Recently on another forum, I read an interesting critique on a wedding video shot with a DSLR. The critic's beef was that the wedding video was inconsistent in style; in his words, "part ENG - part cinematic." The critic did not elaborate on what he considered ENG or cinematic but his rejoinders seemed to pinpoint the shaky handhelds, not enough bokeh, lack of smooth slider/jib/steadicam shots.
Having worked in broadcast news in the late 90s, it got me thinking about whether such a dichotomy actually exists in people's mind and the kinds of production decisions that will lead to such labels. More importantly, whether if there a growing backlash against the so-called 'ENG-look'.
So what is the ENG-look anyway?
Before the advent of DSLRs and large sensors camcorders, television programmes were primarily shot on 3CCD studio camcorders. The largest chips available were usually just 2/3" so DOF is relatively forgiving.
For ENG (Electronic News Gathering), deep focus is an advantage as it's difficult to manually focus on a moving subject out in the field. Cameramen preferred shoulder-mount cameras for stability in case there is a need to walk and shoot or do a stand-upper sans tripod. Unless there is a special feature, news crews would be quite reluctant to lay dolly tracks or hire a steadicam operator. Motion shots will be mostly just pan-tilt-zoom.
If these industry best practices were applied along with good lighting, pleasant composition in situations such as weddings, seminars, event launches etc some five years ago, I doubt anybody would complain.
But fast forward 10 seasons of Survivor later, (which is no way run-and-gun) audiences are expecting reality TV, if not a hollywood blockbuster, instead of the "ENG-look" for their events.
The expectation has changed but the challenges remain. Crew size, set-up time, unpredictability and spontaneity of the situation, equipment portability and reliability.
These problems used to be best-tackled with camcorders but they will never deliver the cinematic look of DSLRs/mirrorless now so in vogue.
As an editor trying to deliver a high impact piece, I'm also looking for more and more tracking shots, timelapse sequence, slo-mo and emotional content, and to borrow from Bresson, "the decisive moments." and to stretch those out.
But as a cameraman, I find myself having to move away from the tried and tested tools that I've become so familiar with.
The camcorder I sling on one shoulder doesn't come up to my eye as often as the mirrorless on the other shoulder. The handheld shots are left on the cutting floor leaving mostly slider shots and gimbal shots on the timeline.
Today, I carry a folded jib under my belt and a mini slider on a travel tripod slung around my neck all day.
I long to be free of this load once the Osmo X5 ships. Afterall, what is a slider, when a gimbal can offer me almost the same stability?
Then maybe it can be just three camera bodies with different fast lenses.
Cinematic results in ENG locations without a crew at last?
Having worked in broadcast news in the late 90s, it got me thinking about whether such a dichotomy actually exists in people's mind and the kinds of production decisions that will lead to such labels. More importantly, whether if there a growing backlash against the so-called 'ENG-look'.
So what is the ENG-look anyway?
Before the advent of DSLRs and large sensors camcorders, television programmes were primarily shot on 3CCD studio camcorders. The largest chips available were usually just 2/3" so DOF is relatively forgiving.
For ENG (Electronic News Gathering), deep focus is an advantage as it's difficult to manually focus on a moving subject out in the field. Cameramen preferred shoulder-mount cameras for stability in case there is a need to walk and shoot or do a stand-upper sans tripod. Unless there is a special feature, news crews would be quite reluctant to lay dolly tracks or hire a steadicam operator. Motion shots will be mostly just pan-tilt-zoom.
If these industry best practices were applied along with good lighting, pleasant composition in situations such as weddings, seminars, event launches etc some five years ago, I doubt anybody would complain.
But fast forward 10 seasons of Survivor later, (which is no way run-and-gun) audiences are expecting reality TV, if not a hollywood blockbuster, instead of the "ENG-look" for their events.
The expectation has changed but the challenges remain. Crew size, set-up time, unpredictability and spontaneity of the situation, equipment portability and reliability.
These problems used to be best-tackled with camcorders but they will never deliver the cinematic look of DSLRs/mirrorless now so in vogue.
As an editor trying to deliver a high impact piece, I'm also looking for more and more tracking shots, timelapse sequence, slo-mo and emotional content, and to borrow from Bresson, "the decisive moments." and to stretch those out.
But as a cameraman, I find myself having to move away from the tried and tested tools that I've become so familiar with.
The camcorder I sling on one shoulder doesn't come up to my eye as often as the mirrorless on the other shoulder. The handheld shots are left on the cutting floor leaving mostly slider shots and gimbal shots on the timeline.
Today, I carry a folded jib under my belt and a mini slider on a travel tripod slung around my neck all day.
I long to be free of this load once the Osmo X5 ships. Afterall, what is a slider, when a gimbal can offer me almost the same stability?
Then maybe it can be just three camera bodies with different fast lenses.
Cinematic results in ENG locations without a crew at last?
Last edited:
