I come from the world of broadcast. In particular, I cut my teeth working at a TV news station where I got an appreciates for high quality production as well as the super efficient run, gun and get the news approach to production.
In 2006, I remember talking a lot with many of my pals in TV and with media production chops…about the topic of quality video production. With YouTube grabbing more people’s attention, it seemed like it was lower the bar for what was acceptable — flash cuts, disjoined edits, bad audio and other flaws — were garnering more forgiveness, becoming more acceible and tolerable.
I believe the debate still continues: Do we edit a compelling, quality story like NOVA or a Frontline segment…or do we turn on the camera and let it flow with little or no editing. I like both and both styles will only be used more, refined and used for the right, desired impact.
But I do laugh when non-production savvy folk say: we’ll just shoot it YouTube style for no or little cost.
I don’t disagree. But I strongly believe it’s best to balance a “natural” looking video with video projects that require richer production and storytelling techniques.
I wonder if others are facing this situation at work or with their clients. How are you getting people to consider paying real pros to do quality video stories — at least when it makes sense.
For example, in 2008 I have produced about 50 videos using my own camera and very little editing. These stories were “on the scene” or “a visit to the labs” look at things my pals at Intel or working on. But I still fight for producing higher quality videos like the ones we did to introduce new processors with Intel’s 45nm transistors, for the series of Intel Developer Forums.
All this was inspired by seeing one of my favorite TV ads, which blends great editing, audio and staging skills (and TALENT!) with a low quality, grainy look as if the baby is talking live through a Webcam. Genius! The first two crack me up every time!
If I can do it, you can do it …
Clowns are creepy…