Journal robi2106's Journal: Okay, I'll bite: WhiteHouse.gov Video "Manipulation" 4
NOTE: Minor edit for updated text & additional links as of 2006-11-13 1300hrs MST
I was pointed towards a misleading (if not out right lie) video by Mr McIntee on YouTube by Pudge last week. I commented, others did as well. Comments were
I did some surfing to see how widely viewed this video is. Looks like lots of people are getting bent out of shape on BOTH sides. I found (via Technorati) another LJ'er commenting on the horrible deception of the White House so I finally figured I needed to add my own voice to the hurricane of the internet. Probably going to get drowned out / shouted down. Oh well, fun times. Don't bother going to the other LJ link because it is just the same ranting as other places and my comment is roughly the same as below....
The common rants focus along a few easy to pick apart lines: 1) (argument FOR manipulation claims) shifting the video up & adding black on the bottom. 2) (argument AGAINST manipulation claims
One job I have is as a video editor (though not a successfully full time self employed one), and as such I can tell you that the portion of the screen missing is called a lower third which is used to display studio logos, news tickers, news story sub-titles, captions, etc. It is missing from all the videos for that month on the white house site. Probable reasons are 1) copy right restrictions on the CNN logo, 2) not wanting to publish the CNN logo, 3) Evil Intent??? etc. The video is not in 16:9 ratio (as I have read else where) because no other video for that month is in 16:9. More recent videos are filmed in 16:9 most likely due to the impending broadcast standards switch due in the not too distant future. This can be confirmed by viewing any news releases in the past month or more. These videos are in 16:9 and do not have a black lower third, probably because of a newer copyright agreement between the government and CNN or whatever source was used.
The banner is visible in other still photos of the event but the still photos are taken from a lower angle, a wider field of view, or centered with the presenter's head at the center of the image or below to specifically include the banner. Video footage is not filmed from this angle for a live presenter for several reasons. News conferences are usually filmed from a direct front level perspective to the presenter. This means that the camera is at eye level to the speaker and points directly to the face of the presenter so that the presenter is effectively talking directly into the camera, and hence the audience. Also the subject is never filmed with their head (eye level) in the center of the footage. This leaves a lot of empty space above a presenter which is wasted. Just look at any news footage or any photographer's portrait work.
The proper camera angle centers at about shoulder / chest height so that the chin rests just above the center line of the footage and the rib cage or sternum (if shooting a close up) or the bottom of the podium / lectern seal (if shooting a wider shot) rests on the bottom. This effectively provides a "bust" view (to borrow from sculptors) for the presenter.
Here is a still photo that presents just such an image. The face is in the upper third, the chest is mid line, and the podium (if it were shot from front & center) would be the lower 1/2 to 1/3. Notable in this photo is that this image is taken from a 30 degree side angle allowing for creative use of the background, but also notice that the photographer mostly kept the subject's bust view. In this recent video notice that it IS in 16:9 and that the same presentation proportions are kept. The face of the presenter is above the middle, and the bottom extends down to the seal on the podium. And again the camera angle is eye level from directly in front of the presenter.
If the video had been shifted then that means the original footage was shot with the presenter's face in the center to lower than center of the screen. This has the effect of making the presenter look like a midget at worst, or standing behind a massive podium at best. I can assure you that any organization concerned about the image of a presenter will have arranged for smaller podiums to avoid just such an appearance. If they did not make such arrangements, that news clip would not be used on a publicly available web site due to the unfavorable perspective. The same perspective can be accomplished by moving closer to the presenter and slightly lower. This low angle shot would emphasize the podium, which would obscure the presenter up to about the neck, and would have the same effect of shrinking the presenter relative to the podium.
All this does not mean that the White House did NOT edit the film to remove scenes where the banner is visible. To check for editing / cutting scenes, read the transcript and listen to the audio or play the video and see if they match. If so, there was no editing. If they do not match, then they did edit the footage.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have not performed this last step, so i leave it as an exercise to the reader. Also, and in contrast to the initial video by Mr McIntee, I will not delete comments in opposition to mine. However, if real names / contact info for ANYONE are used I will delete the entire thing for privacy concerns of even Mr McIntee, or anyone else involved.
Jason
What I found annoying (Score:2)
What was really grating to me was the presenters smarmy, condescending, smirking attitude. The sing-song lilting, mock shock he attempted to convey in way he made is case. What a piss-ant.
I know, I know, when one cannot attack the speaker's point, one attacks the speaker, but still, twits like that really get me.
Re: (Score:2)
jason
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)