It all started with the purchase of a new domestic video recorder. After years of VHS, I decided I deserved better. I'd had enough of decidedly inferior playback quality over what I'd seen at broadcast and, more than anything else, I had to get something with better audio quality. The problem with working with DAT and 16-bit hard disk recorders is it makes you very intolerant of anything less, even when watching videos at home. The 90dB-plus figures I'd heard quoted for both Video Hi 8 and S-VHS sounded very attractive indeed.

So, a high-band system seemed to be called for. But which system should one choose? Talking with acquaintances who had more experience of such things, we heard conflicting stories. Some said they preferred Video Hi 8, others swore by S-VHS. Whilst exploring the possibilities, we did learn a lot though - far more than anyone in the consumer video stores was able to tell us (and you thought the level of knowledge in hi-tech music stores was poor; you ain't seen nothing yet). One thing that was swaying us in the direction of Video Hi 8 was that we had access to the loan of Video Hi 8 Camcorder (although at this stage we weren't actively planning on shooting a music video). On the other hand, having established that all the hours of VHS tapes we'd already recorded were compatible with S-VHS, we didn't want to lose access to all those episodes of The Prisoner, Thunderbirds and Star Trek (not to mention being able to buy tapes from the local garage at 10 o'clock at night when you discover you've got no spare room to record Alex Cox's latest unearthing on Moviedrome). S-VHS tapes are also available with much longer record times. Ah decisions, decisions.

THE S-VIDEO CONNECTION

What finally clinched it was the S-Video connection. Ploughing through all the brochures and magazines, we kept coming across mentions of this extra socket on both S-VHS and Video Hi 8 machines. Eventually we discovered that both formats obtain their improved picture quality by splitting the image in to Chrominance and Luminance components - another drag about getting involved in video is you have to learn a complete new load of jargon - and that the S-Video socket allowed this separated video signal (guess what the 'S' stands for!) to be transferred at original quality between different format machines. With that we hesitated just long enough to confirm that the Video Hi 8 Camcorder to which we had access had the requisite S-Video Out, and our choice was made. S-VHS it was; compatible with our existing tapes, hi-fi audio and high quality picture, with good long tapes available.

Now the question was, which machine to buy? Well, that was settled a lot quicker. As soon as I saw the Panasonic FS90 with a jog/shuttle wheel on the remote control as well as on the front of the unit itself, my mind was made up. The NICAM digital stereo decoder was another plus, as I soon had that routed through my sound system to make up for the dodgy sound on my telly.

But reading through the manual (you really should try it sometime), we discovered that the FS90 is much more than a "record your favourite soap" VCR. This machine can perform seamless insert edits (complete with sync to a second machine). What's more, S-VHS machines offer not only the stereo hi-fi track, but also a normal audio track as well, which can be re-recorded afterwards (using Audio Dub) without affecting the stereo track.

Slowly, the idea came to us that with the S-Video compatible camcorder, we could actually make our own video accompaniment for a piece of music. The more we talked it through, the more irresistible it seemed, even if it ended up as a spectacular failure. We discussed the idea with a singer with whom Paul had been working; she was up for it, so we started making plans.

ENTER U-MATIC

The only thing that was worrying us was that although S-VHS might look pretty good in a single generation recording, it might not survive the several generations necessary to make an edited video. At this point Darrin ran into a friend who was doing a course in video editing at a local Polytechnic, and who invited us to see how it was all done on professional equipment (the U-matic format that one hears so much about).

We found out that U-matic has been around in one form or another for 25 years and is still widely used amongst the professional video fraternity. It's divided into two grades, rather like VHS: low-band and high-band. The high-band gear is still used in broadcasting, although low-band has been pretty much discontinued and has been relegated to school and college use (guess which they had at this tech!).

Right from the word go we noticed significant differences between S-VHS and Low-band U-matic, but to our surprise it was U-matic that was losing out on all counts. This came as our first shock of the exercise - a format that we'd initially considered as a glorified domestic format seemed to be outperforming what we had assumed to be the professional standard. This was confirmed when a phone call to one of our friend's ex-colleagues at the BBC over an editing problem revealed that the Beeb were in the process of transferring much of their archive material to S-VHS to get around the same editing problem that we were having.

S-VHS scores over low-band U-matic in both visual and audio departments - the video line resolution is around the 500 mark, about a hundred more than low-band U-matic, and twice as many as normal VHS. On the audio side U-matic has separate left and right audio channels which can be recorded either during the visual recording process or after the event. S-VHS on the other hand has four audio channels; two standard linear tracks which work in much the same way as the ones on U-matic (with the exception that both tracks are merged to form a single mono compatible track for people who don't have stereo VCRs (more on this next month), and two further tracks of higher quality. Referred to as the 'hi-fi tracks', they are encoded as part of the picture rather than as separate tracks. This is fine if you intend to keep the sound originally recorded when the picture was shot. However if you start dropping in pictures over the top of existing footage (insert editing), then the original sound is lost and replaced with the inserted material's sound (unlike the linear audio tracks which are not touched during insert editing).

It didn't take us long to realise that in buying a quality domestic VCR for home use, we had also acquired a unit capable of recording visuals to the sort of quality you are used to seeing on TV. With that in mind we started thinking really seriously about trying to shoot a video to fit with music.

We soon learnt the hard way that, as with successful music making, knowing what you're going to do before you do it makes the whole process a darn sight quicker and less painful. To begin with you need a piece of music that lends itself to video accompaniment. For our purposes we used a song of Paul's, in which he called upon the services of up and coming singer Marcia Johnson, as she not only has a great voice but performs well in front of a camera (unlike Paul; sorry Wiff, but the truth hurts sometimes). Don't forget that the advent of music video has made visual considerations as important as musical ones - which is why some acts may make great music but don't get the coverage required for chart success because the video doesn't show.

LOCATION IS EVERYTHING

Next you needed a photogenic location. Unless you're shooting footage to go with a heavy metal song, a piece of local wasteland is probably not ideal. In our case, we had been to a rather attractive wine bar in Hackney of all places (honest!) called Pamela's where they have a lot of live music. We got talking to the manager who seemed well chuffed that someone wanted to shoot a video in his establishment. You will often find the glamour of shooting a video can get you all sorts of free facilities, especially with the promise of a credit (by the way, thanks Ian!). We managed to get in for a full day when the place was closed at lunchtime.

We decided to spend the time shooting entire run-throughs of the song from different angles, rather than trying to plan each shot so that we only videoed the portion of the song that we needed from each angle, with all the problems of syncing up that would give. Although the track was still not completely finished, we used a mix that gave the vocal predominance when played through the wine bar's PA system, so that both Marcia and Paul could mime to the track. At this point you may well be recoiling at the prospect of having to mime when you're perfectly capable of playing the track perfectly. However you'll find that all pro videos are mimed to the recorded versions (except for that awful live version of 'The Joker' by Steve Miller - I preferred the 501 ad).

There are good reasons for this. Not only are most places that look good on video awful for recording live sound, but however good a musician you are, it is very unlikely you'll play exactly the same thing each time and keep to exactly the same tempo. This doesn't matter when performing to an audience but it makes the life of a VT editor a nightmare as he or she will be trying to piece together footage without a constant tempo, most probably to a piece of recorded music that is constant — which is a bit like trying to play a game of football when the opposing team has their goalposts on castors! Once you accept that principle, shooting your video is a fairly straightforward process of setting up a camera angle, shooting the whole song performed from that viewpoint, stopping, setting up another angle, and so on until the manager of your location throws you out or your performers get too tired to carry on.

In the absence of a fully fledged cameraperson, we had invited along a friend who works as a stills photographer which worked out surprisingly well. The only problems occurred when we tried to get some shots with camera movement. This was due less to the inexperience of our cameraman in anything other than still frame photography than to the fact that we were using a standard photographic tripod. We soon discovered that a proper video tripod with a 'fluid head' would have allowed us to make very smooth camera movements. In short, for any shots with movement, a good tripod is almost more important than the choice of camera. If you want to use movement, the £30 a day rental for a fluid-head tripod is worth every penny.

Also very important in giving a video a classy look are the proper use of lighting and other special effects. Again, our stills photographer's experience with lighting proved invaluable, but again the gear required for video differs somewhat from standard photographic lights. In our case we decided to spend a bit of money in hiring lights, on the basis that if the raw footage didn't look good it would be quite difficult to make a silk purse out of sow's ear at the edit stage. So, we hired camera lighting which comprised three lamps: two 'red-head' units, which give you a fairly broad spotlight effect which can be focussed or de-focussed according to the effect you wish to achieve; and a 'blonde', which offers a wider but softer area of light. The blonde was used to generally light the performance area while the two red-heads were used on Paul and Marcia to add some depth and shadow. To complete the effects for the shots we used a DJ's lighting rig and smoke machine to add atmosphere and movement in the background.

We used a small TV as a monitor so that we could set up our shots and check them back in colour (the viewfinder of the camcorder being black and white, which makes everything look like a scene from the 'Every Breath You Take' or 'Vogue' videos). This is vital to ensure that you don't end up with dull-looking or unusable footage.

THOSE MISTAKES IN FULL...

So that you can learn from our mistakes (we have no pride), it's worth mentioning a few errors during the shooting which were to rear their ugly heads when we came to edit the raw footage. Firstly, when we started recording, the FS90 was still set to regular VHS mode from home use, and we had completed a couple of takes before we noticed this, and then we had to start over (or there would have been no point having the S-VHS machine). Secondly, the FS90 has a habit of remembering which options (like Long or Short Play) you last selected, but it changes the setting of those options temporarily when it detects a tape recorded using different settings. In other words you may have selected Long Play mode to get double the recording time, but when a tape is played which is in Standard Play mode the FS90 automatically shift into that mode - just what's required in a domestic environment, but it can prove a little confusing when it comes to recording from camera. Consequently we accidentally ended up with all our footage shot in LP mode which, although increasing record time, does downgrade the picture quality somewhat. This didn't prove as much of problem as we first thought as the picture quality was still much better than regular, first generation VHS, but it is always better to shoot at the best possible quality because each stage in the edit process will lose something (just like with analogue audio).

Make sure you shoot your performers from as many different angles as possible because the more options you have when it comes to editing the final video the more interesting your final result will be. Don't be afraid to do numerous takes form each angle, as you will invariably find that in the section you want to use the miming is not good enough.

Next month we'll discover the process of taking two hours worth of footage and turning it into a three minute finished video.