Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Zorro,Our photo editor corrected me. The new Canon we have is the pro version of 5D Mark II. It shoots better in low-light, high-speed conditions such as Friday night football.Ex, thanks for the humor. I always appreciate a good laugh.
Ex,We all love Macs in the newsroom. However, not sure an iMac would work to show the entire meeting room. We need a wide-angle Webcam -- or at least one we can position at a distance to capture the entire room.Zorro, we did just get in the new Canon 5D. We wouldn't be using that camera, though, for our Webcasts.Thanks.
In my humble opinion, if you don't plan on using a rig like the Canon 5D Mark II to shoot your video you are fighting the future. It's well worth you time to take a look at this video by Vincent LaForet of the New York Times as he explains why.
Yes, the Webcast is definitely a low-tech operation. Economically, that works. For the small number of viewers we have, our investment is low. If the sound is too low, please let the moderator know to turn up the volume. Meanwhile, we'll talk again with our audio expert about perhaps buying a better Webcam or running an external mic to the table. If anyone can recommend a Webcam that has particularly good audio, let us know.Thanks.
Is there sound? I thought it was silent, because the sound is so low I can't hear it, so I just read what the viewer and moderator types. So, you're telling me that there's sound. HMMMMM.
I don't often get to 'tune in' to the meetings because I work, but when I do have the chance, I am always disappointed in the video quality. The sound is poor and I wish the camera was not up in a corner.
And I hate the ad that pops up when I first get there, obstructing the meeting. I know those are necessary, but I don't like them. I know C J said that would be changing soon.
"A dozen on a given day." You are aware a dozen means 12, right?
I think the Advocate Webcasts makes the news more relevant and has the potential to supplant the print version of the newspaper some day as we go farther into the digital age. I read the the New York Times daily, almost religiously. The New York Times has many extraordinarily unique features that are in the process of positioning them for the future of journalism. It's a blend of in depth reporting and features of interest to the general public. You might want to take particular note of how they are using photography and video and how that will shape the future, particularly high quality video. FYI: You can get a Canon 5D Mark II camera for around $2,500 and for a total investment of around $10,000 have a camera that shoots video on a par with a studio camera that cost well over $100,000 just a couple of years ago. I know the New York Times believes this high quality video is the future from reading about it online.
The New York Times has a an online section they call LENS that is first rate photojournalism. Virtually all the major news outlets, Reuters, BBC, and others, use photographs and video, but none does it as well as the New York Times.
Bottom line, keep your eye on the New York Times for the way forward for print media to monetize the news they are struggling to cope with today. I absolutely plan on paying to read the New York Times when they begin charging for web access later this year.
I enjoy watching, and appreciate the viewers' input. Some of the suggestions from viewers seem to be new to the staff, which is understandable since the viewers are probably natives to the area.