by Ethan Johnson
December 11, 2006
Set the Wayback Machine(tm) for April 22, 2005:
This is totally not fair of me, but I will take a moment to capture my thoughts on "vidcasting"[.] The unfair part is, I haven't had time to watch any vidcasts. But using my superior intellect, I will deduce the pros and cons of this medium literally sight unseen. As with any asinine, knee-kerk posts about subjects that I know nothing about, I reserve the right to amend or correct my views on this subject as more information becomes available (and life experiences are had).
Pros: Easy way to put a "name with the face". I suppose a still photo can do this too, but you get the whole package of visual and audio cues of the vidcaster's personality.
You can "show and tell" easier than you can in print or via audio. Good for demonstrating something visually intensive, like how to paint with watercolors. Or make flowcharts.
People can see how clean your room is.
(Scoop...) Meet my new cat Mittens! (Good for those fidgety animals that are hard to photograph.)
Cons: The possible dealbreaker right off the bat: File sizes, bandwidth headaches. Just sayin'.
Hard to replicate the "podcasting" experience in that not everyone has webcams, etc, and you can't get remote footage of everyone. So you might end up sitting there like a dork while audio is piped in from the phone. Oh wait, that happens in "real" TV, with the brilliant idea of simulcasting radio shows.
If you're gagging on the barriers to entry (such as they are) for podcasting, just wait until you step up to video. Gurk!
If you're gagging on the methods involved in (quality) audio production, just wait until you step up to video. Gurkk!
The camera adds ten pounds. If you're sitting down, that means it will be added to your nose acne. People will laugh and point. You will have no friends, and nobody will tell you why as they make up excuses about why they don't call anymore.
If you're not interesting to listen to in an audio file, now you just made people wait forever to download a 100mb file to watch you not be interesting. TV is virtually instantaneous, so lazy people are more forgiving about uninteresting material because they get a steady stream of it, quickly. If you had to wait 20 minutes to watch the average TV show, how many people would tune into informercials?
People can see how messy your room is. You need to "freshen up" before getting on camera, and you can't wear certain colors or patterns. On the phone, you can look however you want, because nobody knows any better. Try bringing a camera to work and taking random pictures of your co-workers with the cover story that it's for a forthcoming newsletter. Collect a nickel for every person who complains about their hair, makeup, zits, teeth, clothing, baggy eyes, stuffed up nose, etc. Retire young.
Depending on what kind of vidcast you opt to do, you can get progressively more jaded and self-important and develop a tendency to preen and wear hair products that you used to make fun of.
If you see a car accident and your vidcasting gear is at home, you'll find yourself complaining that you're missing out on covering "the story of your career". You will have a future with the high-channel (formerly UHF) TV station of your choosing.
In Conclusion That's a good comparison for now. Just wait until I actually watch one of these things.
(Tugging collar.) Um, I made a video this weekend. Ignore the above and embrace this new paradigm. 2.0! Social! Connexions! Splunge!
Oh, and by the way, a whole lot of the above is still true today. Just sayin'. Especially the bit about bandwidth and file sizes. Gurkkkk! <EM>
