z1Okay, sensational title aside, I’ll clarify before I end up with a lawsuit from Sony. This camera isn’t killing the industry all by itself. That’d be silly. It’s more to do with who ends up using this camera. I’m not going to get all technical in this post. I could write a long, boring missive about the downfalls of this piece of kit - but that doesn’t really hit the nail on the head.

For those of you who don’t know or don’t care, this is the Z1 - or to be more precise, the Sony HVR-Z1E. It’s what this camera represents that I’ve got a major issue with, not the camera itself. This camera is the ‘poster-boy’ for the TV industry’s widespread abandonment of decent production values over the past few years, a signal that we no longer give a shit about the quality of programmes we’re churning out.. it’s the foreman in the television sausage factory and it has a lot to answer for.

Sony created this contraption, I suppose as a halfway house between the affluent amateur and low-cost broadcasting markets. The problem is, the industry has now adopted this, the runt of the camera world, as its own little baby. It’s easy to use, it’s light, it’s small, it looks fairly impressive with it’s black finish and little blue light which fools the unsuspecting operator into thinking it means business. The truth is, I’m being a little harsh.. it’s not a bad camera - it achieves what it sets out to do, it’s just that what it sets out to do is not good enough for broadcast.

“Can you shoot?” is becoming an increasingly used phrase in the informal world of ‘telly’ interviews, where everyone from the junior researcher to the producer/director is expected to be a master cinematographer. The response to this question is often so laced with bullshit that it really should never be asked at all. In place of it should be; “let me see your showreel so I can check you can do more than point a Z1 at someone and press record.”

Here lies the core of the problem. Because now, more than ever, the view seems to be that TV can be made cheaply and still look good. To a certain extend true, it can, if you’re very very careful about who you’re hiring.  But these days it seems that those basic initial inspections on a person’s skill set either aren’t being made or are being completely ignored. The result? Shit telly. Researchers and Assistant Producers are being sent out to film with their trusty Z1’s and returning to the production office with some shocking looking rushes. Producers then scratch their heads; “I don’t understand, he’s done a ‘DV Talent’ course”… Behave yourselves. I could go on a Manchester United course, it wouldn’t make me Cristiano Ronaldo.

Who am I aiming this rant at? Who can be my scapegoat, other than the poor old Sony Z1? Is it the execs and MD’s who are pitching programme ideas with using the Z1 and under-qualified AP’s in mind? Is it the commissioners who seem rub their chins for two seconds before saying “And you’re shooting this on Z1?…”  before a wry smile spreads across their greedy fat lips and the realisation that they’ll have to fork over thousands less in budget for this potential ratings-winner to be made, activates a million pleasure receptors in their ratings-driven brains? Probably both.

Questions from the same egotistical commissioning editors arise when they skip merrily down to their trusty Indie to have their first viewing in the edit. “Why is it so shaky?” “Why does the light from those windows look so blue?” “Is that focus soft?” “I’m not sure about that eye-line” “Didn’t you get cutaways? “  ..and many more. The answer is, and surely has to have always been, YOU GET WHAT YOU FUCKING-WELL PAY FOR!

In America for example, take a bog-standard ‘Factual Entertainment’ series. First and foremost, it’ll be shot on HD. No questions asked. I’m talking; all singing, all dancing, 1080p - big, bold, looks amazing - HIGH DEFINITION. It’ll be shot by numerous seasoned camera-operators. they’ll have at least one camera assistant. There will be a sound recordist - he’ll have an assistant. You’ll also find a producer AND a director, not a diluted version of the two, squashed into one floundering body. PA’s, AP’s, runners, drivers, grips, caterers… you get my point.

Yes, I know, I know, I can hear you all squealing already, “But all of that costs money!” I know it does and I realise that my little example above illustrates the other end of the scale, how the other half live. But we must actually be getting laughed at. I’ve worked all over the world and had foreign TV crews scratching their heads looking at our kit and crew, asking pretty much “What the fuck?”  And I’m right there with them. We need to change our attitudes to making TV. I’m aware that not all TV in this country is made cheaply and nastily, but too much of it is. Why should it just be a handful of primetime shows that look anywhere near decent?

Why the hell can’t we just raise the bar a little bit and take some pride in our work? There needs to be an effort from both producers and commissioners. First and foremost, can we all agree NOT to use the Sony Z1 any more? There’s no point in your production manager gleefully bounding up to you in the last week of post proclaiming; “We’re going to come in £6k under!”  if what you’ve just churned out looks like it’s been shot by a drunk adolescent on a HandyCam. Let’s start thinking about production values again - surely it wasn’t that long since people cared about what our programmes looked like. It makes SUCH a difference. And while I know that we don’t have the commercial prowess of the US networks, which boast $1million per episode on programmes like Wifeswap and Hell’s Kitchen, but we can at least try our best and give our audiences something decent to watch.

Make sure your shooters can actually shoot. Make sure they’ve got a decent camera in their hands while they’re doing it. Tracks, jibs, lights, grades and decent onlines are all things you shouldn’t be doing without.

First rant over.

The Mole