Great pictures are 90% photographer 10% equipment.

I can remember when we got our first proper camera. To start with, my Mum was allowed to use it, then after we got reel after reel back of photos with stickers on them, my Dad pretty much took over. The best picture I can remember was of two swans swimming on the canal. Sadly their heads didn't make it into the photo.

Having good camera equipment is nice, and sometimes it can make getting a great shot a little bit easier, but ultimately all it can do for you is assist you with ....

• exposure &
• focus

Cameras have incredible on board processing power now, they can assess a scene and actually tell what they're photographing and set the camera up for you. So if they detect a landscape, they'll step the aperture up to improve the depth of field and ensure that the ISO is as high as possible, whilst setting the shutter speed to the optimum to ensure proper exposure. All in a matter of milliseconds. Some even have HDR built in, called EXR by Fujifilm to draw detail out of the sky, to help ensure it's not overblown next to a properly exposed foreground. This helps some people out and is sometimes worth exploring if you feel you need that and you may argue that I've just disproved the above argument. But I haven't, because it's the photographer that has to enable this mode to start off with, or enable or disable this functionality before deciding whether to push the shutter. 

Auto focus is important too, but occasionally on cheaper camera's or lenses it can struggle in poor light. The Photographer is ultimately responsible for making sure the camera is pointing in the right direction that it's focussed on what he wants and when a compromise is required, it helps if the photographer is knowledgable about post processing in order to decide whether they can pull enough detail out of one shot, or whether to use auto bracketing to produce a HDR photo later on. 

Cameras can't decide whether to blur backgrounds or widen the f stop to keep it all in focus (unless we put them in a particular scene mode). They also can't help a photographer compose a shot, they may have grids (the photographer could enable) to illustrate the rule of thirds, but the photographer decides whether the third lines goes left or right, top or bottom. 

Nowadays, pretty much anything that can capture a digital image is enough for the budding photographer to use and to create, under the right circumstances a pleasing shot. But a good photographer must first master his equipment, know how it behaves, know it's strengths and it's limitations and decide then when best to use it. They must have an eye for the light and see when it falls in a manner thats likely to produce a beautiful image. If they only have their phone, quite often, thats more than enough. 

This is why I love what I do now. Years ago, top level photography was exclusively for the well off. Whilst the cameras may have been reasonably priced, having the photographs produced was a costly affair. But kids today have everything they need not only to capture an image and store it, but to adjust it, straighten it, recompose it, add effects and ultimately (although it's a bit old fashioned) print it out to frame. 

So long as we teach our children the basics of exposure, composition (ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture) and why each aspect is important, when they'd want to use it, if they can get themselves a reasonable piece of equipment, they should be encouraged to venture out and capture anything that they consider beautiful in our world. 

To illustrate the point, perhaps unsurprisingly, neither of the pictures on this page were taken on a DSLR. They were both mobile phone photos, and I think they're beautiful. 

What schools need for Digital Competence.

What is the period between 2010 and 2020 called? Next decade will be easier as it'll be the twenties again, anyhow, whatever its name is, I think it's fair to say, kids in this decade love technology. Perhaps no more than other decades since the 80's but there is a difference. Technology nowadays is much much easier to use. Back in the 80's my friends Dad used to edit wedding videos, he had a room dedicated to it, full of camcorders that were bigger than size 14 shoe boxes, video players, mixers, wires everywhere, a commodore 64 (just for the titles) video recorders and of course massive CRT TV's. It was impressive, but farcical. Nowadays, a camcorder and laptop will produce results that would shame his efforts. Some of the school children I've taught have less, and already have their own youtube channels.... with more subscribers than me!

Click here to subscribe to Rough Cuts (it's free) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJSsHZbzoNNbuXxpHsZTmMg?sub_confirmation=1) Thanks. 

The opportunities in digital technology are also many. And obviously the next generation of budding film makers are in schools now. The DCF (Digital Competence Framework in Wales) is an excellent starting point for accelerating Digital Media learning, but currently it's written on hope. 

Getting kids involved in all aspects of digital media creation from KS2 and up is a commendable goal, but it irks me that the school are being stripped back to bare bones, and the more resourceful are having to rely on fundraising days, just to get the money required for the right equipment. Not only that, but teachers are having to learn even more digital media skills themselves, taking time from their own, already hectic schedules to learn new skills to teach the kids, unless they get specialist outside help in, like Rough Cuts. 

In addition we have companies determined to profit from schools by selling them equipment that is either over inflated in price, or poorly aligned with what the schools actually need. I've seen schools offered Multi media suites inflated to 400% of their actual value, or camera's worth £1000's of pounds which is way beyond what a 10 year old needs to 'learn' with. I've seen expensive and overly complicated Radio broadcast equipment, that literally no one (including me) knows how to use (and bears no relevance to the DCF). 

When the advice given to head teachers is not aligned with the DCF,  and while headteachers are losing sleep (and indeed council officials) over where the money for school books, paper and pens is going to come from, it illustrates a problem that we need to fix. 

For example, the Chromebooks (see previous post). 2 local schools have a suite of them, each. Coupled with the firewalls schools have to sit behind, these machines are challenging for achieving the goals laid out by the DCF. Sure, they're superb for storing pupils work in the cloud, word processing, presentations using slides and spreadsheets. But when it comes to photo manipulation and especially video editing they fall far short of what's necessary. Find me one professional company that uses a Chromebook for video production or photo manipulation, or even desktop publishing and I will find you all of the others; who don't. 

If we want to get serious about teaching our kids digital media, then we need to equip our schools with the right hardware and software. 

A primary school now, where children are expected to leave after year 6, should have access to a variety of machines (Apple and PC) and a variety of software choices for video editting, photo manipulation, effects etc. We shouldn't be having to find ways to work around the problems created by having the wrong equipment in school. 

iMovie is the standard for many adults who simply want to make holiday or party movies easily. Hobbyists and budget professionals alike use it and it's a tremendous starting point for children. 

These applications shows how simple Movie making can be and are enough to inspire kids to create more. There's no clunky uploading of clips to a central server (like WeVideo on the Chromebook needs) There's obviously no firewalls to contend with (like Youtube Creator Studio) as everything is stored rendered and manipulated locally. Files are managed on the system, not in the cloud. Having a few machines, both Windows and Mac illustrates the differences between them, helps kids get to grips with technology that they may have at home (so they can carry on with work) and lets them make an educated choice on which system they prefer. It also makes the Digital Media tutors job easier as they don't have to coerce equipment into playing ball!

In addition schools should have access to

A DSLR Camera capable of video recording*, mic input and flash hot shoe. (Microphones and flash too!)

A Tripod and or stabiliser.

Oh... and a Drone (but thats a whole other conversation)!

* Or something else capable of capturing 1080p video, sound and photos, but with manual control over ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed. 

With the right equipment in schools, the right attitude and the right planning, I am confident we can inspire the next generation of film makers and digital media creators from an early age. But it starts with equipping schools correctly and for that, they need more money!

Size matters.

During my training for my PFCO there was one candidate who had a Mavic on pre-order. He knew everything about it and ensured that the tutor related aspects of our learning to features of the Mavic. By the end of the course, we all knew all about it too! lovely bloke though and he was understandably excited, I was excited for him, it's arguably the most sophisticated and advanced drone Dji have made and as we know. It's small, like really small, fold away, put in your pocket small. It's truly amazing.
Several of us have completed our Operations manuals and attended the practical assessment. To our relief for the purpose of the assessment, we're allowed to use the advanced features our aircrafts have. After all, our Operations manuals specify the aircraft we fly, so it stands to reason the practical assessment is based on the operations manual, and indeed the limitations.

However, one of the guidelines in CAP722 on Page 35 point 3.11 states

Operating within Visual Line of Sight means that the Remote Pilot is able to maintain direct, unaided (other than corrective lenses) visual contact with the UA which is sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vessels, vehicles and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions. Within the UK, VLOS operations are normally accepted out to a maximum distance of 500 m horizontally and 400 ft vertically from the Remote Pilot. Operations at a greater distance from the Remote Pilot may be permitted if an acceptable safety case is submitted. For example, if the aircraft is large it may be justifiable that its flight path can be monitored visually at a greater distance than 500 m. Conversely, for some small aircraft, operations out to a distance of 500m may mean it is not possible to assure or maintain adequate visual contact. 

Indeed VLOS (Visual line of sight) is referred to time and time again for safe drone operation, but you see the thing is, 500m is pretty generous, incredibly generous to be honest. At night (which is prohibited without special permission granted) with the LED's lit up bright, 500m is just about workable, in the day, glance down at your controller, and you'd be forgiven for having a mild panic about where your aircraft is in the sky when you look up, and bear in mind, I'm talking here about a phantom. Bring in the much smaller Mavic and sure enough, theres a new problem we've got. From his estimation he shared with us earlier today, 270m is pretty much where VLOS ends. This is ok for most jobs (it's still a 1/2 km range from take off point East to West, or North to South) but it's enough to have him consider re-writing his ops manual to ensure that the flight test he has doesn't put him to a disadvantage. 

This is something I hadn't considered as an issue until today, although I am sure most pilots who fly by fps only wouldn't even care, but should one go astray and become involved in an incident, I am certain this would become something prosecutors would consider in evidence against the Pilot. 

Small drone.... harder to see in the distance, not all good things come in small packages. 

Reminded me of the video above. 

My first drone

If you're thinking of getting a drone for Christmas here's some advice.

Start cheap..... or really expensive.

Everything is hard until it becomes easy. I can still remember the first time I picked up a drone controller, the first time I took off, which coincidentally was the first time I smashed it into the ceiling. Shortly after I hit a wall, then the window, then I decided to take it outside and I remember fondly the walk around the field behind our estate looking for it. I was lucky, I found it, and thats when I really started learning how to control it.

The machine was the Hubsan H107c, my second Hubsan H107 is still going strong, the first one landed in a small tub of water and the motor stopped working shorty after that. They say any landing is a good landing, but that one wasn't.

I've never really paid it much notice, but there are a multitude of RTF (ready to fly) drones on the market priced between £50-£300 pounds
. Most lack GPS and Gimballs so are poor for both control (for a beginner) and camera quality (some however do boast RTH [Return to Home] so if this is your budget make sure you get one with it). I'm sure the price of this technology will decrease as there's obviously a market for it, and many years ago, Gimballs and GPS was exclusive for machinery costing 10 times what it does now. But for the time being, starter drones should be considered just that. Practice machines, that
1) Won't cause too much damage when they hit the ground.
2) Won't break the bank if they do end up in a bad situation.

There's a lot of fun to be had with entry level drones, but don't build your hopes up. It's a steep learning curve and camera quality is going to be amateur at best.

On the other hand, if you're feeling more frugal, the Phantom 3 standard is now available for the incredible price of £400. For anyone with a couple of hours experience, or the ability to keep a quad in the air and away from walls for more than a few minutes, you'd find this machine a doddle to fly. With in built GPS this beauty will keep it's position in the sky without you touching the controller. It will make you feel like twice the pilot you are though, so crashing is still a high probability when you start taking risks. It also has a gimbal that on it's own is the best part of £250, this will make footage you capture look smooth and professional. On a quad of this price, this is exceptional.

My advice, start with a pocket toy for indoor use. Get used to the controls then check the bank balance for a serious piece of kit that you can be confident you can control.

CAP 722, CAP 393 and CAA guidelines on safe drone use.

Lets cut straight to the chase.

Drones are dangerous and some people are using them in wholly inappropriate ways (see previous story on the drone caught at 3,900 feet over London). There's a distinct difference between someone who wants to use their drone for commercial purposes and someone who wants to kill some time and have some fun, recklessly. Therefore I think the regulation needs to change to reflect that.

Not only should there be a distinct differentiation between individuals who fly these machines, but there should be a clearly defined difference between a toy, and a multi rotor aircraft. It's just wrong that a palm sized Hubsan H107 should be classified the same (below 7kg) as a DJI Phantom. Indoors, the toys are safe, outside, they should have a much lower ceiling of operation. To take a palm sized quad up to 400ft would just be ludicrous. Hilarious, but ludicrous. Nevertheless, the same wealthy 'pilots' that take the toys outside for a laugh, can also fly the much larger, and much more dangerous drones, in the same manner. Should they so please.

This reckless behaviour will ultimately lead to a minor, or major incident which will make it newsworthy and turn the already semi hostile onlookers into vehement objectors. So lets change the regulations now before we're forced to.

• All larger drones, ~ Dji Phantom sized and larger, should be registered like in the U.S. and clearly marked with a unique registration number. Owners, like car owners should be easily traceable. Regardless of whether they want to fly for leisure or profit. 
• All qualified Drone pilots should be issued with pilots licences. 
• Qualified Drone operators with PFCO should be given full freedom to fly safe. IE, 400 ft ceiling and 500m range. 
• Unlicensed Drone operators (hobbyists) should be limited to lower altitudes 200ft altitude and 200m distance for example. 
• The freedom to fly from a reasonable take off point should be encouraged and better defined as it causes no damage and harms no one. Similar to the 'right to roam' privileges. However if a land owner objects then the drone operator should move along.
• Police should be well briefed on the regulations and given the right to view a pilots licence and freedom and knowledge to interrogate a pilots flight log for the flight they've just conducted to ensure it's within safety guidelines. (after they've landed). 

Thats it, thats all that needs to change. Keep the big birds close to the hobbyists and in excellent VLOS, give the freedom enjoyed, currently by all, to the pilots who have worked for it. 

That extra level of caution, the registration and ownership aspect, should, one would assume, encourage drone owners to exhibit a little more caution with their flying habits and ensure that they're not harming the reputation of this incredible growth past time. 

RUSTA - safety and danger.

Today I have passed my practical assessment for Permission for Commercial Operations (well dones below - thank you kindly) with the CAA. On the same day that the news breaks of another near miss in London, near the Shard. This is a very worrying story for those of us planning to make a living from drone life. London has it's own set of guidelines for commercial operations, specifically because of the dangers and frequency of low flying aircraft.
Obviously the need for aerial imaging in London is crucial, only this week, on the apprentice we've seen beautiful shots of the Shard.

The reports state, however, that the aircraft was flying at around 4,900 feet, which is where the story gets interesting. There is no way that this was a legal or commercial operation. This was a hobbyist, or an idiot as some people call them. Flying above the 400 ft limit is illegal in the middle of nowhere without a specific safety case approval from the CAA, and only in controlled airspace as specified. If the local ATC didn't know about this, then they can't warn the pilots, and if they can't warn the pilots, what do you know, things like this happen, or worse.
I have over 120 flights under my belt, over 12 hours flying, and today was put under intense scrutiny in the safety of an open field, and let me be totally honest, when the crunch came, (an emergency drill, within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) I almost lost it. Only by staying calm and regaining my composure did I avoid a collision. Drone's aren't easy things to fly. Just look on youtube for drone fails for hours of entertaining video of the drone population decreasing. Beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) is a whole new ball game at 4900 feet, the drone is going to take a long time to descend, Vortex ring state may become an issue if descending vertically, and quickly. This is just mindless behaviour and the penalties ought to be severe. I'm in favour of a national database of Drones,  a zero tolerance and effective method of grounding Quadcopters being flown recklessly and hefty prison sentences for clear breaches of CAA guidelines. Before it's too late.

Chromebooks

Here I am, blogging, (a Google service) on an Android (Google) device. It's fair to say, Google pretty much own the internet. Their services are usually well thought out, easy to use, functional and well integrated with both software and hardware.
My speciality is video. What's the first thing you think of when you think of video? YouTube, of course, a Google operated channel. So what's the best machine for creating YouTube content? Surely a Google machine? A Chromebook or Chromebox, no?

No. Absolutely not.

You see the weird thing is, although the Chromebooks are great machines, for organising files, great for synchronising your calendars with your android devices, great for managing your photo collections via Google photos, great for listening to music stored in your Google play account, great for spreadsheets and presentations using sheets or slides, and managing all of those things via cloud storage in your Google drive, they are without a doubt the worse choice for creating  digital video content. Out of the box they simply will not do it.
It's bewildering when you think about it. A Mac comes with imovie.
Which means trawling through the marketplace for options. The best option having tried many, seems to be WeVideo, which is surprisingly capable for a server side option.
All of your video clips are uploaded from your SD card, via your Chromebook to WeVideo, you edit the video through an imovie-like interface (in chrome) but all the heavy rendering work is done back end, not on your local machine. So it works quite effectively. Even if uploading your raw video files can be very time consuming.
But here's the catch. It ain't free. It's not software provided by Google, and hence you either end up with a stonking great big watermark over your videos, or you bite the bullet and pay an annual subscription. No disrespect to the developers, they've got to make a living.
It just strikes me as odd. That the company behind the biggest video website in the world can be behind the only computer on the market that doesn't allow it's users to create digital video content. Not only easily, but pretty much at all.

If you're in the market for a new computer, bear in mind this one monumental drawback. Although YouTube does allow simple edits (once a file is uploaded, it's clunky and extremely limited) it's way of anything useable for even the most lightweight vlogger (video blogger for those of you unfamiliar with the term).
It's also impossible for schools to use to teach their pupils. Why? Because YouTube is blocked by most local education authorities.

If you're in the market for a lightweight, totally competent very, very easy to use machine, then knock yourself out. Chromebooks are great value for money. Just not if you're ever likely to need it to edit video.

Perhaps Google will buy WeVideo, perhaps they'll brand it Google, make it smarter and remove the watermark. But even if they did, it still wouldn't be the best machine for video editing, no serious (or even casual) YouTube content creator would consider a Google machine and that just seems ridiculous.

Come on Google, show us your A game.