titles. And … The result was a 3 minute video that, actually, is really compelling.

All shot with a static camera. No B roll. Just good sound. Music. And some simple titles. And, it works. I have yet to colour grade it, which, of course, will add another essential layer.

My realisation here was simple. While not everyone might want to see a short video with a guy talking about his company, his passion for Open Source, and, why he does what he does, some people will. I realised that it is not about trying to make a funky video that will get lots of hits in Youtube, it's about making a video that means something. A video that it about something. A video that presents things as they are, so to speak, and cutting it together using simple techniques to help highlight the content.

Ronnie is a fascinating guy to talk to. What he has to say might not appeal to everybody. But. That's the whole point. It's not about trying to appeal to everybody. It's about making something that will be fascinating for the people who are into the subject in the first place.

One of my thoughts -- insecurities -- this week was, well, will potential clients of redWEB be interested in watching a 10 or 15 minute film about the company; a film where someone like Ronnie just talks about what he does, openly, and passionately.

I have come to realise that the answer is YES and NO.

I certainly feel that if I were a company considering spending rather a lot of money on building a website with redWEB, I'd definitely take the time to watch a short film about them. In fact, I'd want to gather as much information about them as possible.

But. I am also sure that there are people out there who'd want to just see a 90 second glossy presentation video and come away feeling as though they have done their homework, so to speak.

This YES and NO answer, for me, means that I have to stick to my guns, get over my insecurities, and put together the film that I have in my mind. A film about the company and the people involved. The kind of film that I would take the time to sit down and watch.

The NO side also means that I need to nutshell parts of it. Also make shorter little films from the same material. 

I am happy to do both. I feel confident in doing both. So, as Mrs McQueen very rightly pointed out to me last night, I just need to stop over-thinking things. I have been making films on and off since I was old enough to hold a camera. things haven't changed. I just need to hold the camera and shoot. Capture what's there. And use simple editing techniques to show exactly what I have done.

I did that for school project not so long ago. A static camera and a subject. It worked. Because what I wanted to say with the film wasn't glossed over. It was allowed to come through:

This isn't a film I have planned in great detail. I have an idea of what I want to achieve with it, I know the kinds of things I want to film, but, I have no script or storyboards; this is pure discovery filmmaking, and, it's what I love about being able to shoot and edit electronically. I can grab the camera and shoot a quick interview or even try an idea for a shot, and then immediately transfer it onto the computer and play around with it. Of course, it helps that I have been doing the filmmaking thing since, well, for as long as I can remember.

I did all of my editing today in Premiere Pro, and, I love it. It really feels like a solid work tool. I even managed to do some quick colour grading experiments along the way.

I have to say that the interview I shot last Friday in Odense looks good. The lighting is just as I planned it, and, with the colour grading I experimented with today it looks even better. This is the good news, I suppose. The bad news is that I cut some of the footage together with the first interview I did with Christian last week, and, you can really see the difference -- I can't colour grade my way around it, unfortunately. I will have to re-shoot that first interview again.

My plan is to actually use the current version to cut with, and then, when we come to re-shooting the interview, we'll shoot only the bits that I need for the film. Yes. I know. It's meant to be a documentary. So, setting up an interview like that seems perhaps false in some way … Well, I have news for you … Even a documentary is a film, as in, a series of scenes cut together according to a filmmakers wishes, as in, scenes get set up all the time, and, yes, even on a documentary certain things get re-shot.

The moment you slip into thinking that a documentary is somehow reality, then, step back and think again. A documentary is a film, just like any other film; a mixture of real life and imagination, in many ways, no different to a piece of fiction.

At the heart of a good piece of fiction is a great story. At the heart of a great story are the raw emotions that drive it. Those emotions come from somewhere -- the writer, the director, the actor or person onscreen. In my mind it is exactly like a transfer of energy, with the aim that the energy ends up in the mind of the audience. At the heart of a good documentary are the same kinds of raw emotions. They might be transferred to the audience a little differently, but, they are there, and, it is the filmmakers job to ensure that transfer of energy is uninterrupted, even if it means re-shooting a interview or a scene.

One of the drawbacks of discovery filmmaking is that it does take longer. With some films you plan everything. In fact, when we come to shooting a film for one of redWEB's clients in the coming weeks (months), then, everything will need to be planned. However, for this film I have the freedom to play it loose and see what happens, which means lots of experimenting to discovery how I can express what I want the film to say.

So, tomorrow I will spend the morning cutting in Premiere Pro. I plan to use it from now on. I have never been a huge fan of Adobe productions. But. Premiere really knocks the socks off Final Cut Pro X as a plain old working tool to get the job done.

My first job today in FCPX was to re-log the footage that I had shot yesterday. So, I repeated the process of bringing in the video and the separate audio and syncing it up on the timeline … Or, whatever the heck we're now supposed to call it in FCPX. Didn't take me too long to sync up the sound, so, I went quickly onto marking and logging the different parts of yesterdays interview.

This was pretty smooth. Adding markers with notes to clips was the same as always -- hitting the M key. I managed to log and make notes on a 20 minute interview in about 90 minutes.

I then wanted to take a small part of the interview and try a little colour grading. Although I lit the scene as planned I am not 100% happy with the results. So, I wanted to see whether a little colour grading could help improve it a bit … And this is where I ran into problems.

I wanted to re-create the blurred background effect that I had done so easily in Premiere Elements the other day (http://www.gregmcqueen.com/more-than-just-talk). This meant using a garbage matte. I clicked on the effects section … And, to my utter shock and surprise, there are no garbage mattes. In fact, there isn't much of anything.

After a little digging around online I found out that things like a simple 4 point garbage matte aren't included in FCPX. Apparently, we are expected to ship our footage over to Motion (another Apple app) and then back to FCP again. This really made me quite mad. I mean, here I am thinking, "Okay, give FCP another bash, it can't be all that bad -- I just need to re-learn where everything is." Except, I am not just re-learning where everything is, suddenly now, to do a simple layering effect that took me about 30 minutes to do in Adobe Premiere Elements, I have to learn yet another Apple app!

I mean, Adobe Premiere Elements is Adobe's equivalent of iMovie. So, I can do something in a "hobby" app that I can't do in a "Pro" app?

I realise there are people out there who are in love with Apple and will take anything the company throws at them. I am not one of those people. I also realise that Apple are trying to re-invent non-linear editing in some way. I heard a screencast on FCPX today saying, "Apple have taken the broken model of NLE from the last ten years and re-invented it for the next ten years."

Well, I have news for you Apple … NLE wasn't broken. It worked just fine. And it still works just fine the way it works in most of your rival products.

So. I have given FCPX its final --- FINAL! -- chance.

I am moving over to Adobe Premiere Pro. I found Elements to be a great app. I managed to get up and running editing in that within minutes, however, I quickly hit a wall with the limitation of only being able to run one timeline. I need to be able to run several timelines within the same project … I mean, by the end of tomorrow I will already have two interviews, which, I want to edit separately down to the essential content and then bring together … That's at least three timelines there.

I have downloaded the trial of Premiere Pro. I also realised that you can subscribe to Adobe's apps. So, rather than pay for the software upfront, you can effectively rent it on a monthly or yearly basis. So, when my trial runs out in 30 days I'll rent it for as long as I need.

I guess I should thank Apple. I mean, I have to write a thesis in a few months on how companies can use video for branding and marketing. Part of that paper will be about finding a video workflow. Realising that I am no longer in love with Final Cut Pro certainly will give me something to write about.

*A few addition thoughts having spend an hour fiddling with Premiere Pro:

What I loved about earlier versions of Final Cut Pro is that the app really felt like a tool. The interface was all business; not just a fancy-looking bit of software. I feel that way again having spent only an hout in Adobe Premiere Pro. It feels like a solid and reliable work enviroment.

I feel as though I can finally put aside any notions of rekindling my relationship with FCP and just get on with some damn work.