I'm getting closer and closer to launching my video Podcast project so you can imagine I'm doing my homework, if you will. Reading everything I can these days on video Podcasting.
Don McAllister (of ScreenCastsOnline.com) posted a very interesting critique of ScobleShow in his blog today. Highlights (quotes) include the following:
- “Or is it that new media shouldn’t worry about production values?“
- “Would it really hurt to turn this into a two camera shoot? 30 minutes on a fixed frame shot is really not that interesting to watch. Why not a couple of close ups, a couple of inserts, etc.“
- “People are used to high video production values and we can’t just dismiss that fact.“
ScobleShow is currently a single camera shoot. It looks, walks, talks and barks like a single camera shoot. Don thinks is should look better.
Nobody would mistake it for a PBS show.
To me, that is part of the charm. The lack of edits shows that it, well, wasn't edited, and in today's contrived world, it is a pleasant change.
But what about the non-geeks?
Would my wife watch it? No. But that's because of the content, not the editing. If Coppola directed ScobleShow, my wife wouldn't care.
I asked her to “visualize” a show with a single camera shoot – and if it would bother her. She “didn't think so.” But it was concept, not reality.
If money weren't an issue, would ScobleShow be better with multiple cameras? Is the single camera the reason he's getting 10CPM?
Would two cameras double that? What would?
Does new media require traditional old media standards like multi-camera shoots and higher quality microphones – or is content, like we like to say, truly king?
p.s., I'm planning on a single camera shoot myself so I'm very interested here.