Comments on: How video should be used on the Web by newspapers

By: Xaquín G.V.

Xaquín G.V. — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:36:05 +0000

IMHO 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.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:08:56 +0000

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.

By: Tony Nino

Tony Nino — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:45:58 +0000

Sound advice.
You 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)

By: Reza

Reza — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:38:48 +0000

We 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.

By: Pat Thornton

Pat Thornton — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:24:47 +0000

Cyndy 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.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:25:50 +0000

I 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!

By: cyndy green

cyndy green — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:59:57 +0000

Yeah 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.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:38:01 +0000

Different 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.

By: JohnofScribbleSheet

JohnofScribbleSheet — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:44:19 +0000

After 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.

By: Ryan Sholin

Ryan Sholin — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:01:06 +0000

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.