If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or get my latest posts directly in your mailbox. Thanks for coming to the Foo!
Gems from the Web:
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2008.
Matt Mullenweg of wordpress fame recently did an interview with the Yahoo Developer network. This video could have been better.
As usual in my improve series, I’m not going to talk about the content, but the technical side.
The goods
They used a tripod, they used proper white balance.
Nice to have some opening graphics, it gives the whole piece more weight. Though for my feeling, the title should have the same graphic feel and sound as the opening graphic.
Camera
There is way too much headspace. Tilt down a bit. Or even better: use 16:9 widescreen format, which works much better for 2 persons.
Change perspective. Flat on is usually boring. In an interview situation, I would move the camera so we see more of the interviewee’s face, while getting the interviewer more in profile.
Get closer. When you see that a person is talking for a longer time, zoom in. Preferably, have one camera locked on a two shot, and then have a second operated camera, that zooms in — and follows — the interviewee. Thus you can cut between those two, hiding those ugly zooms. If need be, then close-ups of the interviewer can be shot right after the interview.
Watch your background. White background is about the worst for a camera, it draws attention. Jeremy’s head gets almost lost in the background.
Sound
This is the weirdest miking I have seen in a while 
One huge attention-drawing microphone on the interviewer, and one tiny lavaliere mike on Matt, where no effort was made to hide the cable.
Interviewer and interviewee really should have the same type of microphone, otherwise it just looks ridiculous. Preferably a lavaliere — this would also help the informal atmosphere. And a lavaliere that is hidden under the sweater. If you don’t have time for that, put the wire behind the back of the interviewee.
If you have to use two totally different mikes, do us the favor and use 10 seconds to even those microphone levels in-camera. As it is now, Jeremy is way louder than Matt. If anything, the interviewee should be loudest.
Gems from the Web:
Just had to share some reviews of Paris Hilton’s success as an actress in The Hottie and the Nottie:
“It’s not like Paris Hilton to rise above her material, but The Hottie and the Nottie sinks so low that all she has to do is stand upright.” — Sam Adams, LOS ANGELES TIMES”
Great actors make the craft look easy. In this Paris Hilton comedy, acting looks very, very difficult.” — Kyle Smith, NEW YORK POST
“This pea-brained vanity production…” — Nell Minow, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
“This tasteless train wreck …” — Jeannette Catsoulis, THE NEW YORK TIMES
“Imagine the worst movie you’ve ever seen. Got it? Now try to think of something worse. That something is this movie.” — Connie Ogle, MIAMI HERALD
On a possible score of 100, the film gets 6. For more reviews, had over to Defective Yeti.
Gems from the Web:
Doug writes a very interesting post on how his company lost a bid by not using a video.
While I have to agree that video is a powerful tool, I would like to make some remarks:
For that video to be powerful, it has to be well made. A badly made video hurts more than a badly written text. But a well scripted, well executed video can convey information - and emotion - more efficiently than written text can.
Rather than Video >= Images + Stories I would suggest a formula along the lines of value of a video = min (story; technical quality; execution). It’s the weakest link that defines the potential of your video.
There are many companies that call themselves “video production”, and even more people with a video camera. Video cameras can be had for little money, simple editing programs come with all modern OSes. While it may be tempting to go for a cheap in-house solution, as always quality costs.
Different clients need different presentations
Not all clients appreciate “meat”. One of the first bids we did was for a state controlled company. After the presentation we were told (unofficially), that our presentation was the most creative, most exciting. But, in the end they went with a production company that is used by most other state companies. They got an alright, off-the-shelf video, that is watchable. But not memorable.
While our solution promised to actually excite the audience, it also would have been a non-standard way of presenting. Our client was not prepared to take the risk of doing something unusual. So, they got a run-of-the-mill presentation, well executed, passionless. Something our client could safely show to his boss and say that he o.k’ed it.
Reading in the web time
I don’t think that people read less than before. It is just that the amount of data people have to process has exploded. I actually think that we read more, but we skim also more than before.
Comments