What do you like to see in a videoblog?
After planning, shooting, editing, publishing and sharing over 75 videos this year alone, I’ve learned two important lessons that I’ll share momentarily. Readers and viewers of the weekday Hmmcasts might remember my New Year’s resolution to go all of 2007 weekdays sharing new videoblogs, save for vacations and holidays. Five months are now gone and I’m still here creating videos every weekday (confession: this week I cheated and took a vacation day to buy an air conditioner), almost halfway to the goal of the end of the year.
This time spent gives me something I didn’t have six months ago — regular videoblogger experience — to share about what has and has not worked in my own efforts. It also has made me appreciate those who are very good and talented video editors, actors, directors, writers and producers and everyone who regularly attempts to create quality videos.
No videoblogging religion discussion
One might argue that a videoblogger isn’t meant to be professional any more than a blogger is considered to be a professional journalist, so my commentary might be a little anal-retentive. Sorry, I’m a creative guy. An artist of sorts, despite the fact that I can’t draw very well. I enjoy creating things.
I’m not interested in getting into the religious arguments of videoblogging in this post, rather I’d like to dissect the medium itself and what makes a good video stand out from a not so good one for me and for you. If there are any flaws or mistakes in my logic, I welcome you to disagree in the comment area that follows. What each of us like and dislike is subjective, I realize, but I hope we can all agree on some basic good quality shared video traits.
Videoblogging newbies
This morning I noticed that one of my regular reads, Paul O’Flaherty has launched a weekly (?) ‘vidcast’ and the timing was good to go back through my 5+ months I’ve been videoblogging daily and recap what has worked and what hasn’t to share with others new in their videoblogging journey. I hope Paul doesn’t take offense for being mentioned throughout this piece. I could have chosen a videoblogger not in my RSS reading list, but believe Paul will take this feedback constructively and might even appreciate and benefit from the feedback. If not then Paul please accept my apology in advance.
Lastly, let me point out that I’ve learned that starting a videoblog isn’t even close to starting a text blog or even a podcast. Both of those are a lot easier and less time consuming!
It takes me anywhere from a minimum of 1-3 hours or more from beginning to end to create each Hmmcast every weekday. Add that up and it takes away from other text blogging I could be doing with the same amount of time. This has impacted the number of overall text posts at MakeYouGoHmm because my time to spend here hasn’t really increased, only where that time is being spent has changed. I could probably do two podcasts every weekday in the same amount of time and could write 3-5 quality blog posts per day using the same amount of time. The flipside is I’m out here videoblogging regularly, not simply armchair quarterbacking. Learning anything has a price measured in time.
My point? There are tradeoffs when a blogger chooses to create and share a videoblog. The biggest perhaps being if you have limited time to expense adding a videoblog to your blogging arsenal, then don’t.
There are very few text posts or even podcasts that take as much time to research and write as a two minute, edited, polished, published and shared video. I’ve been unable to figure out how to cut the overall process down to under an hour without sacrificing some or all of the things mentioned below. I think the shortest amount of time for any of the Hmmcasts has been around 30 minutes. That’s from shooting the raw video, editing (or limited editing), compressing the video, FTPing, writing the text post, taking the preview picture, linking the video and publishing the post.
Those who brag that they can do this in five minutes I’d love to see a timer on them since it takes at least 10 minutes plus the time to actually shoot the video to get the video published. I don’t think it’s technically possible outside a live stream of course to publish an edited videoblog in less than 15 minutes. Sure, one can shoot one in your browser through various places (YouTube has a video in the browser publish function), but I’m talking one that you shoot with a camera, edit, title, compress, FTP and publish yourself, not using something that sits in the browser using Flash and interacts with your webcam. Agree, disagree?
There is a seemingly unavoidable bare bones amount of time required to produce the videoblog. I’d welcome any and all advice from other videobloggers how to cut down the overall production and publishing time. Maybe in the next 7 months I’ll get better at this and can get the time consistently under an hour, but I don’t see how as of this writing and believe me I’ve been working hard to figure this out over the last 5+ months.
Enough complaining about the time, let’s get to the tips.
#1: Use the medium
To me the most important rule for videoblogging — for film in general — is to use the medium. If you are going to have a one camera shot with just you talking then ask yourself seriously if that is using the right medium? What’s the point of watching something that has no visual message or story? If it’s an audio message then maybe a podcast would be better and let the listeners paint the picture of where you are and what you’re doing in their minds.
People can listen to a podcast and hear your voice, so then why did you choose video? They won’t get to watch you speaking and see the look in your eyes if you use a podcast, but a podcast would be better than a video if you don’t have something to show them.
Exceptions: standup comedy or something where you are using lots of hand and face gestures. A mime, for example, would require video and could be a single, unchanging shot.
If you want to produce even more boring video then put a fixed camera in the distance with zero frame changes or effects and let it go on for several minutes unchanged. Throw in some poor quality audio and you’ve really got a lousy video in the making.
Viewers will get the impression quickly that your videoblog is another one that can be listened to like a podcast or avoided altogether. There are a lot of videos out there like that. Just remember to use the medium and you’re already ahead of those who won’t and don’t.
Now what if you only have one camera? Not a problem, most of the Hmmcasts shot have been with one camera. This can be fixed during the editing phase.
Tips
- remember to show and tell during the video, not only tell. Use sound effects, props, still images. In Paul’s video for example he shows us the magazine he reads, but that’s not until the end of the video, too late and too long into his monologue
- cut the raw footage up into pieces and use video transitions. Where you would break on a paragraph in text, cut away in video with a transition, add a loopy effect. In the Hmmcasts I’ll switch to black and white sometimes a) because I like black and white and b) because it can add a somber pitch to the video
- in Windows Movie Maker (free with Windows) you can use the horizontal effect to change angles. This is a common editing effect which can make it appear as if you’re shooting from two different cameras. See Wednesday’s Hmmcast for an example where the entire video was shot with one fixed camera.
- record your audio track separately. When you are shooting your video you can then mute the audio that’s on the video and sync up to allow other visual things to occur when the camera isn’t on you
#2: Brevity, brevity, brevity!
This could easily be the #1 rule for videoblogging to me: keep it short. We’re in a time starved online society and video demands more concentration than text blogging or podcasts. Throwing out raw footage on an unsuspecting audience is lame. I don’t care if it’s Steven Spielberg or George Lucas raw footage (ok, well, maybe those guys can get away with it), it needs to be edited by somebody. You can’t just point, shoot and share and expect to have video 100% of the time that’s worth watching.
I realize there are videoblogging veterans with far more video experience and success than I who don’t edit very much. Loren from 1938Media comes to mind, but even his videoblogs he does more with himself to make the video more interesting. He has some professional experience in front of the camera lens. Me? I’ve got zero. You? I don’t know. Loren is doing things with his face and making not so subtle background changes, like this one for example.
You don’t see him in the same place, talking the same way all the time. He also has this pissed off look most of the time and a dry, gangster rap which challenges the viewer into wondering if he’s serious or being a comedian. And he always keeps his videos short. To the point. Respectful of the viewer’s time. If you don’t keep them short, the video better be damned entertaining and interesting.
With the Hmmcast I’ve gotten into a groove of producing primarily commercial length videos (roughly 2 minutes or less). This feels like a good length to me and others have told me they are about the right size. You could watch every Hmmcast created in the last five months in about the same amount of time as your next movie rental. Most of the Hmmcasts can be broken down into a single idea. When I’ve tried to expand much beyond a single idea in too short video time, the overall visual message, the story, hasn’t worked well.
I don’t have the material daily to do any longer than a couple minutes. If you are planning a weekly show like Paul O’Flaherty or have enough material than you can make your video longer than a few minutes then you can get away with something longer. Keep in mind that if the finished, shared video is longer it needs strong visual elements (see #1).
In standup comedy terms: the longer the joke, the better the punchline. It should also have some sort of cohesive visual message or storyline for the viewer to follow. Paul’s debut effort is 4:58 and could have been done in under two minutes, maybe under one if he really tightened things up. Essentially it’s him and the camera answering a tagging meme. Why did he choose video over a podcast? To show us the magazines? Why not a close-up still shot of what these periodicals looked like? I was interested in seeing what his magazines and newspapers looked like up close. I saw them at a distance. Where was he at? It looked like a room with a painted wall. No other props?
Video isn’t just turn the camera on and start talking unless you are an extremely skilled orator, some hot chick or, well, fill in the blank of somebody you could just stare at talking. Definitely not my ugly mug.
Not trying to pick on Paul’s first effort — heaven knows my videoblogs can be torn to shreds (and as always I welcome any other bloggers to do exactly that) — because even Paul clearly said it was “experimental.” His video is symptomatic of many videoblogs I’ve seen: too long, not enough happening, not — or barely — using the medium. In a less friendly word: boring. Don’t feel bad, Paul, I’ve made the same mistake several times and probably will make it in the future several more times. This video stuff isn’t easy and when you’re tired especially it’s easy to rush out video that should be edited more. Not sure if that’s Paul’s deal, but I’ve been there.
The Live exception
Before getting back to shooting today’s Hmmcast, let me throw out at least one wildcard: live audio and video.
Live performances have a magical property that trump many of the challenges with prerecorded works. In two weeks I will have been hosting a weekly two hour live radio show across the internet every Friday for seven years and I don’t think the show would have made it this far and be looking optimistically into the future if it wasn’t a live production. I really enjoy live radio. I’ve done a little — very little — live video and that requires an engineer and someone working the camera to do it as effectively. If you have the (wo)manpower to get that done, it might be worth trying someday in place of just … another … videoblog.
There is something about live events where you can almost entirely throw out the playbook. If you can get the audience involved there is a live chemistry that blows away the prerecorded experience most of the time. A live event can suck, so you can’t take a videoblog that sucks make it live and necessarily improve it, but it is something worth considering again, if you have the people to help and bandwidth to burn.
If you are shooting live video of an event a single camera angle — yes, even one with lesser quality audio — can still be interesting and entertaining. Heck, I’ve been through some live videos where it buffered in and out throughout the thing because of not enough bandwidth and still found the production interesting and worthwhile. Live productions, especially ones where the audience can participate in the overall production, are my personal favorite.
Bottom line
With all the video sites out there today telling you how easy it is to shoot video, don’t be suckered into the pitch. They want to make money off your hard work: good, bad or indifferent. They need your videos to place ads next to or inside. There are a few video sites that focus on quality and still the vast majority of videos being published out there, as well as podcasts and blogs, are not worth watching. If you don’t want to add to the growing trash heap with your videoblog, then remember to always use the right tool for the job and:
Don’t be boring when you write, don’t be boring when you speak and definitely don’t be boring when your create and share video. I look forward to experiencing your creative vision.
It could be the place to display where the next technological version of Hollywood emerges. While I’m in favor of amateur created videos, watch and share my fair share as well as have been producing my own videos (Hmmcast) regularly since the start of this year, I don’t see any live video sites that 
A well known Fair Use case over image search has a 
