video 2 zero

This week from the “Not my job” department:

When I first saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly I was convinced that it deserved academy awards for director and editor.

Now having watched the “making of” DVD feature I’m not sure who exactly deserves the accolades.

Many of the stylistic decisions which I had assumed where Schnable’s were made by the screenwriter without any consultation.

The multi-layered composited sequences scattered throughout the movie were created in camera not in the edit suite.

Critical elements of the film’s aesthetic - shooting in French, shooting in the actual clinic/room where Bauby lived, and using Mathieu Amalric instead of Johnny Depp - took significant commitment from the producers.

That’s really it.

Producing successful video for any platform involves a slew of different skills, talents, attitudes. Historically these roles have been assumed by a varying number of professionals. Over recent years more affordable technology has combined roles - first camera, sound and light were merged, then camera & edit, now camera > edit> distribution.

But what happened to the producer? the researchers? the PR wallahs? the marketing department?

- there was a great motto popular among East End tailors: “never mind the quality - feel the width”.

Now taken up by video evangelists.

As quantity trumps quality video becomes a commodity - it is no longer a bespoke product: you don’t go to Savile Row you go to Nordstroms or Target.

There is a story about Abe Lincoln (?) presenting a bill to the Virginia senate for “surveying work $100″. No they needed an itemized bill. So he sent back: “60 stakes $2, knowing where to put them $98″.

As video itself becomes a commodity, knowing where to put it becomes the marketable talent.

Lawrence Lessig “How creativity is being strangled by the law”.

Larry Lessig gets TEDsters to their feet, whooping and whistling, following this elegant presentation of “three stories and an argument.”

The video is 19 minutes long - worth listening to, even if you don’t have time to watch.

Video producers are not the only ones who could benefit from following this advice. Web surfers it seems also have little patience for the written word.

From Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox:

“…on an average visit, users read half the information only on those pages with 111 words or less….[on pages with more words] users will read about 20% of the text.” via Journerdism

Not sure if I fully understand the methodology of the study or agree with the conclusions. But it supports the point I want to make so who cares? Not you obviously if you only read 20% of the words I wrote.

[TIP] if you really are that pushed for time just read the words in bold type.

“….companies across the U.S. are starting to prevent their employees from accessing Internet-video services at work

….According to a study released last month by Nielsen Online, an Internet tracking service owned by Nielsen Co., the heaviest consumption of Internet video is during weekday lunch hours between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., when most people are at work. Online video also is taxing already-strained corporate-technology networks.

Blocking online video isn’t easy. As people use the Web for a growing number of capacity-draining functions, from Internet telephone services to peer-to-peer file-sharing, it has become tougher for technology managers to sift through activity on their networks….

The confusion has created opportunities for small networking companies such as Palo Alto Networks Inc., BlueCoat Systems Inc., SonicWall Inc. and OpenDNS Inc., which offer products and services capable of peering into computer traffic and dissecting it.” WSJ

Once upon a time…

A group of Jewish businessmen were invited on a philanthropic tour of Israel. They visited many fine charitable projects throughout the country, and at each stop were expected to make contributions to keep the projects going, which they did happily.

The businessmen returned to Jerusalem, poorer in dollars, but aglow with righteousness. They had, in the words of one “given until it hurt”.

As the group was about to leave the King David Hotel for the airport a guide diverted them from the line of taxis to a conference room. Continue Reading »

Following on from a comment to my post yesterday [New media - old wave]

There is one significant difference between the luminaries of the new wave and the evangelists of videojournalism. Continue Reading »

Many aspects of the new media aesthetic are derived from economic and technological circumstance. Smaller cheaper cameras favor hand-held run and gun shooting, no lights, and an emphasis on the creative vision of the cameraman/director, rather than the technical expertise of a team of specialists.

50 years ago those same principles were being advanced by the French new wave as “auteur theory”. A disdain for “learned framings, complicated lighting, polished photography” - promotion of the caméra-stylo: the prescient notion that directors should use cameras as stylishly and spontaneously as writers use pens.

An article on the influence of Truffaut & Godard on Hollywood directors including George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola and Brian De Palma in last week’s New Yorker.

“Critics argue that the use of re-enactments suggest a callous disregard on the part of a filmmaker for what is true. I don’t agree. Some re-enactments serve the truth, others subvert it. There is no mode of expression, no technique of production that will instantly produce truth or falsehood. There is no veritas lens – no lens that provides a “truthful” picture of events. There is cinéma vérité and kino pravda but no cinematic truth.

The engine of uncovering truth is not some special lens or even the unadorned human eye; it is unadorned human reason.” From Play It Again, Sam (Re-enactments, Part One)

Also check out the trailer to Errol Morris new film Standard Operating Procedure: “Is it possible for a photograph to change the world? Photographs taken by soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison changed the war in Iraq and changed America’s image of itself“

Youtube: “Whether a YouTube video has 10 views or 10,000,000, people always want to know the same thing: who’s watching this? Where do viewers come from? How did they find my video? …Today we’re releasing YouTube Insight, a free tool that enables anyone with a YouTube account to view detailed statistics about the videos they upload. Continue Reading »

Platon fever has gripped the photography world. Reports of grown (camera)men swooning in the presence of the wickedly talented New York based Brit. Continue Reading »

“If you’re never quite sure what your rights are when you’re snapping pics, photography web site Photojojo’s 10 legal commandments of photography should give you an idea of your legal leeway. For example:

Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

If you’ve ever been confronted by someone claiming you can’t take photos of whatever your snapping pics of, or you just want a better idea of your rights, Photojojo’s guide is a must-read.” via lifehacker

Undoubtedly one of the major speed bumps preventing widespread monetization of online video is the absence of reliable analytics.

The methodology favored by distributors such as Brightcove involves measuring megabytes downloaded rather than minutes watched. In these days of tabbed browsing and hi-speed connections this will invariably overstate viewing figures, in some cases by as much as 2000% or more. Continue Reading »