The video example we chose is different from the case studies we presented to the class. It’s a scenic video highlighting places of interests in Italy shot with various camera/editing techniques such as timelapse, glidecam, and slow motion. The video heavily relies on places or things of interests instead of a narrative.
Following the case study we chose to follow proved to be challenging when thinking of areas to shoot in Melbourne as there aren’t many places and point of interests to film, and the ones that are tend to have high pedestrian traffic. The lack of space to shoot these places was an issue as well because it didn’t allow certain angles for the video to be shot in and it didn’t help that there were many objects present that obstructed the view.
I found thinking up ideas that were relevant to the video example to be slightly difficult and restrictive. This is because most of the ideas that I did think up of were an original concept of its own that does not tie-in with the example’s non-narrative structure and its style. Trying to follow the example’s shooting style was also hard to do because we didn’t have high-quality, professional gear to use. This resulted in a lot of shaky movement in the videos I shot as opposed to the example’s smooth, gliding movement. However, instead of lamenting over that issue, I decided to have the shaky movement as a part of the sketch. Rather than have smooth gliding movement, I decided to have a sketch be shot in first-person perspective. The main point of both the example and the sketch is to show off the place or thing of interest.
I mentioned it before in my previous post that right now, I’m not so sure what exactly is an online video. The best way I can describe how I think about it in my head is that it’s not a completely clear picture…it’s still quite blurry. Like this picture below. I can’t tell where this photo was taken, if there’s a lot of people, and what kind of shops there are in it.
So I think this exercise will help me make the “picture” of online video in my head a bit more clear.
According to the instructions for this project, I’m to set up my own framework of 10 criteria for my chosen case study. I had to revisit a lot of the videos I’ve watched before when I was a chronic Youtube video consumer in the past to get a good idea on how to do this so after much deliberation, here is my criteria.
1. Something you can and MUST watch
How do I put this… There are many “videos” online that are just songs with a still image on them. However, I wouldn’t consider that a video because I can just listen to it while I focus my attention elsewhere.
2. Is audible and visual I know this is very similar to 1 but I thought it deserved to be its own criteria because most videos have both visual and audio content that depend on each other. Two halves make a whole.
3. It’s on the internet and it can be viewed by other people
Public or private, as long as it’s on the internet and other people can watch it, it’s an online video.
4. Original content
This is the most important thing to consider for any type of online video. Or any type of thing that involves creative art, i.e. written works and jokes. The point is, it has to be something new. Sometimes it can simply be a different spin of something that already exists, like a remix. Another example would be the,
“[insert number here] [types/kinds/things/signs] [of/that (if necessary)] [insert verb here (if necessary)] [insert subject here (if necessary)]”
“10 Things that Make an Online Video, an Online Video”
These videos are all the same in its purpose to tell the audience what the person or the group of persons in the video think are the subject’s characteristics. The only difference is how it’s delivered and what kind of subject is being used.
5. Good Quality The ones I can think of from the top of my head are video resolution and lighting. Even V-loggers spare no expense in getting a good webcam/camera and ensure that the room they’re filming in has good lighting. Those that do care about quality are more professional about the way they make it and those that don’t are probably still new at it. Videos that aren’t made professionally like CCTV videos still need good resolution and lighting so people can understand what’s going on in the video.
6. Engaging Once you’re able to get a person to watch your video, the next challenge is to keep them watching after 15-30 seconds. Is the video interesting or engaging enough to make the user stay until the end? HOW is it engaging? WHY would I engage myself with this video? Again, I think this applies to almost every creative art form out there. The videos that I know are engaging tend to be thought provoking or comedic in nature. Just knowing what the video-maker is thinking about the topic they’re talking about is interesting as well and videos like these tend to feel more informal and personal as though it was face-to-face.
7. Prepared and/or Properly Edited What degree of professionalism does the video have? Was the video was carefully planned in terms of script and how the information was delivered?
8. Educational/Informational Online videos don’t have to be educational in nature like tutorials. They can be educational if you can take something from it and make it into knowledge.
9. Promotional/Commercial Is the video promoting a product? Does it have a commercial purpose?
10. Relatively Short Length Most online videos go on for about 3 to 10 minutes. Depending on the type of content it may go on longer than 10 minutes but the typical video goes on for about 3 to 6 minutes. Micro videos are extremely short, with a length of seconds instead of minutes.
My chosen case study: I chose BriTANick’s videos because I really like watching sketches. And because they make me laugh.
BriTaNick specialize in making comedy sketch videos. Most of their sketches are very well-written. Compared to their past videos, their recent videos have higher production quality despite it being made with a group of friends. Even though it’s an online video sketch it has a high degree of professionalism in the way it was shot and edited. It’s definitely something you must watch and listen to as both the audio and visual source depend on each other. It’s also visible to others on the internet. The content is original because I don’t believe a similar video like this was made before it came out. It is not semi-original because it’s not a remix of something that exists. It has very good quality (1080p). The lighting is nicely done, we can see the actors/actresses’ faces and it also fulfilled its role in establishing moods in the “film”. The only thing that’s missing is the cinemascope format (the two black bars above and below the video). It is engaging because it is entertaining. It is comedic in nature because it’s a sketch. It is educational in a way since it gives you ideas on how to make a trailer professionally. It is not promotional because the film does not exist. It is 3 and a 1/2 minutes long so it is short in length. Most sketch videos are about 3-6 minutes so I think it’s appropriate.
I don’t think doing one video is enough because there are different types of videos I watch so I’ll do another.
Here’s one of SourceFed’s videos:
SourceFed specializes in the delivery of news but in summary form. A news digest, if you will. I think the material they used is not original because it’s news. However, how they deliver it is. The hosts can be quite entertaining in their delivery and that makes me want to watch the video instead of just listening to it. They would sometimes switch between the typical news anchor delivery form and then act informally by presenting their opinions and acting in skits. This also makes the video engaging. It is shot professionally with good quality as evident by strong lighting, good video resolution, and the fact I can see the white in their eyes. It is properly edited together because there are no awkward pauses and there are a lot of jump cuts. It is informational because I learned that a zonkey exists. It is not commercial in nature because there is no product to sell. The video is very short, going on for 2 minutes.
Okay, where to begin…
Seth talked about how important it is to reflect because it basically processes your thoughts into a form of words so that myself and others can better understand what I did, and what other people and I thought could have gone better after conducting an activity. We’ll be doing a lot of reflecting in this course because it is actually a skill we must develop as future media practitioners (and it’s part of an assessment too). We’ll be doing what’s called “practice-based research” which is a process of doing and/or making something, then recording the results and thinking about it in all kinds of angles. I think it’s exactly like conducting science experiments (keyword here, EXPERIMENTS) and it’s becoming really obvious to me now seeing as the course is called “Online Video Experiments” *slaps forehead*.
…And I’m describing things.
I have two reflection models to follow – Gibbs and Driscoll – which I’ll be using alternately because it’s more fun that way.
I was and am still curious about what this course is all about. Right now we’re only scratching the surface in understanding what exactly is online video, which by itself is actually quite broad and difficult to define. Unlike traditional media where the first things that pop into my head are, “the news”, “discovery channel”, and “T.V. shows”, it’s hard to put into words what online videos are because there are so many different types and I think most don’t have their own categories or at least, ones that I know of. This also shows just how flexible online video is because you can basically put anything together and call it a video as long as you can watch it. But isn’t that what a video is, anyway? I think it’s also because there’s so much more freedom with the internet seeing as there aren’t any limitations besides copyright. I mean, you don’t have to pitch your idea to a bunch of executives to greenlight something, you just make it, then upload it on some video sharing website and wait for people to judge if they like it or not. Another reason why I think they’re distinctive from each other is because traditional media is more formal and new media, which online video is under, feels more informal. This is because some online videos, such as V-logs, are more personal by connecting and interacting directly with the audience. Some web series like “Honest Trailers” by Screen Junkies create their next trailer video based on what their viewers recommend in the comment section.
Seth also touched upon using a “polyvocal” approach in our essays. Breaking the word up, poly means “many” and vocal means “voices”. However, Google suggests that the term does not literally refer to “many voices talking at the same time” but rather, different interpretations of a certain text. This only brings up a question, how would I be able to do this with my essay? Unless it’s a group essay, I don’t see any other way other than to clone myself and hope each of them thinks differently (but cloning is actually pretty freaky so I hope I don’t have to resort to that). Joking aside, I can think of a few ways, but I’m not sure if they’re considered polyvocal. I guess I CAN research and use the opinions of other people/professionals but isn’t that more like referencing? Can I, or rather AM I supposed to use the opinions of my classmates and reference them in my essay? Perhaps I’ll learn more about it in the coming weeks so I’ll wait and see.
Overall, I learned a lot about what we’ll be doing in this course and what online video is about especially during that mindmap exercise. The one Seth put together with the class was really informative and I only wish there was more time so that it could be completed. If there’s anything I could do differently for the next class, it’s to ask questions. The only problem with that is, I can’t think of any during class.
