ChurchProduction.com: A lot of churches start live-streaming with a single camera. That’s fine to start. But too often, live-streaming ministries languish with a single static shot or a single camera operator for years. Ideally, both of these would be a temporary situations.
6 comments:
When in church I can tell you I never really put that much thought in to the number of cameras on the screen. I do remember being more engaged in the televised sermons when they were more dynamic, but all in all it was never that much a of big deal to me. Personally the idea of balancing cameras in terms of the church is intelligent yet for some reason irritating. One part of me want to say, "You are in church focus on the lesson not the theatrics". But then the other part of me realizes that everything is a marketing ploy, in order to get people in the church you have to increase viewers and more dynamic sermons get more viewer. The that final part of me really hates that religion has become a commercial industry. But whats to be said, videoagraphy is an art form and industry invades art.
I can actually really relate to this article although not to the full extent. When I was in middle school, the church I attended started to record the sermon and post it to the church’s website so absent congregation members could still listen to the sermon. When I was younger, I remember thinking that this was so cool and now look where technology is. You don’t even have to leave your bed to go to church. We only started using projections when I was in high school and there is that can be done, such as live streaming. I think that the discussion on number of cameras in this article can be translated well to the discussion of recording theatrical performances. Often on YouTube, you will find a bootleg recording of a musical and it will only be one view. Obviously, theatrical performances were meant to be experienced live, however if you are going to attempt to record one, I think the tips outlined in this article are a great guide.
Okay, I agree that more cameras can lead to more dynamic shots. I think that is kind of common sense. But something that this article fails to mention is that, at least where I am from, churches will get the grants or donations they need to by the equipment but don’t want to invest in the camera operator because they don’t see it as a necessary cost. I personally have been asked twice to operate cameras for churches having had no experience at all whatsoever. They just have the congregation’s kids operate this stuff, with the oldest member calling the shots, and honestly it can turn out to be a complete mess. While the author of this article talks about the cost of a camera including the cost of its operator, it really needs to be drilled in that these churches have to consider the operators for this equipment as imperative.
So I do not go to church, but I am very familiar with live-streams. There is a theater troupe based in Chicago that I follow, and they create original musicals which they perform in Chicago. They have recently started up livestreams so their fans from around the world are able to see their shows for a small price. Their first livestream was some single camera thing where the camera can move and zoom. That was pretty okay, especially because it was early in livestream technology. In their most recent livestream they had three different cameras, similar to the one that the article talked about. It had two cameras on the side which are fixed in place and the center one is able to be moved and zoomed. It's pretty good if the camera operator knows the show well enough to navigate it. That being said, I think the best set up for livestreams is the one that Buzz uses to film CMU shows. One steady camera in the middle, and two movable and zoomable cameras on the sides. That allows one camera to find a new spot while the other is filming. That works best for theater in my opinion.
Jasmine makes a very good point! When considering how many cameras to use and what purpose each wills serve, it's important to think about how they will actually be used to record the sermon and worship. It seems like most churches would be able to find members of the congregation to volunteer to be camera ops, but then they need to have the same few people do it so that they can figure out how to do it well -- three cameras to get a bunch of different types of shots only works if you have people operating them the way they're meant to.
This article is actually quite specific and technical regarding the actual setup and operation, and it seems like it would be a very helpful resource for churches looking to setup or upgrade a camera system.
In general, I'm fascinated by the fact that watching a recording of church sermons has become so commonplace, because it makes complete sense and makes it more accessible for people with limited mobility or who live far away from their home church, but in another way it seems like it really changes the nature of the experience, especially because attending church is so heavily based in the community aspect of it.
It is almost like when you’re shooting a film, or I guess any other television production, you know how many cameras you are going to need to get the job done, I hadn’t really thought about it too terribly much in a church setting, but that’s partially because you probably don’t think about church being broadcast. It’s just not something you focus on when browsing channels on tv. Having a certain amount of cameras is key to make sure that the audience at home not feel disconnected. When you are in a public space you have the option to look around at other things or people, but if you are watching tv, you only see what the camera sees, and that can be uninteresting very quickly. By adding only a few more angles, you are able to increase what the viewer sees, and hopefully add to the production value of the mass.
Post a Comment