How video should be used on the Web by newspapers
Cyndy Green on the benefits of using a small video camera:
I am no longer an invader, infecting the story with my mere presence. I am invisible. An old(er) lady with a camera. Ignored. I can now see the real story … not necessarily the story being acted out for the benefit of the camera.
More in a short, sweet post about exploring video storytelling for journalism.
Green worked in TV news for 28 years, carrying a very, very big camera. Now, as a high school teacher, she’s experimenting with smaller, cheaper cameras.
I try to always work this in somewhere in training reporters to shoot video:
Don’t worry that your sources will think you don’t look like a television reporter with a big honkin’ camera and a big honkin’ light.
If the subjects don’t think they’re going to be on TV they won’t act like it.
November 1, 2007 at 12:01 amAfter speaking to a few journalists at the BBC and Guardian I was reliably told that the quality of the video on sites rarely matters. By quality I mean picture quality.
As long as you have an interesting story, it can be shot on a picture phone. Videos on newspaper sites shouldn’t just replicate TV. They have to deliver more.
November 1, 2007 at 6:44 amDifferent news operations have different opinions — and different criteria — for video. Of course, for breaking news, all news orgs will take almost anything. But there are many news orgs that will not post blurry or badly framed video online. And the audio quality makes a huge difference to the viewers.
November 1, 2007 at 8:38 amYeah for mentioning audio!!! Video and audio stand as partners in importance. I’d rather an inexpensive consumer camera with mike input than an expensive camera without.
November 1, 2007 at 8:59 amI agree — when the interview subject sounds like he or she is gargling (or gurgling), I have to turn it off. It’s too hard to listen to that. Or wind noise. It’s like fingernails scratching a blackboard. I can’t stand it!
November 1, 2007 at 9:25 amCyndy and Mindy, I totally agree on having high quality mics.
You can get away with using a consumer level video camera for video. The video may not look TV quality but it can be viewable and easy to follow. And all video has to be compressed for the Web anyway.
But the average mic on a consumer level camera is terrible. It produces audio that is highly susceptible to wind noise and other ambient noise. Plus, the microphones often pick up internal noise from the camera unit itself. You can outfit a relatively cheap camera with a good mic or two and get a much better final product over an expensive camera with cheap mics.
I’m having trouble getting this point across to my coworkers. They don’t understand that the audio they take with hand held recorders without external mics is terrible and no sane user wants to hear that.
November 1, 2007 at 11:24 pmWe have a Firestore FCS in our pool that allows HD recording in .MOV format, negating the need for AVHD formatting/conversion. It is a bit pricey, but kicks butt in the workflow/post production area.
November 2, 2007 at 7:38 amSound advice.
November 2, 2007 at 2:45 pmYou can plug an external mike into almost any camcorder.
It is amazing how degraded picture quality can be, if the sound is high quality.
Even in advertising, which is my bailiwick, great sound trumps great picture.
Eyes are forgiving. They fill in blanks, adjust to low frame rates, even correct splleing errors if the meaning is clear.
But
Bad sound grates. It hurts. “like fingernails scratching a blackboard” indeed.
Here’s some stills we stitched together for CINEMA advertising. Stills. Colorized. 40 feet wide. Animated. But the sound, the music, made it work.
Not journalism, perhaps.
But sound advice.
(forgive the word play)
Tony! Nice promo! The audio is very fine, but it’s all music. Well, I guess your point is the same — if the sound quality was poor, it would not work. The visual editing is sweet. Love the speed. Cute kid too.
November 2, 2007 at 4:08 pmIMHO in the U.S. newspapers and newsweeklies are using video in a very appropriate way. I can tell you that in Spain some of the main online news organizations used to post — meaning they did it last year — unedited videos from television agencies, with NO SOUND! I guess editors really enjoy moving things in their screens, no matter the content: that’s the problem when the technology overwhelms you. Journalism students in most Spanish schools — thank God in mine we had some good hands-on training workshops — come to the media with a huge theory background and tiny hands-on skills. Maybe Spanish Universities should start to import American Professors.
November 7, 2007 at 10:36 am