The whole problem I have with this is, I don't have any idea what a chef 
d'oeuvre is! And of course I didn't understand Don's response either.
Barry

--- On Fri, 8/28/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:


From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Web Video
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 10:35 AM


Don, 


I really embarrassed, but I don't know if you are referencing something I 
should know, or whether you are suggesting I flatten a sandpiper and press it 
under glass, or if you are aptly suggesting I name it after the glass of the 
camera lens! I used to be so quick...


Nevertheless, the chef d'oeuvre WILL be called Sandpiper Under Glass


Jenny


-----Original Message-----
From: DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, Aug 26, 2009 4:03 pm
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Web Video



#yiv2133758983 #AOLMsgPart_2_dbea8f34-1e66-4dc3-bfb6-b035e55a62ce .hmmessage 
P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv2133758983 
#AOLMsgPart_2_dbea8f34-1e66-4dc3-bfb6-b035e55a62ce 
body.hmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
Jenny-
Have you though of titling your "chef d'oeuvre" Sandpiper Under Glass?
-Don


To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Web Video
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:23:22 -0400
From: [email protected]

Andrew, Ed, Barry, ENTS, 



I use music and make funny comments, or sad ones, or make them short, give them 
a loose narrative, etc.  People may not take the material seriously because I 
'package' it in a deceptively superficial, silly, or emotional way. Most of my 
videos are on birds at the moment, so I don't post them. We'll see if it gets 
me any viewers...


I've got an 8 minute chef d'oeuvre of sandpipers I might publish....I love it. 
And if the birds fail to inspire, the music will. (In operas, I thought sets, 
costumes and make-up and hair were not much less important than the music 
itself. I figured "at least I'll look good if I crack on that note".) 


Does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? I hope so...


Jenny

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Joslin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, Aug 26, 2009 12:14 pm
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Web Video




Hello Ed and ENTS,

I think you misunderstood my comments, I'm not saying that web videos 

should be more like professional/polished video but that the public has 

been conditioned by watching professionally produced film/video to 

expect tight editing and highly focused content. I completely agree with 

your analysis of the state of popular documentary film and video.



Barry had commented that he wasn't getting much response to his video 

postings, I sympathize and was offering some explanation, ie: people 

aren't used to watching real-time unedited video and it's difficult to 

persuade anyone to take 9-10 minutes out of their day to watch anyone's 

video no matter how interesting or compelling it may be. Some judicious 

editing can keep the feel of the real-time walk through the woods and 

keep the length of the video down. Something to think about anyway.



I've been shooting video for 3 months now, I'm in the middle of my 

learning curve, I've posted everything here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mossTreeClimber&view=videos



My most popular (most viewed) videos are usually purely technical 

content related to tree climbing technique.



My personal favorites get very few views, for instance this meditation 

on a small woodland brook:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ1V0hU0fXc



Or this study of a male Pumpkinseed Sunfish on it's nest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8m6hdMIRPI



Best watched in HD if you have the bandwidth.



Looking forward to seeing more video from Barry and the rest of the ENTS!

-AJ





Edward Frank wrote:

> Andrew,

>  

> Do you have videos online?  I would disagree about comparison between 

> web videos and the professional videos on television.  The main point 

> I think is the poor quality of the content of the documentaries as 

> shown on television.  The images are beautiful and fit together 

> perfectly, but for most of them they have been polished until the life 

> is sucked out of them.  Most of them are visual equivalents of musak - 

> elevator music for your eyes.  The content has been dumbed down till 

> it tells you nothing.  There is more content in a second grade text 

> book than most videos.  There also is the question of integrity of the 

> documentary programs shown on television.  In certain famous 

> historical documentaries, photos of different battles and event were 

> mixed together in order to improve the story flow- accuracy be 

> damned.  The stories of the cute baby foxes out on a day of 

> exploration are typically mixtures of shots taken over the course of 

> several weeks and edited to some editor's cutesy story line.  I will 

> not get into a further rant on the current poor state of documentary 

> on television and film, but only say that well edited and polished 

> video does not a great documentary make.

>  

> I am not arguing that web videos are great.  Most of them are not.  

> There is a saying that 90% of everything is crap.  (The percentage may 

> be higher for web videos.) Nor am I suggesting that the lack of or 

> poor editing in the videos make them quaint or endearing.  Many could 

> use some editing for content.  What makes them interesting is the 

> immediacy of their content.  They are interesting to watch in spite of 

> their limitations. 

>  

> I was posting video clips in Real Media format since the 

> mid 90's YouTube.was created in 2005 and marked the true beginning of 

> the web video explosion.  It is a much more democratic medium in which 

> everyone can participate. It is egalitarian rather than elitist.  

> Forums like YouTube are changing our perceptions of how documentaties 

> should be created.  Many of the accepted conventions in movie making 

> and video making were not originally designed out of a sense of 

> artistic integrity,  but as a reflection of the limitations of the 

> equipment used in the filming.  People posting on the web are ignoring 

> these conventions for better or worse.  These experiments are seeping 

> into the broader world of television and movies.  There was a TV movie 

> set in the last major earthquake in California showing some of the 

> heroics of average people.  What jumped out in this movie was that 

> there was nota sound track.  There have been sound tracks for movies 

> since before there were sound in the movie.  This was a direct result 

> of news cast video styles and home movie styles.  You look on the 

> news, often incorporated into the broadcasts are raw footage shot by 

> people using their home video cameras, cameras, or cell phones.  

> Correspondents are being interviewed overseas during wars via cell 

> phones.  Home videos of tornados and disasters are a mainstay on the 

> Weather Channel.  There are still limitations in this medium in 

> streaming over the web and with the mechanics of capturing motion and 

> sound with the equipment you have, but with the ability to shoot video 

> clips available in an $8 digital camera the trend will continue to grow

>  

> It is this immediacy of the medium, the grittiness of the medium, the 

> first person perspectives that make web videos interesting to watch.  

> Could they be better?  Sure, but they are interesting to watch in 

> spite of their limitations. The web is the place to see the next phase 

> of television documentaries evolve.  As I said for better or worse.  

>  

> If we are to make an impact as individuals, or as a group in the 

> future we need to be part of the medium as it evolves.  We need to 

> make these web videos and experiment with the medium.  We need to 

> embrace the phenomenon.  Some things work out, some do not, some 

> techniques now considered to be unacceptable will become the new 

> standard in the future.   So for everyone out there shooting and 

> posting web video, keep shooting, and keep posting.

>  

> Ed

>  

>  

> /PS: Don't be disappointed that people don't comment, it's difficult to

> get anyone to take 8 minutes out of their day to sit and watch a video,

> no matter what the content. For my longer videos (9+ minutes) I expect

> only a small number of people to watch them all the way through,

> remember that today's viewers are used to professionally edited

> video/movies with tight segments of concentrated information. Maybe

> consider doing some editing to get the length down a little, if you can

> have more focused "segments" you might have greater success getting

> people to dig into your video, keep up the good work!

> -AJ

> /

>

> >













Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. Find out 
more.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to