Learning videos - anyone can do them, but that doesn't make them easy

Last week I explained why video trumps e-learning, at least in certain situations. A lot has been said about why video has become so much more accessible in recent years:

• Video cameras have dropped in price like a stone. In fact, you don't really need a specialist video camera, when you can record in HD on a mobile phone, a compact camera or a DSLR. Some of these cameras work really well in low light, removing or at least reducing the need for professional lighting.
• Post-production of video, if you're bothered with that at all, can be carried out on a tablet or with free or low-cost computer software.

I remember clearly 30 years ago when I joined a specialist corporate video production company. At that time, a shoot always required a director and a three-person crew (camera, sound and lights). Post-production took place in two phases: a preliminary edit was carried out on 3/4" tape machines, with a final edit on 2" tape at a London facilities house. If you wanted graphics and effects that also meant a trip to London and a hefty bill.

So have we really got to the point at which just about anyone can produce a watchable learning video for next to nothing? Unfortunately, not really. Yes, the barriers to entry have been considerably removed, at least in terms of cost. But, as we've found over the years with desktop publishing and e-learning authoring tools, having the right hardware and software is only the start; there is still a lot to learn.

I'd say there were three main areas in which people underestimate the need for care and attention with a learning video:

1. Sound: The microphones built-in to cameras are omni-directional (they record sound coming from every direction) and very poor quality. Most learning videos involve speech and you simply cannot record speech to a satisfactory quality with a built-in mic. If your camera does not allow you to hook up an external microphone, ideally a shotgun (directional) mic or a lavalier (lapel) mic, then your viewers will have to put up with awful sound. That may just be acceptable for a home video shared on YouTube, but not in the workplace.
2. Light: As I've said, modern cameras do a remarkable job in low light, but that doesn't mean you'll get a great-looking picture. Obviously the main point of lighting is to make your subject visible, but it has an important secondary function, which is to make the subject stand out against the background. That takes care, either with available light, or with some simple specialist lighting. There are LED lights now which can be hand-held, stand or camera-mounted. You might find these a good investment, alongside a quick induction into three-point photographic/videographic lighting.
3. Flow: There's a grammar to video which just about everyone in the world who watches TV is familiar with, even if they can't articulate it. People may not know why something looks right, but they certainly notice when it looks wrong. Applying this grammar to your own videos is not intuitive, it has to be learned. A good starting point is to take a much more critical look at the programmes you watch on TV to see what shots have been used and in what sequence.  

Don't get me wrong - I am certainly not trying to discourage anyone from having a go at making their own learning videos. Far from it. I just feel it's important to emphasise that there is a learning curve, albeit much less steep than on my first encounter.

Share this

Classic