My Photo

About Beth Kanter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Beth's Blog: Channels, Screencasts, and Videos

Awards, Nominations, and Board Memberships

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


Site Tracking

  • This is my Google PageRankā„¢ - SmE Rank free service Powered by Scriptme

« Beyond Broadcast: Wrap Up | Main | Will you blogtip with Kivi? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

jonny goldstein

Hey Beth,

One question is, acceptable to who? The people who made that comment are professional video producers for PBS and public radio. They are very sensitive to production values. They were also older people who didn't grow up with little digital point and shoot cameras that can shoot audio. I think people who grew up with these cameras are more forgiving on the sound front. My guess is that these pro producers are threatened by the masses being able to make media so easily, and production values are a way to differentiate themselves from the unwashed hordes. That said, I think it's a great goal to work on getting better audio quality. So one method is finding a quiet place to shoot that has a nice audio feel. For example, a room with a lot of hard surfaces will give a kind of brittle, harsh sound. A room with rugs and textile wall hangings a warmer rounder sound. Another thing is to keep the camera close to your subject, though as close as you're getting will create some very vivid footage of peoples' clogged pores. Another method is to find an inexpensive camera that you can plug an external mic into. That way you can have the mic close to the subject and put the camera wherever gives you the best shot. There are lots of different mics--handheld, lavalier, shotgun. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but almost any external mic is going to be better than your camera's built in
mic. Keep the conversation going. It's a great topic.

Jim Long

at some point acceptable comes down to: can you make out what they are saying or do you have to strain a bit...or worse do you need subtitles. I come from old-media, where we're trained to get it right the first time. There's no rewind or pause on traditional TV. Where i come from people get called into bosses offices for bad audio or picture. But you CAN rewind and pause with most internet video. So who's to say? The idea here is to communicate. To communicate you need to cut through the interference. I'd like to associate myself with the technical comments of the "gentlevlogger" from the Nation's Capitol, Rep. Goldstein. And good on ya fer shovin a camera in his face. Lord knows he's got all up-and-personal with my clogged pores!!! wish i'd been at beyond broadcast!! oh and more professional (broadcast is probably an archaic term) audio doesn't need to be that expensive. email me and we can chat about it.

JD Lasica

Hey, good camera shoving going on here! :~)

Marilee Taussig

My experience as a distinctly UN professional video taker, with a good friend/collaborator who is the ULTIMATE professional (and who cringes at some of the sound and other quality issues I propose) is that I will never get it to be as good as the standards that he has been meeting for decades. At the same time, I think there is a whole different standard ---did someone hear what the person said --that is a way more do-able goal, that is a meaningful standard. When someone tells their important story and the words are audible, at least one important thing has been accomplished. We shouldn't be telling people they can't speak, because the tools are not yet worthy...

The comments to this entry are closed.