The Complete Guide to TV on the Web

uwoncacnUID: 83902

Online Video Gets Real
ARTICLE DATE:  01.10.07
By John R. Quain
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2086595,00.asp


Missy DePew of Denver, a mother of two, wanted to reach out to other moms. So she launched her own broadcasting network—on the Web, that is. Now, her MomMe TV micro-channel, at [B]www.mommetv.com[/B], is an absolutely thriving, profitable, advertising-supported video-distribution destination.

In the same way, a group of professional golf instructors decided they wanted to extend their lessons to the Web. So they launched the GolfSpan network, where off-the-shelf, low-cost tools are used to reach thousands of golfers. The network is supported by both advertising and paid downloads of instructional videos, many of which are filmed with just one stationary, inexpensive digital video camera.

Aside from having been started with nearly no budget, there is another common thread between MomMe TV and GolfSpan: Both successful Web video startups avoided the complicated, costly world of TV licensing and distribution by reaching out to Brightcove.com. Brightcove charges them nothing for distribution and promotion, and splits advertising revenues with the grassroots producers.

Services such as Brightcove, which can help you launch a ­professional-looking and profitable Web video operation, are just the tip of the iceberg. The Internet is now teeming with sites that let anyone armed with basic video and audio tools reach an audience—extremely easily. Just look at YouTube, which took a year to balloon to approximately 30 million unique visitors per month who watch about 100 million video clips at the site every day.

Web videos are even going mobile. Verizon Wireless ­recently inked a deal with two video-sharing sites—YouTube and Revver [B](www.revver.com)[/B]—to deliver online video clips to cellular handsets. Early this year, Apple will release its iTV set-top box, which is designed to bring online video from your computer to your living-room TV. Meanwhile TiVo ­already offers a service called TiVoCast, which lets you automatically record online videos to its DVR just as you would your weekly fix of American Idol. The result is that you can watch amateur videos culled from the Web alongside episodes of Desperate Housewives.

Getting your moment of potential video fame is very simple, but it does require you to make some choices. Do you want to launch full-blown online TV shows? Or post short video clips or video blog entries? Do you have commercial aspirations? Something in between? In this story, you'll find hands-on reviews and instructions for delivering your show on the Web, starring you.—next: Preproduction Notes >

Preproduction Notes

Before you start posting videos of Fido jumping through flaming hoops in your backyard, there are several points you need to consider. The first is that you don't need a $1,000 camcorder to record a video for online posting. Most sites transcode—or reformat—uploaded videos anyway: Clips need to be small enough to stream easily to online viewers using players employing Adobe's Flash software. These players have the virtue of working automatically in most browsers with a Flash plug-in.

The downside is that picture quality suffers, sometimes so severely that your own mother might not recognize you in a clip (of course, that can be a benefit too). Clips from an inexpensive webcam, a digital still camera, or even a cell phone can be good enough to convey your story and get you started. Eventually, though, investing in good cameras, good microphones, and good editing software will give you a big quality boost.

You also don't need to begin by running out and buying Adobe Premiere (a steal at just $849!) to edit your mini-movie. Several sites now help you edit your video online for free, and you don't have to be a film-school grad to use the software. One big tip, though: Don't underestimate how important good-quality audio is. A $100 lavalier clip-on microphone provides vastly better sound than the audio built into many cameras, and for applications such as overdubs, a headset with microphone (Sennheiser makes good ones) can hugely boost your audio quality. At mixing sites such as Eyespot.com, you'll find numerous free ways to customize your audio. Good standalone editing software, such as Final Cut Pro, also lets you refine it.

The process of uploading a video for the masses to see—and judge—is remarkably straightforward. Typically, Web auteurs sign up for a free account, respond to a confirmation e-mail, and then start uploading video files. There are limitations on the size of videos—usually 100MB per clip—but most sites don't restrict the total storage space you can use. Most also accept the standard digital video formats—WMA, MOV, AVI, and MPEG—and then convert the clips into a streaming format for you.

Read the fine print in the terms-of-service agreements at any sharing site you are thinking of using. Most sites let you retain all rights to your creations, seeking only your permission to display your clip online or use it in promotional material. But, unfriendly as it may be, the TOS agreements at a few sites claim all rights to videos that members upload, including the right to sell clips or add advertising to them without reimbursing their creators.

Fortunately, the video-sharing community is rapidly maturing beyond its stupid-human-trick ­beginnings. There are social-networking sites that rely on videos rather than old-fashioned print profiles to help members hook up. Family sites are designed to help members share material with far-flung relatives and friends. And business-minded sites are designed to help video directors sell advertising, generate revenue from syndication, and even handle pay-per-view videos. Small and large businesses will also find sites designed to help them share what are affectionately referred to as "industrial videos," typically in-house training clips or marketing infomercials. (See the second section of this story for business sites.)

Armed only with a camcorder, Adobe Premiere Elements, a couple of webcams, and good microphones, we tried out nearly 30 video-sharing Web sites for this story. Read our opinionated profiles of some of the more noteworthy options here. And remember that many of the sites are adding features weekly—and in some cases daily.—next: You and MeToo Tubes >

You and MeToo Tubes

Like spin-offs from a popular sitcom, the vast major­ity of video-sharing sites are modeled after YouTube. These sites typically feature amusing—and not so amusing—short subjects or topical clips, such as the latest embarrassing Britney moment. The hallmark of such sites is that they are free, easy to use, and can draw a lot of attention to your video. They can also be used simply to host a video that you want to embed on your Web site or blog. The advantage of doing so is that the sharing site will do all the hard work, turning your clips into video that can be streamed. More important, the site stores the video for you—obviating the need to pay for addi­tional storage space or bandwidth charges from your ISP if your video becomes a hit.—next: Video Streaming Sites >



[B]YouTube (www.youtube.com)[/B]

Synopsis: The biggest but not necessarily the best, YouTube is in a state of transition. Originally, this massive site featured work from amateur auteurs that could be categorized as the world's funniest—or dumbest—home videos. It has also proved useful as a portal for homespun broadcast journalists posting clips of world events and disasters. As YouTube seeks ways beyond advertising to monetize its mate­rial, however, commercial videos such as teasers and trailers from CBS are becoming a mainstay.

Still, YouTube makes it relatively easy to share or broadcast a video. Uploads work reliably, although processing and posting a video can take a long time (up to 30 minutes for a 3-minute clip). YouTube's major virtue—aside from boasting the largest poten­tial viewership—is that it contains a slew of privacy and usage controls for contributors. You can make a video public or private, allow or disallow comments (got thick skin?), preclude people from rating your work, and even prevent external sites from embedding your video.



Logline: Still the tops for those seeking the largest possible audience and for videographers who want to control how their material is used online.

[B]Google Video beta (video.google.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Initially conceived as a way to search for videos and purchase programs, the sharing side of Google Video is a no-nonsense experience. With a Google account you go straight to an upload page, add descriptive information, and choose to make your contribution public or keep it unlisted. Once your video is online, you can easily post it to Blogger, MySpace, LiveJournal, or TypePad, or embed it in a Web site.

Unfortunately, Google has taken the bare-bones approach a step too far in some areas. For example, there's no progress bar to indicate how your upload is proceeding, and there are none of the multitudinous sharing options offered by YouTube. Google did rank first in one category, however: It had the poorest-quality video we witnessed.

Logline: Amateurish design, poor video quality, and Google's purchase of YouTube point to the imminent demise of this site.



[B]Yahoo! Video (video.yahoo.com)[/B]

Synopsis: "Be discovered," says the sharing side of Yahoo!'s video portal, touting its ability to give your videos career-launching exposure. But don't count on it. This site is so poorly organized and its features so meager that it screams "afterthought" instead.

There's no option to make your video private, for example, so families looking to share videos of their kids with relatives should beware. Moreover, Yahoo!'s video search engine was the slowest we tested. Several days after posting one video, we discovered that the clip was still not included in the site's search engine, making it extremely difficult to find or share. What wasn't difficult was finding violations of Yahoo!'s policies online. Like other sites, Yahoo! states that it will not permit adult material to be posted—but rather than burying that information in the fine print of a TOS agreement (as most sites do) it takes the paranoid precaution of warning you right up front before you upload material. There's probably a good reason for that: In spite of the warnings, we found naked bodies on the site without even trying (again, parents beware).

One positive point: It took less than 10 minutes for us to upload and view a 3-minute clip online.

Logline: Definitely not ready for prime time.


[B]AOL Video (video.aol.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Looking to become America's online video portal, AOL has by far the friendliest, most expertly designed video Web site. It emphasizes commercial videos and classic TV shows such as F Troop—many of which you can watch for free. There are also shows like Blue's Clues to rent and movies to purchase. Sharing amateur videos is secondary, but unlike Yahoo!, AOL has sought out partners that are experts in video sharing to help out.

For example, to upload a clip to a section dubbed Uncut Video, users must first download and install VideoEgg's Windows software. This extra step ran afoul of some of our test system's security settings—only AOL had this problem—but once those obstacles were overcome, we discovered the software was easy and helpful. It lets users both upload files and record video directly from a webcam, a connected camcorder, or a mobile device—a handy option.

Also offered via AOL Video is the opportunity to sell your videos online using Brightcove's service (see profile under Business Opportunities).

One major weakness is the lack of privacy settings, so once a video is uploaded, there's no turning back: Everyone can see it.

Logline: Taking baby steps, but has potential.

next: Notable Contenders >

Notable Contenders

Looking to carve out their own niches in the burgeoning user-supported video marketplace are dozens of smaller sites. Many target specific interest groups; we avoided the plethora of adult sites and those touting objectionable material in order to highlight the notable family-friendly sites.

[B]Blip.tv (www.blip.tv)[/B]

Synopsis: A sharing site for (somewhat) more ­serious-minded vloggers and bloggers, Blip.tv has a promising design and is easy to use for visitors and members alike. It encourages would-be directors to create more polished, independently produced shows in the hopes of gaining a toehold in the market. Expect to encounter the odd technical glitch and lost page, however.

Two aspects of Blip.tv make it noteworthy: Clips and shows can be uploaded directly from Windows Movie Maker, and members can store video in a high-quality, non-streaming AVI format at the site.

Logline: For vloggers who have something to say.

[B]ClipShack (www.clipshack.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Purely a me-too play, ClipShack is a simple upload-and-share video site. One differentiating factor is its emphasis on webcam talking-head commentaries, which include movie and book ­reviews from users. In spite of such efforts, however, ClipShack generally fails to distinguish itself from other sharing sites.

Logline: Copycat.

[B]JuiceCaster (www.juicecaster.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Ostensibly, this site's raison d'être is to make it easier to blast video and pictures directly from a cell phone to blogs and social-networking sites. JuiceCaster is supposed to work with a Web site or pages on services such as MySpace, Xanga, and Blogger, via a small free application called ­MediaBox that you download to a phone.

Unfortunately, neophytes will find the site and MediaBox difficult to use. The absence of proper instruc­tions and help pages—and of an upfront list of compatible phones—means this site is best ­suited for teens who live on their cell phones and don't ask such silly questions.

Logline: If you have to ask, you don't get it.

[B]Stickam (www.stickam.com)[/B]

Synopsis: An example of a site strictly focused on the social-networking aspect of online video, ­Stickam does more than let you post your video profundities on the Web. It also lets members put up live Webcam feeds to satisfy exhibitionist cravings (remember CuSeeMe?). Stickam is very popular with the younger crowd. Many of the videos are, shall we say, flirtatious, but even more are of blank-faced members just working on their computers. If you are looking for flirtatious interaction, you'll find a strong emphasis on it here. In fact, many video sites on the Web provide various kinds of forums for flirting.

Logline: For the Me Bored generation.

next: The Editors >

The Editors

Not all video is good video—that's why editors were created. But a good video-editing package can cost hundreds of dollars and take weeks to master. Fortunately, there's a new generation of video-sharing sites that include free video-editing tools.

[B]Eyespot beta (www.eyespot.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Not only does Eyespot let you upload and edit your video online, it also encourages the use of free public-domain and open-license material.

To edit a video, you simply drag and drop clips into a timeline. To trim a sequence, Eyespot indicates start points with a bright-green arrow and end points with a red arrow, a method so simple it puts every other video editor to shame. Members can also drag and drop transitions into the timeline, add captions, and insert special effects. Music and soundtracks can be added, and the natural sound of your video can be muted when necessary.

Eyespot gives members samples to create "­mixes." We uploaded a test video in minutes, grabbed some sample clips from the site, and edited a goofy video . . . all in less than 15 minutes, proving that Eyespot does the best job yet of making video sharing accessible to newbies.

Logline: Far and away the easiest editor on the Web.

[B]Grouper (www.grouper.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Notable primarily because it was purchased by Sony last summer, Grouper takes a unique approach to helping users edit their efforts. Rather than having them perform edits online through a browser application, Grouper offers a free editing program for download. Unfortunately, the Windows program leaves a lot to be desired.

The editing software can be set to scour your hard drive for clips automatically and put them in a library for inspection. Its tools are very rudimentary, however; they cover just basic cutting, reordering, and the addition of sound. The software also proved confusing when it came to uploading our work.

Grouper was also the only site where we experienced multiple upload failures, whether we used the Grouper software or did it directly on the site. Sony is already trying to take advantage of its purchase by offering streaming clips from famous Sony movies ("You talkin' to me?") as a come-on to purchase DVDs. Maybe it'll have more luck with that.

Logline: Grappling with Grouper is a challenge.

[B]Jumpcut (www.jumpcut.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Recently acquired by Yahoo!, Jumpcut was clearly designed with bloggers in mind. Its lucid online video-editing program is useful and trouble-free, and the site offers lots of options for getting your message online.

Newcomers can upload a video and start editing it; if they like the way it all works, then they can sign up. The editing software includes about a dozen different transition effects and a score of special effects (such as color changes and overlays like circles and tints). Your changes can be previewed in a jiffy to see how they look before you commit yourself, and drop-down help files are truly helpful.

Jumpcut includes thoughtful tricks, such as letting you add photos automatically from Flickr or Facebook. Clips also can be routinely added to more than half a dozen different blogging services. And inveterate bloggers will appreciate the fact that Jumpcut lets you upload new videos via e-mail—perfect for travelers and those who want to allow friends to contribute their own movies. All of this adds a level of convenience not yet witnessed at other sites.

Logline: Fast, efficient, effective site that should ­appeal to bloggers of all stripes.

[B]Motionbox (www.motionbox.com)[/B]

Synopsis: Taking a no-muss, no-fuss approach to editing videos, Motionbox emphasizes sharing "the good stuff." In other words, it lets people cut out the dead, dull, and dopey parts of their videos quickly online so that the audience doesn't get bored. Generally, Motionbox accomplishes its mission, but it doesn't provide much more in terms of giving free rein to members' creativity. So don't look to this site to create your next Sundance Film Festival entry.

Logline: Editing site for people who want to cut out the crud, and no more.

next: The Business End of Video Sharing >

The Business End of Video Sharing

Twenty-second videos of cats riding skateboards or cherubic ­infants waving bye-bye to Grandma are fine for a giggle, but what if you have higher aspirations? There are video-sharing services that can accommodate much longer, more ambitious projects—and help you make money in the process.

Several potentially revenue-generating sites are designed to encourage contributors with financial rewards should their videos be viewed by a large, predetermined number of visitors. Others look to generate income for video directors by placing ads or commercials in front of a video (called pre-roll) or at the end of it (post-roll) and split the fees with the creator. Still other sites merely host shows for a fee and leave the money-making ideas up to you.

One advantage of such services is that the production and image quality of video clips tends to be much higher than what you see at the YouTubes of the world. And better picture quality makes your work more visually appealing.

Another benefit: There are often no restrictions on the length of shows or programs you submit. Consequently, companies can create in-depth training videos and have them hosted on such a service. Or serious producers can distribute what amount to full-blown movies and television pilots directly to viewers online. Good-bye Hollywood studios, hello Internet audience.

But taking your video work to the next level online means upgrading production techniques as well. Producers looking to work with the sites in this section should therefore at least consider using a high-quality digital video camera and a solid editing package, such as Adobe Premiere or Apple's Final Cut Pro, before embarking on this approach. Also, as you boost your production values, invest in good microphones, such as a $100 clip-on lavalier, and use the audio mixing features in your editing software.

Those with still greater ambitions may even consider equipment designed expressly for the purpose of putting high-quality video online. One popular example is a NewTek TriCaster, essentially a computer, portable video mixing board, and broad­casting studio packed into a $5,000 box (for more details, see our interview with the producers behind PC Magazine's own Cranky Geeks). Of course, you can always start more modestly. Here's a variety of examples representing what's available online for those with commercial aspirations.

next: Brightcove >

[B]Brightcove (www.brightcove.com)[/B]

Synopsis: If you're serious about producing video for a living, Brightcove is an excellent example of a full-blown, sophisticated, and flexible service that can take advantage of all the available commercial opportunities.

For example, there's the Brightcove Network, which, like most consumer-oriented sharing sites, is free and allows members to upload video clips and shows. Brightcove calls one's artistic endeavors assets, but it handles them in much the same way as other sites. What's different is that individuals can choose from one of several possible revenue streams and even control where their material ­appears, right down to specific pages on Web sites.

One option is to allow Brightcove to put advertising in your video. The company will split any revenues from ads with contributors. Unlike other sites, you can choose from a dozen different ways that an ad can appear in your work, ranging from page takeovers to pre-roll sponsorships and banners. For auteurs sensitive to the way their work ­appears on-screen, such options are important.

Furthermore, you can control the look and feel of the embedded player for your video. In other words, you can put your brand on the player or make it more of an aesthetic match for your program. One can even set the player to roll a series of clips in a particular order, creating what is essentially a miniature online programming channel.

More control is offered using affiliate networks, which let you pick and choose who exactly can ­embed your videos and where. For example, one Brightcove client, Reuters, has its own extensive affiliate network but prevents some sites from airing specific stories. Contributors also have the option of posting their work to AOL Video, since Brightcove is the company behind AOL's for-pay sharing portal.

To help generate more revenue, which means getting your video seen by more people, Brightcove can also suggest marketing techniques and add auto­matic RSS feeds as part of its syndication management tools.

Of course, you can decide to sell your videos ­directly. The site stipulates that you have to charge a minimum of 99 cents per download, but videos can be made available in high-resolution 1.5-Mbps WMV format, and you get 70 percent of the proceeds. (For high-quality postings, the company recommends using its transcoding and uploading software.) Files also include digital rights management copyright controls.

For larger companies, for example record labels and media firms, there's a pay-as-you-go option. In such cases, Brightcove charges basic monthly hosting fees but allows clients to go out and sell ads on their own—or not, as the case may be. So a company can hire the site to handle storage and traffic to its videos and then charge whatever the market will bear to advertise on its programs.

If this all sounds complicated, it is. But there's a detailed online control panel for selecting different options, and there's an extensive library of help documentation available. Despite its pretext of being all things to all vloggers, Brightcove is best suited to those with professional video aspirations; it's an ideal choice if you have your own popular Web site and just need someone to handle the video side.

Logline: For video producers with broadcast-­quality material looking to make a buck.

next: Current TV >

[B]Current TV (www.currentv.com)[/B]

Synopsis: For all the power that the Internet wields as a communications tool, television is still a dominant force. Consequently, there are several sites catering to various television and entertainment fields designed specifically to help jump-start your career. In the broadcast journalism area, there's Current TV.

Famous mainly because it is supported by former Vice President Al Gore (he's the company's chairman), Current TV has one big advantage: Unlike many sites catering to young upstarts, it doesn't just show video pieces online—it also airs segments on its DirecTV and Time Warner cable channels nationwide. The main ethos of Current TV is to encourage independent producers to submit innovative pieces that otherwise would not make it to air in mainstream media outlets. So the site accepts uploaded "pods," nonfiction stories, or profiles of noteworthy individuals that are up to 7 minutes in length.

Videos endure an extensive review process, but if the channel's editors like what you submit and put it on the air, they'll pay you $500. Contributors can eventually get up to $1,000 for a submission. ­Granted, it's not a king's ransom, especially considering the amount of work that goes into such stories, but it could help launch a career.

Logline: If you think journalists are too biased, why don't you start filing your own stories?

next: Limelight Communications >

[B]Limelight Communications (www.limelight.com)[/B]

Synopsis: If all you've got is an idea—and ­money—Limelight is one of a slew of video production ­houses that can turn it into reality (video reality, that is). Specializing in corporate videos, video news releases, and other so-called industrial ­videos, Limelight can shoot broadcast-quality video segments, write a script, edit the package, and even handle mass DVD duplication.

Limelight can also host and stream high-quality video to broadcasters via satellite feeds or online to corporate Web sites. (For a discussion of how PC Magazine employs Limelight, see our interview with producer Annaliza Savage, page 66.)

Logline: The place to go when you want a professional to do the work.

[B]Metacafe (www.metacafe.com)[/B]

Synopsis: There's a growing movement afoot to ­offer rewards and financial incentives to those who would otherwise be contributing free content to Web sites. Video sharing is no exception, and we think it's about time.

Metacafe offers incentives in the form of "producer rewards." To qualify for payment, submitted videos need to be 20 seconds or longer, pass a ­review process at the site, and be wholly owned by contributors in order to grant the site nonexclusive rights to use and promote the material.

Naturally, the site contains disclaimers and warnings to would-be contributors: no obscene or offensive material accepted. And dangerous stunts performed exclusively for the purpose of generating higher ratings will be disqualified.

More important, to start the money coming in, a video must be viewed at least 20,000 times and have a viewer rating of 3.0 or higher (meaning they like you, they really, really like you). At that point, the site pays $5 for every thousand plays, with a potential of payout of, say, $10,000 if two million visitors watch your video. So not only could you achieve a form of online fame this way, you could also gain a little online fortune.

Logline: You think you're funny? Put it to the test.

[B]Revver (www.revver.com)[/B]

Synopsis: For budding directors, actors, and multimedia artists, another option is Revver. To the standard free uploading and sharing scenario, Revver adds, well, ads.

Uploaded videos at Revver must first be approved by the site's reviewers, who weed out objectionable material and clips that violate copyrights. Once a video has been approved, Revver appends a post-roll advertisement to your clip. Then ­whenever someone clicks on that ad, you receive 50 percent of the fee, with Revver taking the other 50 percent.

In order to create as many opportunities for clicks as possible, contributors must allow their videos to be shown anywhere by Revver. So there's the potential that your video could appear on sites that compete with yours. On the other hand, if you embed another Revver member's video on your site and it generates advertising hits, you get 20 percent of those revenues.

Revver clearly prides itself on its appearance. It has a particularly smooth interface, with a handy dashboard that tallies your earnings. And, like several other ­business-oriented sites, it has streaming-video quality that's superior to that of the major consumer video-sharing sites.

Recently, Revver attracted attention by signing up with Verizon Wireless to deliver amateur videos directly to V Cast handset users. Revver will not use ads for such feeds but rather will split the licensing earnings with contributors. And who knows, short, funny amateur video clips could be the perfect form of video entertainment for a handset's small screen.

Logline: Viral videos that can earn dividends for their creators.

next: The Video Revolution >

The Video Revolution Will Be Streamed

If there is a threat to the hegemony of the YouTube juggernaut, it's most likely to come from one or more of these commercial sites. Eventually, viewers will get tired of watching silly video pranks and seek out more creative video material online. By offering payments to contributors, the commercial sites may start to amass exactly the kind of material that people demand and thus begin attracting larger online audiences. In fact, payment for material appears to be looming large in the future of online video.

Of course, if such strategies are going to work, and the status quo is indeed to be shaken up, then ultimately it's people like you who will make it happen. Lights, camera, action!—next: You Tube VS. Them Tube >
You Tube Vs. Them Tube
ARTICLE DATE:  01.10.07
By  Jeremy A. Kaplan

Google's $1.65 billion acquisition of YouTube shook up the world of television. Who thought Internet TV could be worth so much? And the major networks were already struggling to adapt to the exploding ­array of new technologies and devices . . . not to mention one issue infrequently discussed in the Web 2.0 world: how to make money.

Historically, broadcast companies have invested millions to create high-quality content, shows such as Lost or Desperate Housewives. They make their money selling advertising during those shows and by licensing them to local channels. But that distribution model is changing: As people turn to the Internet, broadcasters can no longer count on making money from syndication or advertising.

Is the future of television a pluralistic, democratic one? If broadcast companies do continue to control the cable box, will consumers control the Internet video world and, in turn, the content on our ­iPods? And is there a future for high-quality video content on portable media devices? According to Albert Cheng, executive vice president at Disney-ABC Television Group, there is.

Cheng thinks that the proliferation of video options will bring the cream to the top, even on portable devices and over the Internet. "Once you [change the distribution model], you can only increase consumption. And a great show will definitely reap the benefits of all these distribution opportunities," he claimed recently. By contrast, he says, the mediocre shows people watch because "there's nothing else on" are the ones that will suffer.

For companies concerned with the bottom line, there's one ­giant hurdle: filtering. To sell ad space on online videos, a company will have to cite precisely what content a consumer will be watching. YouTube can measure how much time a person spends on its site, but currently, there's no way to pinpoint whether someone has chosen to watch clips from The Daily Show or more objectionable content. And for advertisers, being associated with the right content is a crucial reason for buying ad time. As David Poltrack, the president of CBS Vision, says: "You have to go through a lot of crap on YouTube to get anything good."—next: Your Very Own Web Show >
Your Very Own Web Show
ARTICLE DATE:  01.10.07
By Sebastian Rupley

History is filled with tales of media, cable, and other companies that have sunk (and often lost) hundreds of millions of dollars producing expensive broadcast content. But times have changed. Grassroots producers of video content on the Web can easily create compelling, professional-looking content while investing only a few thousand dollars into the tools required.

At Ziff Davis Media, parent of PC Magazine, Annaliza Savage is series producer of the popular show Cranky Geeks, a 30-minute weekly videocast hosted by John C. Dvorak that streams live on the Web on Thursdays at 11 a.m. Pacific time (2 p.m. eastern). Episodes are archived for download at any time at www.crankygeeks.com. We asked Annaliza about the mechanics of delivering the show.

How is Cranky Geeks produced? What tools are used for each step

AS: We designed our studio to take elements found in a large studio and reproduce them in a low-cost way. We use three Sony HRD-FX-1 cameras. Since one is stationary—on the show host, John—we need only two camera operators.

The cameras feed into a NewTek TriCaster board, and these run about $5,000. It works as a TD [technical director] board. The TriCaster lets us cut between multiple cameras filming in real time and add in video clips, photos, and guest titles. We prepare the titles and graphics beforehand, as part of preproduction work. The TriCaster also streams a version of the show live on the Web.

The TriCaster feeds into a Sony deck that records the show onto MiniDV. We then take the digital video into Final Cut Pro software to edit and export to various file formats—such as H.264—that we put links to on our Web site. We use Soren­son Squeeze and iSquint to compress and encode video in different formats [iSquint formats video iPod content]. We also use Sorenson to create Flash clips of various parts of each show.

When we've completed versions of our show in various formats, we upload them to Limelight, a third-party company that streams the episodes from its servers. In the end, the content lives on Limelight's servers.

How can people begin doing grassroots shows that still have good production qualities?

AS: The first thing is to focus on content, not gimmicks. Smart, funny content wins. If it's compelling, people will watch it. Also, remember that you don't have to have a three-camera setup. You don't have to buy a TriCaster. And you can use iMovie instead of Final Cut Pro.

You could easily produce a show like Rocketboom with one camera, a tripod, inexpensive editing and graphics software, and a good microphone. A good graphics animation program, such as Motion [found in Final Cut Studio], and time spent editing make it look polished.

One big tip: Go out and get a good lavalier microphone for a hundred bucks. Don't use the camera microphone. People will put up with some compromised picture quality, but they won't put up with bad sound. And, if you're doing interviews, use a tripod.

Finally, concentrate on preproduction. It doesn't cost much for a professional-looking set, and good preproduction can enable you to use engaging graphics, inserted video clips, and other, more diverse approaches to content.

Copyright (c) 2007 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[ 本帖最后由 uwoncacn 于 2007-2-14 23:36 编辑 ]