A BloodhoundBlog.TV broadcast of the praxis used to create BloodhoundBlog.TV broadcasts. Let’s get clicking, shall we?
Technorati Tags: blogging, disintermediation, real estate, real estate marketing, technology
There’s always something to howl about.
A BloodhoundBlog.TV broadcast of the praxis used to create BloodhoundBlog.TV broadcasts. Let’s get clicking, shall we?
Technorati Tags: blogging, disintermediation, real estate, real estate marketing, technology
Allen Butler says:
I must say: I think this bug is crawling about on my flesh and is about to sink its teeth in. I’m in my research stage, and am going to begin diving in this week. I will come up with a way to make this fast, easy, and a quality product, both visually, and auditorily. Is that the correct word? Anyway, I think that the key here is post-production. Frankly, none of us has the budget for the equipment it would take to make this as good as TV news (quality wise). However, with a little planning and post production magic, it can be made to work. And work well. I will find the answer soon. Here is a mock-up of what I envision it may end up looking like.
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t72/therealtybutler/TestTV.jpg
Allen
December 2, 2007 — 10:26 pm
Greg Swann says:
I can already show three or four or five small heads at once. What I want is to snap from camera to camera, full-frame.
In the same respect, the ideal is to minimize post-production, since the finished product should be fast in time and cheap in labor to produce — just like a weblog. Ideally, it should be possible to broadcast the edited version of the program live, linking to an mp4 version for later streaming rebroadcast.
Think of what I’m doing as the reinvention of three-camera television for the internet, with the cameras being anywhere on earth.
As with a remote audio podcast, the guests should be able to show up, speak their piece and go on with their lives with virtually 100% time-efficiency.
But the production end should be very efficient also. The greater the post-production effort, in labor or even just in rendering time, the less worthwhile it is to do something like this. As with weblogging, this isn’t a full-time job, it’s a sideline and, at best, a support function.
I’m not arguing against higher video quality, but I am arguing for higher video and audio and directorial quality that doesn’t make the end product less time- or cost-efficient. Does that make sense?
December 2, 2007 — 11:31 pm
Allen Butler says:
It absolutely does make sense. It is humbling in its magnitude! Back to the drawing board.
Allen
December 3, 2007 — 8:17 am