What’s with Google lately and all of these failed products they are trying to push? The most recent example that comes to mind is Google Wave, what a massive failure that was. I remember the days leading up to the release would would have thought version 2.0 of the interwebz was on the way. Then when it finally got released people were just left scratching their heads.

Today we have Google Buzz, another soon-to-be failure by Google. I wish they would just stick to making search and email because everything else they try seems to, well, not work out very well to put it mildly. Actually, I will say I like their browser. Email, search, and Chrome. Everything else is trash.

To entice security researchers to look for holes in the Chrome browser, Google has announced it will pay $500 for bugs found in the code. But several experts say that’s not enough money to motivate skilled vulnerability researchers.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Charlie Miller, a senior security researcher at Independent Security Evaluators, said when asked Monday for his opinion of Google’s new bug bounty program. “It’s insulting. It’s so low.”

Under Google’s new “experimental” incentive program, announced last week, people will get paid $500 for select interesting and original security vulnerabilities discovered in Chrome, or $1,337 for particularly severe or clever bugs. That figure refers to the geek term for elite, or “leet,” which can be spelled out using the numbers.

Mozilla pays $500 to researchers who find valid security bugs in the Firefox browser, the Thunderbird e-mail client, or the Mozilla suite.

Jeremiah Grossman, chief technology officer and co-founder of WhiteHat Security, said Google’s plan could be the start of an interesting trend.

“If a researcher is purely interested in the dollar reward, then by all means he should go where the dollar is highest. But if you happen to find one because it’s fun and interesting to you, then you’ll get paid too,” he said. “I’ve been suggesting Microsoft should do this for a long time but they have a moral issue with it.”

Microsoft is sticking with its no-bounty stance.

“Microsoft does not offer compensation for information regarding security vulnerabilities. We do not believe that offering compensation for vulnerability information is the best way we can help protect our customers,” said Dave Forstrom, group manager of Microsoft Trustworthy Computing. “We also do not think it fosters the growth of a healthy ecosystem.”

You would think Google would be roundly praised for offering to pay researchers for work they often do for free. But not everyone is impressed.

“It’s probably better to pay professional QA [quality assurance] people and pen [penetration] testers than to expect the public to do your testing for you on the cheap,” said Gary McGraw, chief technology officer at Cigital and a specialist in secure code writing processes. “No excellent professional tester I know would be attracted by a bounty like that–perhaps adolescents would do it for beer money (or rather Red Bull and vodka money).”

Miller’s criticism might be particularly stinging, given that he announced a campaign called “No More Free Bugs,” about a year ago. He argued that vendors should pay when outside researchers discover vulnerabilities in their commercial software instead of freeloading on the efforts of volunteer bug hunters whose work ends up making the products safer.

“In some senses this is my dream come true,” Miller said. “I’ve been begging vendors for this. And then when it happens I’m bitter and critical,” because it’s so much lower than what researchers can make from bounty programs at VeriSign iDefense’s Vulnerability Contributor Program and the Zero Day Initiative run by 3Com’s TippingPoint.

“If I did find a bug in Chrome, I could sell it to the Zero Day Initiative and make $2,000 and it still gets reported to Google eventually, so why would I give it to Google for $500? It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Pedram Amini, who runs the Zero Day Initiative, wouldn’t say exactly how much the program pays for bugs, but did allow that “on average it’s over 10 times what Google’s offering.”

“Google is the first huge company to create a bug bounty. I’m happy they’re doing it. It’s a step in the right direction,” he said. “But pricing-wise, they’re not going to be able to compete with other bug bounty programs.”

On the bright side
Granted, it might be easier to find bugs in beta software than in products that have been released to the public, which the Zero Day Initiative focuses on, according to Amini. And it’s wise for Google to do something to attract the attention of researchers to its browser, which is much newer and has fewer users than the other major browsers, he said.

“I think there is going to be a subset of people who will use the Google program,” he said. “One thing that is certain–vulnerabilities do have value.”

Google’s pay scheme is at the low end of what iDefense pays, according to Rick Howard, director of iDefense Intelligence.

“Google has always shown that it is willing to take on large and complex projects for which it has no past experience and make a success of it. I see no reason why they should not succeed in this one,” Howard said.

And Google doesn’t always go cheap. Last July, it paid more than $8,000 to a team of researchers that won a Native Client Security Contest.

Asked to comment on complaints that $500 is too little compensation for bug hunters, Chris Evans of the Google Security Team wrote in an e-mail: “We took care to design the program to allow for a wide variety of bugs to qualify for payment and to make it easier for researchers to participate–for example, we don’t necessarily need a working exploit (which is often much more difficult than finding a bug) and we’re interested in bugs even if they manifest within the Chromium sandbox.”

Chromium is the open-source project for Google’s Chrome browser and unreleased Chrome operating system. Evans said it was too early to say whether Chrome OS would be included in the bounty program after it launches.

“Chromium has already benefited from collaboration with security researchers, and we expect they will continue to scrutinize the Chromium code and help us improve it regardless of any action we take,” he said. “To them, this reward can be seen as a token of appreciation. To others, we hope the addition of a reward may encourage new people to participate beyond how they might have otherwise.”

Much more affordable than they used to be, camcorders are the mainstay of home or small studio movie making.  Like any type of technology, there is a bewildering array of options, language, and features to choose from.  To find a camcorder that is most suited for your purposes, you need to know a little more about them.

The first consideration is the format.  The most popular is the MiniDV, which offers the best combination of price and performance.  It uses a tape to record the action, which is getting a little dated, but nonetheless is still a popular choice.  If your budget can stretch to a hard drive recorder, then I suggest getting on of those.  They are by far the easiest to work with.

It shouldn’t be a problem if buying locally, but if you buy over the internet ensure that the standard is correct for where you will be using the camera.  NTSC for the US and PAL for Europe.  The signal can be converted between the two, but it’s another step in an already long process.

The zoom is the next consideration.  Ignore digital zoom, it means nothing.  The only useful zoon feature on a camcorder is optical zoom.  This is what makes the real difference, and you want at least a 10x to be able to shoot effectively.

Manual controls are a must if you want to shoot professional looking footage.  Automatic functions are okay for home or online movies, but manual adjustment is always best.  Manual focus, iris and white balance are what you’re looking for,

To shoot good video, you need either a viewfinder or LCD screen.  The larger the screen the better as long as it still fits the camera.  Make sure to check it outside, as well as in the store.  Not all LCDs are created equal, and not all of them will work too well in natural light.

Ease of use is also an obvious concern.  While cameras are getting smaller, and more portable, it means the real estate for the controls is getting smaller.  We don’t all have dainty little fingers that can dance over controls like a pianist.  You need to be able to access all of the controls without looking at them, and without pressing anything else by accident.

Connectivity is also a consideration, as a camera is not good if it can’t transfer the film to the editing suite.  Analog outputs are handy, but not essential as they mainly connect to the TV or VCR if you still have one.  Firewire output is the preferred, and faster options, if not then USB2 is acceptable.

Audio is also an important part of a camera.  At the very least it should be able to record audio in stereo.  If you want to make better quality movies, then an external microphone input, or attached to the camera is essential.

Without getting into brands, and particular models, the information above is intended to provide you with an overview of the important aspects of choosing a camera.  Most expensive doesn’t mean best.  Get the camera that feels comfortable, and does everything you need it to do.

The traditional shot of a talking head is face on or profile.  They will be slightly to the right or left of shot to show they are talking to someone, but by facing the camera, the audience is included in the conversation.  This is essential for engaging the audience in the dialog between the people on screen.

If there are two subjects talking to one another, then they should be facing each other.  This is to show the audience they are discussing between themselves, not to anyone else or just to the camera.

The main shots used in a talking head scene is mid shot to medium close up.  You may seen the occasional wide shot for establishment or for a cutaway but the rest will be the standard mid or medium close up.

Different shots are called when the subjects are delivering different types of information.  For example, if one of the talking heads is offering factual information or statistics then a medium close up is the most appropriate.  If they are delivering personal or emotional information then the shot goes closer.  That way the viewer gets pulled in to the conversation and the emotional space.  It increases the connection between the two.

There is often an established sequence of shots with an interview that follows a pretty standard course.  The scene will start with a loose shot of the studio, to include the interviewer.  To begin with the shots will be very similar between the interviewer and the guest.  Once the audience is familiar with them, the shots can be varied between them.

The most common shot is the mid shot for both subjects as the subject or the facts of the discussion are laid out.  If the conversation involves emotion the shots close up to draw the audience in.  If the subject gesticulates, move the shot out a bit, or cut to them if they aren’t in shot.  Vary these shots depending on the actions, and the discussion.  It’s important not to stay in close up for too long as it can make the audience feel uncomfortable.  Like they are invading the subjects personal space.

If you think the interview is going to need some heavy editing, then keep the shots between the two similar, so they can be spliced together easier.  There will be less jarring in a sequence if shots of similar scope are used.

Shooting an interview is a fairly simple process, and one that can be learned fairly quickly.  Despite that, it does take a while to get them just right, and it is something that only experience can teach.  Try watching interviews and current affairs programs and study the types of shot the director calls at different times.

Close Up (CU).  Part of the subject most often the head, takes up the whole frame.  Often used in news when there isn’t much else going on, or on scene where there are people around playing to the camera.

Extreme Close Up (ECU).  This moves further towards the subject, highlighting a particular part of them to great detail.  Most often the face, but can be injuries, or some defining feature pertinent to the piece.  Not used too often because not everyone likes seeing so much detail.

Cut Away (CA).  This is a lightening shot, a brief shot of something other than the action, or the subject.  If the subject is intense or emotive, cut-aways are used to lighten the atmosphere for a second or two before returning to the action.

Cut-In.  This shows something of the subject in detail.  This can be an injury for a news piece, fidgeting or other manifestation in an interview, or a sidearm in a police scene.  Something that adds character to the subject and context to the happenings in the scene.

Two-Shot.  A shot that fills the frame with two people, often standing or sitting side by side.  The frame is similar to a mid shot, waist up with a small space above the head.

Over the Shoulder Shot (OSS).  Looking from behind one person at the subject.  Often used by news crews for interviews.  It gives the interviewers perspective on the subject.

Noddy Shot.  This is a reactive shot where the frame is filled MCU or CU with an interviewer listening and reacting to what is being said to them.  Named so because interviewers often nod unconsciously when taking information in.

Point of View Shot (POV).  Extension of the OSS shot, showing the complete point of view of the subject.  This can often lead to some strange camera angles, depending on the context.  It is ideal for putting the viewer into the shoes of the subject.

Weather Shot.  Exactly what it says really.  A shot with something in the foreground that concentrates on the weather, most often the sky, but can be of the sea or mountains.  Used for weather shows, news broadcasts or sports.

A video or movie is made up of many more shots than the average viewer would detect.  Now you know what kind of shots make up a piece you will begin to see your TV in a different light.  You will begin noticing the different shots and how they are used in different contexts and styles.

Watching how other people do things is a great way of becoming a better filmmaker.  I encourage you to do it whenever you can.

The choice of shot differs from person to person, that’s what makes movies by different directors all the more appealing.  They all see the same thing in different ways, and will want to portray that thing in their own particular style.  Choice of shot and camera angle are one of the ways different directors distinguish themselves from each other, and one of the ways they make the piece interesting.

So to the shots.

Extreme Wide Shot (EWS).  This shot covers a lot of ground and is most often used outside as an establishing shot.  Often the subject isn’t even visible in an extreme wide shot, but it can set the scene or give an idea of scope for a later shot.

Very wide Shot (VWS).  We have moved into the subject a bit here, but they are still in the background, and not the focus.  It is a continuance of the EWS, placing the subject in context or scale with the surroundings.  Often used is establishing shots for reality TV, where an EWS wouldn’t work.

Wide Shot (WS).  Similar to the long shot, where the subject takes up most of the frame.  To continue putting them in context with their surroundings, or to include activities around them in the shot.  Also used in reality TV a lot where a group of people are all in the scene.

Long Shot (LS).  Works the same as a wide shot, has the subject in full frame, but also includes the surroundings, including anything that is pertinent to the scene or makes for interesting viewing.  Useful for when you want to portray the subject being in the middle of the action.

Mid Shot (MS).  This is a half body shot, which half depends on what the subject is doing.  Most often this is a shot from the waist up, which also gives an impression of the whole body.  This is a popular one for news broadcasts.  Upper body only with a small space above the head at the edge of shot.

Medium Close Up (MCU).  This is a halfway house between a mid shot and a close up.  The subject fills the frame which is cut off high chest and leaves a little room above the head.  The standard new anchorman close up.  CU is often too close for studio work, so the MCU is used instead.

Those are just some of the camera shots possible in modern film making.  I will go through the others in my next post.  There is more to movie making than you think!

That isn’t to say that those enthusiasts or smaller operators aren’t any good, because they probably are, but in their own little niche.  You wouldn’t ask a wedding photographer to make a music video, the same as you wouldn’t ask a news crew to make a movie.  Each operator has their own expertise, and should know what they can and can’t do with their training and resources.

That’s where outsourcing comes in.  You don’t just hire the most expensive you can afford, you hire the best you can afford in the given genre.  Like the example above, you need to find the professional outfit that has the style level and niche expertise that you’re looking for.  They need the skills to make your intended genre come to life.

On the flip side of that you need to have an idea of the level of your intended video.  If you want it on prime time news or MTV then you’re going to have to pay for it, and hire the appropriate crew to do it for you.  If you’re making a video for the net or local use then you could probably save a few thousand dollars and hire a smaller scale company.

If money is an issue, do the pre-production yourself, let the crew do the production and some or all of the post.  You may be able to post-produce yourself, only you can know that, but again, it will save you money if it’s an issue.

If you can’t afford a whole professional crew, try asking at your local TV station.  They often hire out crews when they aren’t busy or permit them to freelance.  Whatever their arrangements, they can often be much cheaper than a video studio.  If they don’t have someone to hire, they will probably tell you the whereabouts of some if you’re polite.

Whoever you decide to hire to do the work, make sure you see a demo reel or portfolio first.  If you can, watch them in action on a shoot before you engage them.  If you know movie making too, you will soon be able to tell if they’re any good or not.

When you employ someone to make a video for you, appoint yourself executive producer.  Make sure you’re at the top of the organization for the shoot and make sure you call the shots.  Lean on the crew for advice and stay out of their way when they are working, but convey to them what you see in the finished movie and ensure they are keeping to that vision.

Reviewing what you have before leaving a location is essential. If you have frames missing or are unusable then you want to be able to recreate the conditions as closely as possible while you can. Doing this at the time, especially if travel is involved will help the production team no end, as well as improve your reputation as a cameraman.

Editing is the pivotal time in filmmaking and needs proper thought and preparation. Checking the footage before going to editing is a great way of speeding the process up. Some shots may not have worked, while others may have exceeded expectation. Make sure you watch all the material before the edit and, like above, ideally before you leave location.

While reviewing the footage bear in the mind the story you’re trying to tell. Do they match? Does each frame further, or color the story sufficiently to be included? You may find while watching back that a new story emerges, or a different angle or take that might make a better feature. Reviewing and editing your own footage is an ideal learning experience as you can pick up on errors, or room for improvement much quicker when you see it in front of you. It also gives you a chance to make good any mistakes before the editor sees them!

Logging your shots as you make them pays off when coming to editing. You can link up the footage that best tells the story you’re trying to tell. It doesn’t matter if you use a notepad and pen, excel or a purpose built software package. If you have a timeline of what shot was where, on what tape at what time then hours will be saved when it comes to the edit. Ensure you mark the outstanding shots so they can be included in the final feature. Use whatever method you want, longhand or an asterisk or something. Make sure it’s recognizable to both you and the editor.

Log the sequences, not individual elements as it will become laborious when it comes to editing. For example of you have just shot an interview, don’t log the questions, but the whole sequence. This prevents you having to load each question individually and waste a lot of time. There is a risk of over-editing something and it not ending up as first envisioned. Resist this temptation and just put together something that feels right and don’t over-edit.

In the end its you the cameraman who is telling the story, therefore you need to ensure that the material is in the order you want, the way you want before it goes to editing. Then feed into the editing process by talking through the rush with the editor to give them an idea of the story and what you’re trying to portray.

The editing process can be as long or as short as you make it. By shooting good quality footage, on topic, with good sound levels will make for a simple edit. Doing something other than that is going to add to your time in the editing suite.

Clean sound is perfect sound as far as video production is concerned. Clean mean is has no distortion or unwanted background or otherwise sounds. The best way to achieve this is to place the microphone as close to the subject as possible and monitor the levels as closely as you can.

Before filming, just have a listen to see what’s going on around you. Spare a little thought about the sounds you want to come through and those you want to suppress. Always use a windshield if filming outside and keep an eye on events going on around you and the sound levels. Sudden noises like school bell or a low flying aircraft can send the levels all over the place.

Reducing unwanted noise is an art. Our ears can filter out what they don’t want to hear, whereas a microphone records everything. By listening to the surroundings you can get an idea of the character of the sound and how to approach it.

If you are in a noisy environment, placing the microphone 180 degrees to ambient noise can reduce it as much as possible, and placing it as near to the required source as possible will also minimize this noise while concentrating on the sound you want. A high amount of background noise will distract the subject and certainly the viewer. If redirecting the microphone doesn’t work, consider changing the angle of the shoot, or moving altogether.

Sound recording equipment is very sensitive kit. It can pick up interference a lot better than the human ear. Understanding some of the problems that can occur will help in the diagnosis and treatment of it.

A clicking sound can be caused by electrical contacts. These can either be within the equipment itself or nearby. If you can’t stop the contact, move location as it will show through on the shoot.

Popping from a human subject is down to the microphone being too close to the person. Either move it away slightly or angle it to one side of their mouth. If you use a radio microphone you may hear other conversations, called “ghosts”. These are signals from elsewhere being picked up on the frequency you’re using. If you hear them, change the frequency a bit until they fall silent.

A buzz or hum can be interference from other electrical items such as computers or mobile phones. Try to isolate them as much as possible by turning them off or moving them away. A hissing sound is likely to be a fault with your equipment, not the environment. First stop would be to try a new microphone and seeing what happens.

Distortion is another issue you may face when working with sound. This can be because the recording level is too high, the microphone is too close to the speaker of an equipment fault. Checking in each these in the order given here should eliminate the fault with minimum disruption.

Sound is an important and often underestimated facet of filming. It’s something you onl notice when it isn’t there.

This is another facet of video production which highlights the differences between the human eye and a camera. An eye perceives ambient light as white, but to a camera daylight appears as blue, fluorescents green and artificial light as yellow. This is where the white balance comes in. We adjust the white balance in order to reproduce these colors as a person would see them.

There are many colors in between these blues, greens and yellows and different cameras will pick them up differently. Newer halogen lights are much bluer than their tungsten counterparts, and often they will be mixed as lights are updated as they fail. The eye will be the best judge in these situations.

Setting a white balance if fairly straightforward if you know your tools. Not all cameras were created equal and some can produce white balance better than others. Check your equipment will be able to cope with the conditions you expect during filming.

To manually set white balance, point the lens at a piece of white paper as near to where the subject will be and zoom in until it fills the frame. Do an auto-exposure, the press the white balance button and the paper should appear white. Set exposure back to manual and reframe the shot.

This needs to be done every time the light source changes in order to retain the correct levels. If filming in mixed light, always tip the paper towards the daylight source if there is one to get the best color. In extreme light situations, of where light is colored, don’t worry too much about skin tone as it will never happen. Accept that the light is off and make the best of it. Remembering that a warmer skin tone is far nicer to look at than colder ones will ensure that when doing a balance you choose the right one for the job.

Making the most of the available light is vital for the exposure as well as adding depth to a shot. A cameraman always needs to identify the principal light source and decide if it is a hard or soft light. Managing light can go a long way in making a good shoot.

Not pointing the camera at hard light sources and avoiding subjects that are backlit is the most basic light management. Shooting outdoors in the early morning or late afternoon will offer the best lighting conditions, not counting the weather.

You can get away with bad or less than ideal lighting if the scene or shot has enough to carry it through. It should be avoided if possible, but a shot can survive a bit of bad light. If there is enough going on that the audience doesn’t get distracted, or you are shooting something that can’t be repeated then you have to make of it what you can. Just don’t make a habit of it.