video at the conference?

[Stephen Barncard]

I'd rather see reasonable lighting and a microphone at least on the 
podium before worrying about obfuscating bad video with clever 
editing. A full time camera operator that is not a participant is 
essential.

Amateurs usually don't bother with production values such as these, 
but it's silly as these things are easily done. This raises the value 
of the presentation to something that could endure, rather than be a 
throw-away one shot.

It's one thing to say 'throw up a camera' and another to sit and 
watch a stationary camera shot on a computer for an hour.

Also editing takes hour$. It's better to get well-recorded 
C-Span-like live coverage with a little switching, then you're done.

There is a lot of semi pro video around - surely there's someone 
competitive in the area to do this.

sqb

>Again,
>
>Does it need to be streaming/live?  Or could it survive/have a paying
>audience if it were to be audited?
>
>I'm reasonably certain a decent job could be done with editing, etc.  As
>long as the audio's clear, you can always edit out bad video and
>substitute screen shots, bullet points, etc.
>
>I'm certain Mark can do a fine job!
>
>Judy

-- 
stephen barncard
s a n  f r a n c i s c o
- - -  - - - - - - - - -