4 Responses

1. Doug Haslam

   31|Dec|2009 1

   Great topic, Bryan– one I think on all the time.

   1) Obviously that depends on the project, your needs and your resources

   2) Video editing is usually necessary (at least trimming is), but a more important skill is PRE-editing. Knowing what you want to shoot before you do saves a ton of time in the post-production process, such as it is.

   3) I would say the raw content is timely and compelling but just way too hard to consume, especially if it’s long. Raw clips might be a great idea, but watch what you;re uploading.

   4) Talking-head video? It can be, as the difference between talking-head video and the audio is that I’m more likely to stop and watch it if it’s video. But I wrestle with the fact that a lack of a reason to have visuals beyond that is frustrating.

   5) I think HD will become the standard before long, and the question won’t matter. For now, I would go in that direction but not worry if you’re producing things in standard def that look ok in that format.

   As for the general question. I’m all for rough and ready, but there are minimum quality requirements- for example, the audio must be heard. That’s a big problem with Flip videos, as the subjects are seldom close-miked and you can’t hear them. Also, audio levels are a must– if the host is soft and the guest REALLY LOUD, it’s not just a turn-off, it’s a health hazard.

   For video, I am less specific on “minimum quality” but if the video you get is unwatchable and takes away from the content, then it’s not worth posting.

2. Natanya Anderson

   04|Jan|2010 2

   These are really critical questions and they define a dilemma that is facing content creators in a new world of fast-paced content creation. With regards to video, I would tend to agree with Doug’s assessment and answers to your specific questions. As I noodled about this though, I found my thoughts drawn to the question of speed vs. editing for all types of content. My general conclusion is this:

   The purpose of the content dictates the need for speed and the associated sacrifices in editing that you can (or shouldn’t make). The content’s purpose also directly impacts the tolerance (or lack thereof) that your audience will have for the quality of the finished content.

   Jumping right to a video example, if you are reporting live from an event and the purpose of the content is to give your audience a feel for the event as it happens, speed is paramount and you can get by with little to no editing. In fact, the “in the moment” feel of almost-raw video helps support the purpose of the video and communicate the essence of the event.

   However, if you’re putting together a reflection on the same event, with the goal being to provide a solid overview of the event as a whole and to draw larger conclusions, I would advocate that you have to balance time and quality. You have a little more time and you’ll need to more thoroughly edit your available footage to tell the bigger picture.

   As a final video example, if you’re putting together a video designed to teach a skill, the final efficacy and benefit to your audience benefit greatly from (at least a little) planning, script development, and post production. The purpose of the content is to teach and too-raw footage or a haphazard approach could detract from the final purpose.

   If you view web-content through the same lens, the purpose meter holds up. Users expect different things from a post created as part of a live blogging activity vs. even a daily post on a thought-leader’s blog. Live-blogging is rawer but is immediately timely. A daily blog is still timely but should have the benefit of a little though and at least a read-through before posting. If you are developing a white paper, web site, or learning content, a plan and more substantial editing are called for to truly support the purpose of the content.

   In the end, the #1 rule of content still applies: how can you best serve your audience with your content. We have more tools at our disposal for that now, so we can post mostly-raw content created in the moment when that’s what our audience needs. However, when they need something more polished, we can do that too. When you think first about your audience, the production path becomes clear.

   Footnote about HD: you never know when you’ll want to re-use your video footage for another application. If you can easily film in HD, I’d recommend doing so to make the footage more re-purposeable in the future.

3. Matt McDougall

   04|Jan|2010 3

   Riffing off Natanya’s excellent comment, I’d posit that the old adage “the right tool for the job” still applies, though maybe it should be revised as “the right PROCESS for the job”. That applies to the prep work, the tools you use and how you use them, the degree of editing and polish applied, etc.

   Regarding your questions:

   1) As Doug said, this depends on the project. I’m just starting to dabble in video, but with photography, I have a few levels of escalation depending on what I’m going for, from the iPhone and Twitpic all the way up to the DSLR + lighting gear + tripod + Aperture + Photoshop.

   2) I’d say a cursory pass is always a good idea, if only to trim the in and out points and maybe cut out dead air. Again, the level of polish depends on what you’re going for, and where polish vs. time-sensitivity fall on the scale.

   3) You know, it’s hard to say. With conferences, I personally prefer solid recaps rather than just blasting of-the-moment content. Unless it’s the latest Apple presentation or something, wading through liveblogs, much less almost-live video, can just be way too time-consuming. But then look at the power of the raw videos coming out of Iran…

   4) Talking-heads videos can be compelling, depending on the topic, the heads, level of preparation, and whatnot, but I tend to see more bad examples than good.

   5) I think we’ve reached a point where, if you already have an HD camera, there’s literally zero cost to shooting and presenting in HD. Heck, you can upload 1080 HD video the YouTube nowadays. And if for some reason you need SD, it’s as simple as going back to your video editor or converter and having it spit you out a standard-def version.

4. Rich Reader

   04|Jan|2010 4

   Which event content delivers the most value depends upon how you measure value. How do capture your feedback and apply metrics?

   With livestreams, the vast bulk of the minutes-viewed are in real time, and far exceed the cumulative minutes-viewed thereafter. The majority of the value of the content in an event occurs while the event is in progress. Capturing that value means administering, managing, and responding to real-time feedback, not editing.

   Winnowing the gems from the rough cut to a finished form is not just expensive, but largely a wasted effort because by time you have that edit published, the audience for that content will have moved on to other matters. The vast majority will never go to look at the content later. Shoot for now; make quick cuts to clips; and edit finished work to a specification.

   I agree with Doug Haslam on audio quality. Managing levels is essential, yet watch what happens when you tell the event organizer to bring in a sound-mixer board and an audio technician, much less an interface to your camera’s external microphone input. NewTeeVee Live is the only event that I’ve been to as a member of the video press in the past year where the event owner understood this importance, and followed through on it.

   Talking heads should be replaced by upper torso frames that include body language, hand gestures, and facial expression.

   I also concur with Natanya that you need to work toward your purpose for each type of content that you produce from an event.