Category: Blog

In this article I will explore how video content can increase SEO for your website. If a video is hosted on YouTube, how will that affect my SEO? What if I host it myself?

So a video production company has just created you fresh, new marketing content. Good news!! It’ll make your website look great, keep it and your social media current, attract new customers, generate more business, and boost your SEO. Because as we all know…

Video = Content

and Google loves fresh and unique content

‘Do I just put my video on YouTube, and Google magically rates my website?’

 

What of the fabled ‘video is good for your SEO’ myth? Will video help you ascend the ranks of Google? How do you actually make that happen?

___________________

LexXxi_Thick Flickr via Compfight cc

The preferred and easiest route for a video to take onto your website is to host it on YouTube and / or Vimeo, then embed that link into your website – rather than hosting it yourself.

Hosting it yourself means creating various different versions to playback on different screen sizes, and various versions for different browsers.

YouTube is a nice and easy option, but does Google link that video to your site? Can you get the benefit of improved SEO, and use YouTube?

Ultimately, how does Google know that your video is indeed yours?

Or can I just embed anyone else’s video from YouTube and help my SEO that way?

 

Hosting it Yourself

There are very strong arguments to hosting the video yourself over hosting on YouTube, and this splits the marketing community.

Hosting on your own website:

1. Will mean people link directly to your domain when quoting your video (so make it good, otherwise why link to it at all?), rather than to YouTube.

2. Can lead to a Video Rich snippet in the search result. These are the descriptions under each search result, some of which contain a video thumbnail. But 92% of these regular search snippets are dedicated to Google partner in crime, YouTube, the only other mildly ‘significant’ players being Daily Motion and Vimeo; and overall numbers have been cut significantly in recent years.

These days, video rich snippets on the regular Google search appear to be populated solely by YouTube, it’s only on the video search age where others might get a look in.

3. The main point being though, is that by hosting it yourself your website gains the SEO benefits of the new video, and they are not lost on YouTube.

That’s right, host it on YouTube and the direct SEO benefits are ‘gone’. The question is though, on balance, how much does that matter?

The Cons of Hosting it Yourself

1. Site Speed. Yes, hosting video on your own site will certainly boost your SEO, but it’ll slow down your server, especially if you have any number of potential customers browsing at one time.

57 percent of mobile users abandon the site after three seconds of waiting

Radware.

In the distant future limitless data will no doubt be streamed or downloaded instantaneously, but we are not quite there yet! No matter how far we have come in the last 20 years.

Be aware, embedding a self-hosted video link will not slow your site down as such, for example it may well just open a new page. It will only cause an effect if multiple people try to stream it, pushing your server’s bandwidth.

How much does hosting video yourself actually slow your site down?

2. YouTube does all the compression, versioning and compatibility juggling for you. And believe me, there’s a lot of it. Do you really want to do the following every time you add a video…?

• You will need to upload your video as the following file types to cater for the various browsers available (Safari, Firefox, Chrome, etc) – .mp4, .ogv, .webm
• Upload an HD version and a smaller aspect ratio, mobile-friendly version
• Install a video player on your website, such as com. WordPress, however, can host video natively.
• Write code to tell the video player which formats you’ve created, their location on the server, and the physical display parameters of the video window itself
• Ensure that your video content is optimized for search. That means doing video keyword research and including those keywords in your video’s meta tags
• You can write and upload an accompanying video transcript to help Google.
• Definitely provide a video sitemap, which is an extension of the regular sitemap. This involves adding the required Shema.org code to your page, and submitting the XML sitemap within Google’s Webmaster Tools.
• Moreover, it may be a good idea to create a new page for each video, as Google mentions that this makes the indexing easier.

So, hosting it yourself if no easy task, all to mine that SEO gold, so let’s take a look at the benefits of hosting your video on YouTube.

 

Hosting it On YouTube

By doing hosting on YouTube, you could gain massive exposure on a very important search engine in itself, where you can drive traffic back to you own website

Here are a few nice stat’s to support the YouTube option:

• According to Cisco, 82% of all internet trafficwill be represented by video by 2021, up from 73% in 2016
• A billion hoursof video is consumed on YouTube every single day.
• YouTube content reaches more adultsduring prime-time TV hours than any television network
• YouTube is the fastest growing search engine among people under the age of 25
• It reaches over 30 million people per day
• YouTube is also the most likely way you will gain a video rich snippet for your company on a Google search

Points to be aware of when posting on YouTube:

• Add a link to your site in the description. This is very important, here is a free backlink, use it!
• Careful with the name, make sure it is something that will stand out, and that the keywords are carefully chosen to reflect what people might be searching for in relation to your product or business.

The ultimate question is

‘Do the added IT complications of self-hosting outweigh the SEO benefits of having a video uniquely hosted on your site?

Do you have the time, expertise and manpower to deal with these issues?’

For most, it is a ‘no’, and hosting on YouTube will suit you just fine, especially when considering all the added exposure it can bring.

 

 

In fact, the trend (admittedly this graph is from 2014!) is to host video on both your own and third party platforms, and most SEO professionals would recommend doing so.

 

 

 

 

But it’s not only YouTube where we should be uploading our video content, it is of course:

Private Publisher Flickr via Compfight cc

Social Media

You can for example gain huge numbers of likes and exposure on Facebook.

Our video for a small, local, kids’ party company, Enchanted Events, gained 7.6k Facebook views on their page.

 

 

 

That’s a lot of exposure, and a video on Facebook gets 135% more engagement than a photo.

There’s a strong correlation between higher shares on social media and higher positions in the SERPs (Search Engine Results Pages).

It’s not just Facebook of course, the likes of Twitter and Instagram are a must. Social Media posts can also drive traffic to your website, maybe by offering a discount code, or to see further or more in depth videos, or find other resources and information.

 

In Conclusion

• Hosting on YouTube only will not directly improve your personal SEO, and there is no magic way to do this.
• What you can do is add your own backlink to the YouTube description.
• But the exposure on YouTube could be just as beneficial, essentially by using YouTube as the search engine instead of Google.
• It’s far, far easier to get YouTube to do it, which counts for a lot if you are regularly uploading videos.
• Even if you do host externally, upload a copy of your video on your site yourself. We have a Vimeo version and my own one on the home page, a half-way house to try to gain a bit of extra SEO, and also use Vimeo’s bandwidth.
• And if you use YouTube, don’t stop there. Either use it, or create shorter versions and put them on social media to drive traffic to your site from there.
• But ultimately, the only way to directly increase your SEO using video content is to host it yourself, and the easiest way to do that is via WordPress.

Further Tips:

• Keep videos short. Or grab a viewer’s attention quickly – that is to say put your best stuff at the top of your video. A study released this year from Microsoft revealed that people have shorter attention spans than goldfish: eight seconds!

• Quality not quantity. The higher the quality, the longer people will watch for, and the better chance you have to convey your message, set yourself apart, and demonstrate your quality. A better video will also get more links, and more exposure on YouTube.

If you would like to provide feedback, if there is anything I have missed, or even get a quote for a video production job, feel free to get in touch.

In this post I explain why your DSLR, in my case the Canon 6D, can’t cut it to shoot video, what the best the choices for a pro camcorder upgrade are, and what I ultimately chose.

I bought the Canon 6D nearly 4 years ago, and I have to say it has served me well and I have grown to love it.

The 6D is obviously geared up as a high end DSLR, and using it for video takes a lot of work arounds, as I have explained previously in this blog:

How to Setup a Canon 6D DSLR Camera for Video

It has always been a fiddly beast when it comes to shooting video.

I originally bought it for a job following a group of cyclists across the Alps, hoping to get some stunning looking footage that would do them and the locations justice.

Looking back I think I it turned out as well as could be expected. It meant for a lot of extra effort I could achieve a high quality of video at an affordable price.

The more I used it the more I realised how much extra effort it takes, and with one (big) outlay of money each and every shoot could be so much easier. I put a lot of time and thought into this, after all its my livelihood and my life. And I feel it’s something beneficial to share.

 

So what exactly is my DSLR not doing that it should?

The following were ultimately insurmountable issues with the DSLR. Which, if you are serious, eventually call for an upgrade.

Recording Audio

There’s only a mini jack audio in. I have covered this previously, and for any pro that is a nail in the coffin. I would have to record audio to another device, and then sync it up. Mini jack audio can be used, you can get mini jack radio mics (e.g. Rodelink Filmmaker), and directional mics (e.g. Rode Videomic, again). But the quality will never be there, it’s not physically secured well. But worst of all… monitoring it on the 6D is a nightmare.

Audio Monitoring

Monitoring audio will never work properly on the Canon 6D. There’s no headphone jack and the AV output workaround requires all manner of wires and a separate battery. (Though the 5D has a headphone jack.) Verdict: Whole world of pain.

Form Factor

It’s just not built to get a steady handheld video shot. It’s built for portability, to shoot from the hip to snap great stills. It is fine off the tripod, it has to be said. But handheld video needs something bigger, that you can get both hands round or lock into your shoulder to help stabilise the continuos handheld shots.

ND Filters

What a pain having to screw the variable ND filter on and off as you go in and outside. How to suck the life out of any shoot.

You need a camcorder with built in HDs. What a difference it is to be able to just click them up and down as you roll.

Lack of HD High Speed (Slow Motion) Shooting Option

The Canon 6D can achieve 50fps at 720p. Which is OK for the odd shot if necessary, but not a long term solution. So many clients require it, and even if they don’t know they do, it can bring so many dull shots to life, inject beauty into the rowdiest, ugliest scenes, and give many a shoot that Wow factor. You’ve got to be able to shoot HD at high speed.

 

The Electronic View Finder   

The 6D has a flat, immovable EVF, and no eye cup.

It requires an additional bit of kit to enable the screen to be seen in bright sun light

Just another thing to pack, and click on and off throughout the shoot. Which falls off about as often as you put it on. And being able to angle the EVF ‘opens the door’ to a whole range of different shooting angles.

Moire

The 6D suffered fairly badly here, and I need something with reduced effects of this.

 

So all of this meant that I was to destined to consign my DSLR to a B camera role. Great for second angles, on the odd occasion on which it is needed.

 

So what camera, or camcorder, is best as an upgrade from a DSLR like the Canon 6D to shoot video?

I thought about it long and hard, as of course there are a lot of options.

In my specific circumstance I need a video camera for corporate video production. I’ll have the Canon 6D DSLR as a backup, but I need something that addresses all the points above, gives a great look, has a good form factor for shooting video, and will work at low light if I don’t have the luxury of lighting a scene properly.

I am ruling out the standard documentary cameras such as the Sony PMW 300 and PMW 200 as they’re not going to give the ‘big budget’ look, I want something with interchangeable lenses.

I am not bothered about 4k as I produce predominantly for the web and I don’t envisage viewers on anything that will require 4k. If I do come across such a project I will hire a 4k camera, but there’s no need to pay for that luxury up front.

Here are the cameras I considered, in no particular order, with the factors which mattered most to me:

#01

Blackmagic Design URSA Mini 4k Digital Cinema Camera (EF-Mount)

Bringing all the Blackmagic high spec low cost, customisability to the form factor of a movie camera.

Media recording: 2 x CFast cards

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 4.6k

Lens Mount: EF Mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 60fps at 4k

Sensor Size: 22mm x 11.88mm. Called ‘Super35’ but that’s more the size of APS-C

CODEC: Apple Pro Res / Cinema DNG RAW

Global Shutter – pretty much unheard of at this price point, and who wouldn’t want that? I’d love to get rid of rolling shutter effects (see below pic). To my mind that ‘jello’ effect on a quickly moving object has no artistic merit.

Price at time of this blog post: £2,600 inc VAT / USD $3,000

Pros: Blackmagic cameras are going to give you a lot of bang for your buck. It will look great. For me EF mount lens means I don’t have a big lens investment. Global shutter is fantastic, but not a deal sealer or breaker.

Cons: No internal ND. Not great at low light with a native ISO of 400 and max of 800.

Verdict: The quality is undeniable, but will it work as your sole corporate film production camera? I’m not convinced it’s flexible enough.

 

#02

Blackmagic Design URSA Mini 4.6k Digital Cinema Camera (EF-Mount)

Same camera as above in a 4.6k version.

Media recording: 2 x CFast

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 4k

Lens Mount: EF Mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 120p in 2k resolution

Sensor Size: 25.34mm x 14.25mm (Super35)

CODEC: Apple Pro Res / Cinema DNG RAW

Global Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £4,200 inc VAT / USD $5000

Pros: Again, a really, really nice camera. Bigger sensor (true Super 35), slightly higher resolution.

Cons:  No internal NDs. This model seems to add a lot of expense for a small increment in quality. Still poor in low light.

 

#03

Blackmagic Production Camera

The 4k version of the Blackmagic flagship Cinema Camera.

Media recording: 2.5″ SSD

Audio input: 2 x 1/4” jacks

Max Resolution: 4k

Lens Mount: EF lens compatible

Maximum Frame Rate: 30fps

Sensor Size: 22mm x 11.88mm. ‘Super 35’, again more like APS-C in my book

CODEC: Apple Pro Res / Cinema DNG RAW

Global Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £2.600 inc VAT / USD $3,000

Pros: Portable. Great value for money. High capacity to add third party hardware.

Cons: No NDs. Bad low light capability. Max ISO of 1600 results in high grain. Still suffers from moire as per the DSLR. No decent built in mic and no internal audio monitoring. The form factor of a DSLR is not much good for handheld or run and gun style. No high speed frame rates.

Verdict: For me the low light vulnerability and lack of a high speed frame option are the killers. All good if all I did was films or sit down interviews. And for this price I struggle to see why I’d not just opt for the Ursa which has a far better form factor, better audio inputs, 60fps, and for me a more convenient and cheaper media format of CFast.

 

#04

AJA Cion

Another beautifully spec’d and looking camera, that really had me thinking on its release.

Media recording: Pak Media (approx. £600 for a 256GB drive), Pak-Adapt-CFast (£100 for the adaptor).

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 4k

Lens Mount: PL, with third party EF adaptors available

Maximum Frame Rate: 120 fps (4k, AJA RAW)

Sensor Size: 22.5mm x 11.9mm (APS-C )

CODEC:Apple Pro Res, AJA RAW

Global Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £4,700 / USD $5,000

Pros: Supreme quality. I love the idea of this camera. Super high speed, global shutter,

Cons: Price is going up, but you do get a lot for it. But still no ND filter! PL lens mount not EF. Bad dynamic range (poor performance in low light) similar to the Blackmagic Production Camera. Media is expensive (or requires an adaptor).

Verdict: Great for film, but not suitable if it’s your only camera to cover all corporate video work with it’s low light issues and lack of NDs. Same as the Blackmagic range.

 

#05

Panasonic AF101

Fairly old now, but a well respected all rounder at the time.

Media recording: 2 x SD card slots

Audio input: 2 x XLRs

Max Resolution: 1080p HD

Lens Mount: Interchangeable (including EF) with the correct adaptor

Maximum Frame Rate: 60fps at HD

Sensor Size: 18.8 x 10.6 micro 4/3 rds

CODEC: AVCHD @ 21 Mbs

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £2,100 inc VAT / USD $2,600

Pros: Internal ND filter. Good at low light, good built in metres, good depth of field, right form factor, does do high speed. Low moire, few rolling shutter artefacts. Cheap, and compatible with EF lenses.

Cons: Going to need an Atomos to up the recording date rate which is the lowest here. Specs are just too out of date now (circa 2010), only records at HD and the picture quality is good but not up there with the Canon HD shooters. Sensor size is the smallest here.

Verdict: Great 5 years ago, but out of date. Still, at a price only just above the DSLRs it’d be a very advisable first camcorder instead of a DSLR. Do I wish I had done this instead of buying the Canon 6D? There’s a part of me that does, yes. But then I’ve learnt a lot about photography with that thing.

 

#06

Sony NEX-FS700

Mid range, yet well spec’d model. The ‘4k’ bit some mentioned is just the sensor, it doesn’t record 4k natively.

Media recording: Memory Stick Pro Duo / SD Card x 1

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: HD (4k can be achieved by buying an Odyssey 7Q at around £2000. An expensive and rather unwieldy addition)

Lens Mount: Sony E Mount. EF adaptor available (around £100)

Maximum Frame Rate: 60fps

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: AVCHD @ 28 Mbs

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £4,500 inc VAT / USD $4,600

Pros: Built in NDs. Big sensor. Mid range slow motion. Cheap media.

Cons: Needs an Atomos to up the data rate – which can’t process the high speed, so you’re limited to the internal AVCHD rate for that. Sony E Mount. Pushing my price limit.

Verdict: There are better things available for in this price range, I’d push another £800 up and get the FS5.

 

#07

Sony PXW-FS7

Big cousin to the FS700. To be honest it’s too pricey for this comparison, but it’s such a popular camera it’s worth knowing what it can do and what it takes to afford those extra features.

Media recording: XQD card x 2, SD x 1

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 4k

Lens Mount: Sony E mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 180 fps continuously @ HD / 60 fps 4k

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: Apple Pro Res

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £7,300 inc VAT / USD $8,500

Pros: Fantastic set of specs including 4k. ND filters. Great high speed options. Great picture quality. Good form factor.

Cons: Way out of my price range. Sony E mount always feels a bit flimsy, or use an adaptor for EF. Very specific media card type.

Verdict: This is practically the dream spec of camera for me (except for the E Mount lenses), but not at an achievable price. Fantastic high speed frame rates, but be wary as these are still with a rolling shutter, so careful what you shoot with that super high speed as it will still be prone to the ‘jello’ roll.

 

#08

Sony PXW-FS5

Younger brother of the FS7.

Media recording: SDXC x 2

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: Ultra HD

Lens Mount: Sony E mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 240 fps @ HD with 8sec buffer

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: MPEG-4 AVC @ 100 Mbs Long-GOP

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £5,300 inc VAT / USD $5,750

Pros: Also has a fantastic set of specs, still at 4k (give or take). ND filters. High speed options (albeit at HD only). Not as expensive as the FS7. Media type is more preferable to that of the FS7.

Cons: Still just out of my price range. Sony E mount lenses not ideal.

Verdict: Trumps the FS7 for me. What you lose spec-wise is minimal, but there’s a £2k price difference.

 

#09

Sony PMW-F3L

Fairly out of date camera now. But offers all the standard HD features in a fairly cheap package.

Media recording: 2 x SxS Card

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 1080p HD

Lens Mount: PL or FZ Mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 30fps

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: M-PEG2 @ 35Mbps

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £3,000 inc VAT / USD $3,750

Pros: Great run and gun form factor. Large sensor size. Relatively cheap.

Cons: No high speed. 35 Mbs still too low, it needs to be at least 50 Mbs. So this will also require an Atomos card. SxS media is very expensive and not going to be much use for any other kit.

Verdict: Very dated camera. At this price range the C100 mark ii offers a lot more for only £500 more.

 

#10

Canon C100 mark ii

Media recording: 2 x SD Card

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 1080p HD

Lens Mount: Canon EF

Maximum Frame Rate: 60fps

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: AVCHD @ 28 Mbs

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £3,700 inc VAT / USD $4,000

Pros: Very high ISO setting (102,400) so excellent for low light. The mark ii has a moveable EVF and eye cup (unlike the mark i). It also has lightning quick dual pixel continuous AF autofocus. Uses Canon EF lenses. C-Log recording capability.

Cons: Requires the Atomos card yet again to get a decent data rate so you can grade the footage properly.

Verdict: The low light capability, the auto focus, slow motion (albeit it can’t be exported to the Atomos for Pro Res CODEC recording), low cost SD media, pro audio inputs, C-Log recoding option are mouth wateringly good. All at a very decent price point. And personally I love the way Canon designs its cameras: all very  intuitive and easy to use.

 

#11

Canon C300 mark ii

Media recording: 2 x CFast 2.0 and 1x SD

Audio input: 2 x XLR

Max Resolution: 4k

Lens Mount: Canon EF mount

Maximum Frame Rate: 120fps (cropped at 2k)

Sensor Size: 24.9 x 18.7 Super 35 CMOS

CODEC: MPEG-4 AVC @ 50 Mbs Long-GOP

Rolling Shutter

Price at time of this blog post: £11,000 inc VAT / USD $12,000

Pros: It has the lot, built in, ready to go.

Cons: Massively expensive. New Canon battery format so you have yet another expense. Still rolling shutter.

Verdict: This is only on the list as it is an ideal video camera. It requires no third party hardware, and gives a great image at a high data rate natively, and at high speed. But it’s 3 times the price which I can afford! It is (just) preferable to the FS7 (and stalwart FS5), but it’s very hard to justify doubling their price.

 

What camcorder did I ultimately chose as my DSLR upgrade to get better video?

The Canon C100 mark ii.

That’s what fitted budget – the mid range of these options.

I needed to save as much hassle and achieve as much as possible for as little layout as possible.

It requires the bolted on Atomos (Ninja, CFast recording) to achieve a decent data rate.

But my ultimate camera for cost, the Sony FS5, is still out of my league.

I don’t need ultra HD, and the extra slow motion can come project by project and the right camera can be hired in.

Why the Canon C100 ii?

• Good built-in features: Slow motion (at 60fps or 50fps Pal), ND filters, on board mic, moveable EVF with eye cup

• Great auto focus, and good low light ability

• Media (Sd cards) I have already bought for the DSLR can be re-used in the camcorder

• The one drawback is the data rate of 28 Mbs in AVCHD. But that can be overcome using an HDMI out to the Atomos Ninja (around £300) recording to a CFast card.

It means making sure batteries for that device are charged, a couple more wires hanging around, and it’s a one off extra step to the setup.

But these things I can live with, they are surmountable, not such an ongoing pain in the backside as no NDs or no practically audio recording for example.

As for the lack of 4k, for me it is not an issue and clients are not asking for that. If they ever will need it for the internet who knows, but I can’t see how it’s necessary unless people start sitting a long way from their monitors.

• Cost. At £3.5k it’s one of the more affordable cameras.

The Ursa mini comes close, and is even cheaper at a mere £2.6k. But its struggle in low light and lack of NDs mean it’s just not practical for me.

The Sony FS5 at £5.3k ticks all the boxes, but that’s an extra £1500 on the price (allowing for the Ninja), and I opted to save money and pay the price of a little extra hassle. Which is really the same philosophy that lead me (and others) to getting a DSLR originally – low price (around £1500) yet high quality, achieved by a few workarounds.

So I opted for something that avoided most of the DSLR workarounds, just not quite all. But it upped the game of my primary camera to a level I am more than happy with.

Realistically it’s all about these baby steps, some people may opt to save longer and make a bigger jump, but I wanted to get on with the next stage ASAP. Of course it’s still leaving room for improvement, and where to go after this? Slow motion and high data rate are the next prerequisites for me. Would I go to the FS5 next? Maybe, but I think it’d be a slightly bigger leap than that, and a lot of other equipment is before it in the queue. At the moment I’d go C300ii or the FS7 depending on budget…and of course it all ultimately revolves around that.

But I for one am happy to sit back, shoot with my Canon C100 mark ii, and watch what wonders appear over the horizon over next few years.

________________________

I  hope you got a lot out of my list, and I’ve enjoyed creating it and checking out all the wonderful camera gear we have access to these days.

If you would like to provide feedback or even get a quote for a video production job, feel free to get in touch.

In this post I will show you how to create reactive title text – i.e. parts of which change colour in response to a moving background. This is done by generating a “traveling matte” in Avid, requiring the use of no additional plug-ins.

________________

Titles say a great deal about a video or film, more than we realise, diligent in their subliminal ingenuity, check out the stupendous blog, Art of The Title for all the examples you could possibly need. The titles is an experience all in itself, often produced by an entirely separate specialist production company and director, in the case of James Bond it has practically become its own genre. They’ll often take weeks to make, with an effort only seen elsewhere in the movie trailer. Both are essential tools to whet the viewer’s appetite – the hook, before the opening scene of the film is to reel them in.

But if you’re not looking at spending thousands, or even getting a cheap logo animation theme via theme forest, and you’re still hoping to get something eye-catching yet simple, all within the Avid itself, then maybe this technique may well be of some use to you, or at least worth remembering.

First up of course is the font, a wondrous world that taps into our subconscious. Is your film serious? Happy? Sci fi geeky? Respectable? Old school? Old skool? Nu Skool? Rest assured there’ll be a font to fit and to tap into the subconscious of your viewership. A few good resources here are

Thinking With Type – by Ellen Lupton

Know Your Onions: Graphic Design – by Drew de Soto

Just My Type – by Simon Garfield

Then you need to lay it over your image or background. I’ll try to shoot specially for this, so it’s all planned beforehand and when I’m taking the shot I leave space for the text to be inserted:

 

But, as Neil Young said, the Devil fools with the best laid plan. So sometimes it’s more of an after thought. In my case study below, we began with a title for the company:

 

 

 

 

 

And then needed to announce the course they had on offer. When I began the edit it became apparent it’d be more punchy just to get on with some shots, and I simply hadn’t a neat amount of space in the frame:

 

 

 

 

Just laying either an all black or all white title on anyway wasn’t going to look great, as the image was too contrasty:

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I needed to create what’s called a “traveling matte” (as opposed to a static matte) being one that changes frames by frame. By using the below method the title reacts to the background, fluidly changing from black to white as appropriate:

 

 

 

 

As seen here in the final video, also adding a “light leak” effect on the top layer;

Ultimately you do at least need a contrasty image to make the matte work. But then, if the image isn’t contrasty, why aren’t you just using simple text? Anyway, here’s the step by step guide on how to achieve that look. You need no extra plugins, just set up the layers on the Avid timeline as follows:

V1.  Source clip (colour graded)

V2.  Text: White version

V3.  Text: Black version (otherwise identical to V2)

V4.  This layer is the “matte” itself. See below how to create it. It’s essentially another copy of the source clip, highly contrasted and de-saturated, with a matte key effect on top:

What’s a Matte?

For those who don’t know, a matte or mask is a black and white layer used to combine two other layers, the origins going back to film -“masking” out sections of the negative when shooting so as not to expose them. In their case they created as an exact a reverse version of the matte mask as possible, re-wound the negative, and re-ran and re-exposed it to fill in the other parts of the image, combing two scenes.

It’s not so tricky in our case, and it’s all done in post. You can imagine the matte cutting out a shape on one layer in order to see the layer(s) beneath. With Avid, the black part of the matte “cuts out” from the layer directly below it. In this case it cuts out part of the black version of the text, so we can see parts of the white version (which is all laid over the regular image).

What’s a Nest?

This layer is a “nested” clip, which is necessary to in order to drop the matte effect on top. What’s a nest? A sequence within a sequence, or more usually a layer with a layer, it neatens up the timeline, allows an effect to operate only on a select set of layers (N1, N2 etc.), and allows you to manipulate those layers as one with regards dissolving in and out or other transitions. Be aware that layer numbering in a nest is the opposite to that seen in the regular timeline, so N.1 is on the top, N.2 below that, N.3 below that and so on.

This nested layer consists of:

V4. Matte Key effect

N.1. De-saturation and contrast effect: Standard Avid colour effect, saturation at zero, with additional contrast and the black minimum point pushed right up to darken some areas.

N.2. Source clip

To summarise the matte creation idea here: we first create the best “black and white” version of our clip possible, and then drop the matte effect on top.

That’s it

There you have a traveling, or reactive, black and white title. But of course it doesn’t necessarily have to be black and white, change the text colours of layers 2 and 3 as required. And it also doesn’t need to be text, the technique could give you your own version of the old James Bond sequences: matte a shape on one layer – e.g. girls dancing (if that’s your thing); and cut out one coloured version of a layer, e.g. swirling blue liquids, on top of another, e.g. swirling red liquids. NB, you’d most likely need to use a garbage matte here as well.

These things aren’t meant to be hard, and when you dissect them, they really aren’t. I tend to think they’re only hard if they’re explained by someone who doesn’t understand them properly themselves.

________________

I hope this provides a little knowledge and gives a few ideas.

If you would like to provide feedback, add to the points raised, get some advice or even a quote for video production, feel free to get in touch.

Late last summer I covered a week’s events on the Ride & Seek cycle tour through Europe on the trail of the Roman general, Hannibal.

The stage I had the pleasure of began in the French Alps, crossed them Alps into Italy, then descended at quite a rate into Italy as the countryside became more lush and the classic Italian vineyards materialized, and we made our way into Emilia Romagna, and ending for me near Milan.

One of the first things that hit me appart from the cold morning in Les Chalps, “the View” apparently – and there’s more than one of these about, trust me, we tried another one first – was altitiude sickness. I had a trerrible headache I couldn’t shift and felt exhausted, going straight up to 3000m is not easy for those of us without the red blood cell count of an athlete.

First things first, I’d say have a chat with the group beforehand, set them at ease that you do not want to ruin their experience, you are on their side, let them know who you are, tell them roughly the shots you intend to get, and tell them ever so nicely not to look into the camera and wave every time they see it! That’s the temptation, but we’re not shooting a holiday video, we want to see real emotions, and yes if they’re in pain, show it, but don’t worry we’re not about to stitch them up and make them look like a bunch of wimps.

Types of Shot

There were two distinct types of shots, make that three. Maybe four then. The extra two are your standard GVS and the cyclists enjoying lunch or coffee or some Euro-style hospitality, eating, sipping, smiling, nice food etc. So there are two ways to get to grips with our cycling subjects: out of the van window, or from the side of the road.

My main recommendation is get a dedicated car / bike / van to shoot from. I used the support vehicle, so I did at least have a driver, but you need the ability to go back and forth, jumping ahead of the pack, and stopping and starting, setting up on the edge of the road. The support vehicle is so tied to the needs of the cyclists, that your wishes will always be frustrated.

Next time… The Noble Art of Shooting Out of the Car Window:

Late last summer I had the pleasure of covering a week’s events on the Ride & Seek cycle tour through Europe on the trail of the Roman general, Hannibal. Here’s a little of what I learnt…

Pt 2: Shooting – Out of the Car Window

This ended up my stock trade in generating high lycra content footage, but I feel I spent way to much time doing this.

If you’re shooting out of the side window with a shallow depth of field, with the cyclist in profile, each shot starts to get a bit samey: same framing, some differing backgrounds, not bad, but once you have a few good ones, it’s time to move on, with these a sequence you cannot make.

Then there’s shooting out the front, though the windscreen. You end up with shots like this:

You can probably get a bit more scenery in the shot, but without the cyclist’s face they get even more repetitive, and these are in my book bottom of the pile. When I took them I remember saying “oh yes great stuff, lovely”. And lovely each one might look, but put em all together and you have one very tedious sequence.

My main point here is CLEAN YOUR WINDSCREEN before you set off. By focusing a few metres through the glass you can easily forgive the smudges and dirt on the small viewfinder, but get it in the edit suite and the ghostly smudging turns ghastly and will render all your babies useless.

Then you have your resistance piece, or pièce de résistance as the French like to call it, which is hanging out the window with a sturdy camera and using a deep depth of field. In my case I had the Sony Z1 warhorse, zoom it all the way out wide, infinity focus  – so everything is in focus, hang the thing down as low as possible, bending up the viewfinder and get those front on shots of faces. Gold dust, these are the ones that really count.

On my wish list for next time would be to ride pillion on a motorbike or moped,  a la Tour de France, and you could then get a load of these devils. It could just be that you hire the bike for a day, but it’s be worth it. Oh, and you need a driver!

What the ultimate shot here? In my opinion it’s going round a bend so the camera moves with the cyclist, so they stay in centre frame and the background moves past, in the shot below we see the alps moving past behind Pete:

One more tip for the car. Turn the radio off when you’re shooting, 95% of what you use won’t need the audio, or just uses atmos, but you never know when the other 5% will hit, and you just have to be ready.

Next time… The Gritty Reality of Setting Up Shots on the Roadside

Late last summer I had the pleasure of covering a week’s events on the Ride & Seek cycle tour through Europe on the trail of the Roman general, Hannibal. Here’s a little of what I learnt…

Pt 3: Shooting – Setting Up on the Roadside & Using the Go-Pro

Last but by no means least. In fact, this is pretty much your number one shot, if you want to show the scenery and get a sense of space properly, these are the key.

To get these you have to constantly leapfrog the pack, so my advice – get that dedicated vehicle at your beck, whim and call. End of.

I used the support van, which, wonderful as it was, was at the beck and whim of each and every cyclist on the tour, as it’s meant to be, and hey they’ve paid for it.

Beware! This mode of transport means you will never (or rarely) get to the right spot at the right time. You need your own (motorised) wheels, so you’ll need a crew of two, and in an ideal world you’ll have a moped and get some reverse pillion travelling shots a la Tour de France, with your bags carried in the support van.

So what constitutes the best roadside shots?

The journey. Get as much of the road travelled or the road ahead into the frame:

The most important point here is to get the scenery in…

Those mountain bends do it beautifully.

Something I didn’t exploit as much as I’d have liked, was the shot looking down onto a snaking series of S-Bends:

And if you don’t have a series of S-bends, look out for those beautiful singles. They give a great perspective: you’ll get the relevant detail of the road in the foreground, and the road naturally leads the eye round to the cyclists:

Finally, take care to set-up your framing both for the approach and the resulting pass-by shots (and good luck keeping them in frame!)

But without these roadside shots your piece will get claustrophobic, however wonderful everything else you shoot is. Wide-angle lens it, polarize it, whatever you please, but whatever you do… keep on getting’ ‘em.

The Go Pro

A quick word on this. Attach it to the bike, of course:

– Rear facing off the crossbar at the cyclist’s face
– Front facing off the crossbar at the cyclists in front
– Rear facing off the underside of the seat
– I find helmet and chest cams often give too much wobble to bother with
– I use an articulated Ram mount off the offside front fork to get the camera low to the ground, facing either forwards or backwards

But invest in something like the Big Ushot 2 XSories mounting arm (~£35). Put your camera on a pole, stick it out the window as high as it’ll go and you get a great birdseye, high angled shot:

So what’s the jolly old thing look like, anyway?