A (Focussed) Picture Paints A 1000 Words Michael Brennan laments the lack of camera skills even in the wildest setting By Mike Brennan - Comments (2) One of the pleasant by-products of the HD evolution are the benefits brought to standard definition broadcasts. Well lit and shot standard definition material looks far better on a large HD screen than a small screen. Similarly HD productions broadcast in SD also look better than if they had originated with SD cameras and lenses. The Olympics was a stunning example of how good lighting, direction and camera work come together to delivery powerful experience in SD and a compelling breathtaking experience in HD. But large screens highlight the production value, or lack of, in all genres of programming. Tuning into the network coverage of Hurricane Gustav I was interested to see what broadcasters had learnt from their experience of covering Katrina. Most prominent of all was a large flat screen in studios that commentators would stand beside and using a touch screen to highlight rivers and canals. CNN went for a large screen with an Apple-like interface to select and then drag the viewer videos around the screen enlarging or reducing them. Rather gimmicky but a valiant effort to make the broadcasts more image led. What of the field broadcasts? Fox TV show host Geraldo Rivera was seen scampering around the base of the levees and they occasionally went live, not an easy task in driving ran and high winds. It was wet, very wet. But not as wet as the operating skills of the camera operator. A case of being out of his depth in more ways than one. Little did Geraldo know that the viewers were being entertained with a perfectly focused image of water drops on the lens! The cameraman had the focus set to auto. When the team approached the top of the levee they were greeted with the amazing site of wind driving waves over the top. By climbing the bank they reached the top of the levee, a dangerous place with an extraordinary view. For once the pictures were left to speak for themselves, in fact Geraldo uttered the immortal words “A picture is worth a thousand words so I’ll let the picture do the talking”. Indeed the pictures did do the talking and they spoke volumes for the mentality of the executive producer. A craft camera operator would have suggested a device that repels water from the lens and would have had enough presence of mind to monitor the image quality and at least had the subject in focus. In the large screen environment ‘Letting the pictures do the talking’ does not come without an increased cost penalty of using craft oriented and experienced crew. It is clear to me that the cost is balanced by engaging imagery. There was another instance where he breathlessly reported that a ‘victim’ was being rescued by being hauled in by emergency response team, from the middle of flooded industrial site. He urged the cameraman to get the shot, but unable to zoom to a tight shot due to being hand held with inadequate camera the viewer was none the wiser that it was not a rescue at all but emergency crew securing floating debris. Perhaps the growing penetration of large high definition TV sets will stop journalist’s tendency to dramatise what they hope is happening rather than reporting what they and the camera are seeing. I’m hoping that having seen craft standards slip in news and current affairs in the last decade that large HD screens will at least embarrass producers and editors into taking greater care. Ultimately well crafted high definition images of the real thing will be more compelling than increasingly inaccurate presenters and reporters dramatisation of events. Sales of sets above 36 inch in size have increased by over 700 percent in 2007. TV manufacturer Sharp predict that the average size of home TV sets will be 60 inches by 2015. The small ‘box in the corner’ is no longer a window on the world but with increasing use of viewer supplied pictures has also become a mirror on the wall, and a massive mirror at that. COMMENT Hello Mike. As someone that regularly films in Hurricanes, Tornadoes and other weather extremes I have issues with your broad-brush criticism of the coverage you saw coming from Hurricane Gustav. Have you ever filmed in a Cat 3 Hurricane at the point of landfall? Yes using autofocus with rain on the lens is asking for problems, but there is so much atomized rain and driven rain in a  Hurricane that viewfinders become water filled reservoirs the moment you take your eye away from them and at the minimum mist up but more often simply stop working. Quite possibly the cameraman was watching his back looking out for the ever present danger of flying debris. IF he had been using a camera with a calibrated focus ring then he could have set the focus manually but simply hanging on to a big slab sided camera in a hurricane is a challenge in itself, sometimes the only way to get a shot is with a small camera. Spintec's are all but useless in Hurricanes as while they will spin off the water you will almost certainly end up with the front element of the lens fogged up due to the normally warm, damp atmosphere behind the spintec under the camera's rain cover. My experience (54 Hurricane and tornado encounters) is that it is better to leave the front element exposed and just try to keep pointing down wind. Any lens cloth or chamois that you may have will become saturated with water so lens cleaning is difficult to say the least. As for trying to use a tripod in Hurricane force winds.. are you serious! You try putting a slab sided camera on a tripod in a 70 mph wind and see if it stays standing. If it will stand up the buffeting will make it wobble and shake. On top of that often the only access to many areas is on foot as roads get blocked by fallen trees and power poles and lugging a tripod about while battling hurricane winds isn't always possible. Perhaps the camera operator could have found a more sheltered position to shoot from, but unless you were there yourself in the conditions being encountered how can you pass such criticism. Hurricanes are the most difficult environment to shoot in. The amount of moisture in the air is incredible, not only do you have warm air with 100% humidity but you also have atmoised rain being driven along by ferociously powerful winds that don't let up for hours and hours. They are not like British storms where the wind gusts and falls. It is constant and persistent. When I shoot hurricanes I expect cameras to fail unless they are in an underwater housing, but housings and dry bags make them difficult to use. Just getting any footage at all out from a hurricane is an achievement in itself, often involving special uplink trucks with ultra high power transmitters with big dishes inside special radomes to provide protection from the wind and with the power to punch through the rain and heavy cloud cover. Perhaps the cameraman that shot the pieces you saw was a craft cameraman, perhaps he was just out of his comfort zone filming in a Hurricane, his sense overloaded by the multitude of things, possibly life threatening going on around him. Lets face it it's not the kind of situation you can rehearse. There are probably only around 20 craft cameraman around the world that can really claim to be experts in the field of filming in Hurricanes. Some of us would have been busy at the time Gustav hit, some are based on the other side of the world and Gustav was really a big or significant Hurricane by modern standards. Ike was the big 'Cane of 2008. So many stations would have had to use crews and staff simply not well prepared for the conditions they faced. This is not the fault of the camera operator. 10 years ago you almost never saw live or near live footage from inside a Hurricane, it was considered to dangerous and too difficult, now many of the challenges are getting overcome and we are getting to see inside these ferocious storms as they happen. I do agree that overall production values are falling, but sadly I don't see that situation changing as essentially the same amount of money gets more and more diluted across more and more channels. But please unless you were there on the spot, in the conditions don't criticise some ones camerawork unless you know the full picture. Before you ask, no it wasn't me, when Gustav hit I was filming thunderstorms and waterspouts for a documentary series. March 9th 2009 - Mike Brennan replies No I wasn't there but my critisms are valid, it wasn't that windy because everyone was walking around and in this case up the side of the dam wall, without losing their footing. They retreated to the car between takes yet the results were still out of focus and generally naff. This team, despite advance warning of the conditions, did not deliver acceptable technical results. Had they given you a call I'm sure with your experience you would have delivered the subject in focus and better framed. I've shot in force 7 gales on board a RNLI inflatable, 70mph wind gusts in Australian firestorms and am aware of the effects of wind from my extensive aerial filming experience. A spintex may have worked and certainly wouldn't have been ripped of the camera, although it would have offered a larger surface area. Would be good if you could view the scenes. mike b