Reliability and Quality

From Akvo Labs

Cameras and bandwidth are on a similar curve to computing. There are a few more glitches in that process (mechanical components like lens focus assemblies) but, at an abstract level, the world is in the early stage of being flooded with cheap broadcast-quality internet-connected cameras.

What it is not being flooded by are skilled camera operators and video editors, never mind capable directors and producers. As some of us saw in the 1980s, a desktop publishing program does not make people into graphic designers: it equalizes potential, not manifest reality. We are in the position of being professionals in other trades coming to an interface with video as part of our work. Video literacy is similar in importance to being able to operate a DTP program was 20 years ago: those who can get through the basics without embarrassing themselves have added a significant new capability to their repertoire, but an important part of that understanding is knowing our limits - when to hand off to a professional, what to not even try.

There are two critical distinctions in the technical ability to get stuff on video.

The first is the ability to reliably get results in marginal cases – poor light, noisy environments, distant locations or other hardships.

The second is the ability to reliably get “broadcast quality” results – white balance, color grading and goodness knows what other factors which matter if you want to generate suspension of disbelief or other deep-rooted psychological responses, but are irrelevant to “I can see that guy and hear what he is saying” type video productions.

These limits define what semi-professional video production staff can hope for: non-broadcast quality films taken in not-too-difficult conditions.

Now, this is not to say that people cannot get results in tough situations. But getting everything or at least absolutely reliably getting the vital bits under those circumstances would require a professional crew who were dedicated to just managing the video. There's always a large element of chance involved with guerrilla video. Similarly, under ideal conditions with a slightly better than average camera, maybe a semi-skilled camera operator can produce something that could be use in broadcast, but there's certainly no guarantee of it: there could be problems with the footage I do not even know the names for.

These two constraints, reliability and quality are very deeply engraved in the professional film and television industries. Because when one is operating in a big budget environment, a single error can require re-shooting, which can cost obscene amounts of money, industry professionals have very, very low failure rates. Complex systems relying on many components each of which must work perfectly to achieve the result desired typically feature very, very high levels of integrity in each sub-process.

So, in the Akvo context, this generates a simple rule of thumb:

“if it MUST work, or it might wind up on broadcast media, hire a professional”

This leaves the semi-professionals and amateurs with a clear operating domain: shooting in good conditions, where failure is an option and sub-broadcast quality is acceptable.

It is vital to the long-term success of Akvo as a video production house to understand what can be done by amateurs, what can be attempted by trained semi-professional videographers, and what requires professionals. A clear language for this: “how good does it have to be?” along a defined spectrum of quality, and “how much do we need this footage to be usable?” with a clear understanding of the probability of failure matters a lot in terms of streamlining our internal video production processes. The ability to absorb risk not by spending a ton of money to minimize it, but cultivating a culture which permits failure, do-over and we'll-get-it-next-time is key to enabling people to produce low-cost video without constantly comparing it to broadcast performance.

The bottom line is that a TV studio is the smallest, cheapest system that can reliably produce broadcast-quality television. Everything they do, they do for a reason. Every place where we differ from studio practice reflects either a loss of reliability or a loss of quality, and more frequently both. But with our production costs at a few percent of studio costs, we can afford to try, fail, learn as we go, and work with serendipity and fortunate circumstances.