Video at the conference.

[Judy Perry]

Even using a consumer videocam and spending a few hours on editing
couldn't hurt.  And perhaps streaming just isn't possible or even wanted.

Just my two small monetary units of thought on the subject.  I might be
willing to take a stab at a session or two...

Judy

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Stephen Barncard wrote:

> The camera was mostly static (boring), the lighting on the subject
> (what lighting?) was horrible and no provision was made to switch
> between the direct feed to the projector and the camera. No room
> camera to go to either. Pretty hard to watch. Finally the microphone
> on the camera was used for the audio, rendering much of what was said
> to an echo-y mush. Sorry, Dan, that's not the way it's done. Nobody
> will watch (or listen) to that. The production values have to be at
> least C-span quality.
>
> For anyone to actually sit through this, the production values have
> to be at least good enough to see someone's face in a postage stamp
> sized video. And one must still light the subject properly-even if
> it's headed to the low-rez web, as it will result in smaller streams
> sent due to the compression working less hard.
>
> If it's done well, and professionally, it could be an asset to the
> Rev community. One guy with two cameras and a switcher could do it.
>
> It could be paid for with a small paypal fee from those who want to
> watch. Surely there is some firm that would do this on spec.
>
> ps.
>
> I'll be happy to be able to just find a place to plug in my laptop
> this year.And if you need help with audio (or video) deployment, let
> me know....