Technology. Journalism. Tea
Video on the web
Video is popular
There’s no doubt that video on the web is popular. Youtube is quite popular (a bit of an understatement!) and google have for a while had a video tab on their home page. News websites are also providing more and more video, some of it is pretty crap, but nevertheless it adds value to their content.
Setting aside the online broadcasters like iPlayer, Youtube (as a website) and countless documentary sites, I’m interested in looking at the use of video within content. In particular in online news.
In 1997, [Jakob Nielsen] wrote an analysis of TV vs. computers that still holds: broadcast TV is a medium for relaxation, where the “user” sits back and becomes immersed in whatever the program directors decided to air. In fact, TV users are usually called “viewers,” emphasizing their passive mode of engagement. In contrast, computer users sit forward and drive their own experience through a continuous set of choices and clicks.
Because of this fundamental difference in user experience, broadcast video feels boring on the Web. There’s nothing to do, no choices, no user control.
This is still true, yet news websites such as the BBC and CNN still embed video, captured straight from their stations, into their articles. Many local news sites even provide TV style news bulletins on their web pages:
In the image above, look how busy this home page is for the Yorkshire Evening Post. Yet there is, in there somewhere, a latest news bulletin in talking head style lasting 02:23.
On top of that you have an animated gif advert in the header, a sky-scraper animated flash ad on the right hand side, a news ticker and a content scroller all wanting your attention.
Here’s an interesting study on eye tracking and some video guidelines by Nielsen.
it’s better to use video for things that move or otherwise work better on film than they would as a combination of photos and text.
A good point. I’ve seen so many times, videos of interviews done as just a head shot. Yes, they might have some cut-away shots in there that the broadcast trainer has said to use, but the fact is that after a few seconds of headshot interview I’m bored and click the back button (not even the stop button!). In many ways broadcast news techniques don’t work on the web, just like newspaper values don’t work in broadcast.
Here’s one that works very well: Police sledge with riot shields, its just Policemen sledging on riot shields.
Making video
If you can find your way around an internet browser and have a bit of knowledge of some pretty simple terminology, you can have a website up and running in a matter of minutes; and at zero cost. Yes, I said zero cost.
Just a quick round-up, for your information, and in no particular order of some hosted blogs/CMSs:
WordPress, Weebly, Blogger, Ning, Typepad.
And lets face it, internet access is also pretty cheap. And paying by direct debit almost makes it seem free; we’re not dropping coins into a meter or dialling up and watching the minute counter anymore!
Anyway, the point is that all this is pretty cheap.
In the same vein, producing web video should be cheap and accessible. Forget your DV cameras, edit suites and compression applications; this is the consumer age!
Going back to what Nielsen said about “broadcast TV is a medium for relaxation”, this is why we have expensive equipment for TV with HD cameras and edit suites and professionally trained camera operators and editors, to make the experience and comfortable as possible.
In contrast: “computer users sit forward and drive their own experience through a continuous set of choices and clicks” i.e. that story looks interesting [clicks] ooh a video [click, while video is playing looking and deciding at where to click next] that looks interesting [click].. etc..
Things the user doesn’t care about:
- Video quality
- length
- Editing techniques
Things they may care about are:
- That it’s interesting
So you need a device that will record video and audio in reasonably good quality, not necessarily HD and better than an old mobile phone. The point is that you need to be able to see and hear in relative comfort.
Recently I’ve been looking at the Zoom Q3, Kodak Zi8 and the Mino Flip. All three are under £200 and provide good quality video and audio (they’ll also sit on top of a tripod).
The Kodak is the only one with external mic input (on mini jack), but to be honest, what’s the point? Unless you were using a radio mic.
The Zoom is based on their audio recorders and I expect the Q3 to have excellent audio quality. You can also turn off the video and just record audio.
The Mino Flip is for posers, a bit of a fashion accessory, but pretty good!
If you want to spend a bit more cash, then the next step up are handy cams – both tape and HDD media, then at over £1000 you hit the Prosumer market with Sony A1E.
Lastly, editing. My advice is get a mac and use iMovie. Or, get a PC and use Windows Movie Maker. Both are free, but WMM does not handle Quicktime files (Zi8 and Q3 both produce QT files). At the very least you will want to trim your movie files and maybe take bits out.
Some other alternatives are:
- Quicktime Pro – Yes! You can cut, copy & paste in multiple files. Read the documentation and you can use text files to create captions and also do fades etc.
- Sony Movie Studio – cut down version of Vegas
- Adobe Premiere Elements – Cut down version of Premiere Pro. Warning – this program needs lots of RAM and processor!
So – keep it simple and make it interesting!
2 Responses to “Video on the web”
Leave a Reply
Great blog. I agree with mostly what you say but would like to add that when it comes to making a video, users shouldn’t just point a camera a shoot but think about why they are filming, and the shots they have chosen. I believe video (especially on the web) is a great medium to allow viewers to see things they may not be able to see first hand, and so recording something from various angles and perspectives gives the viewer a fuller experience than just one angle.
Also, what makes a video interesting is the subject matter itself, and so like you said, people will not worry about quality or length of filming techniques. Recording the subject from multiple perspectives gives more substance to it.
The site looks kinda bad on my phone =(:)