I dunno. Hard to tell. But I think you get my point.

I’m pleased to announce that an hour of my work from LO-FI SAINT LOUIS will be screened at the St. Louis Filmmakers showcase on July 21st, at 7PM. I believe that it’s free but I need to get confirmation on that., It’s not free, regular admission to the film programs apply, see the web site for ticket info. But all the info including the location and address of the screening are below. I’m really looking forward to this. Thanks to Erik Nelson who curated this program.

From the Cinema St. Louis Web site:

A special program featuring a curated sampler of video blogger Bill Streeter’s work, “This Is Lo-Fi Saint Louis,” concludes the Centene programs from 7-9 p.m. Streeter will also discuss his work and Web distribution of video contentA special program featuring a curated sampler of video blogger Bill Streeter’s work, “This Is Lo-Fi Saint Louis,” concludes the Centene programs from 7-9 p.m. Streeter will also discuss his work and Web distribution of video content. Regular film-program admission for “Lo-Fi” show.

My friend Schlomo asked on Twitter one day, “Why is the Calacaniscast in video.” That’s a question I’ve been asking for a while. I guess the only really good answer to it is because he can. The same can be said for a lot of Scobles videos as well. A good question that anyone that is thinking about doing video on the web is what information do I have to convey that is most efficiently conveyed in video? Or, more simply, why am I doing video and not audio, or for that matter, text? Here is a hint to the correct answer: it’s not “because I can.”

Video is multi channel communication. You convey visual information, and you convey audio information. The creative juxtaposition of the two can be magical if done correctly. If you watch something like the Calacaniscast, or the Scoble Show you immediately pick up on a couple of glaring problems. One is that there is usually very little going on visually (with the exception of Scobles software demos, which is actually a very good use of video). The other problem they are really long—far too long for video on the net. Here is a key difference between audio and video. Audio is a medium that does not require 100% the listeners attention. A listener can do other things while listening to audio—drive, cook, whatever. Video on the other hand, assumes that what you are doing is compelling enough for people to divert their attention away from everything else in their life to pay attention to that thing. Whether the creator realizes that that is what they’re asking of the audience is another matter entirely. The primary assumption of the audience is that “you want all my attention for the duration of this video.” So if you put up an hour long video of you sitting there behind a desk talking to the camera, it’s pretty disrespectful of your audience, in my opinion. 90% of the audience isn’t going to sit there and look at you or anyone else sit and talk. And I bet that the primary demographic of both the Scoble show and calacaniscast has no time at all to sit for an hour and watch them talk about anything—when just listening can be enough. Audio is the multitaskers format. Video demands all your attention.

So basically what we are talking about here is bandwidth—not just Internet bandwidth (and it’s a well known fact that video consumes internet bandwidth at a much higher rate than audio) but attention bandwidth. Don’t waste your users bandwidth, attention or otherwise.

It seems that Scoble has discovered that video can be editied now. That’s a good trend. I think he’s learning. And Calacanis is at least putting forth a slight effort to use some graphics that sort of make the video in his program more useful—but it’s still not fully using video. But then again, neither of these guys have any real background producing video. They’re text guys who don’t fully understand visual communication yet. No disrespect intended here, just an observation—they’re newbies. I wouldn’t try to challenge them in their respective areas of expertise. I’ll never be the business guy that Calacanis is and Scobel is the PR savant. But it’s clear that they don’t understand how to effectively or efficiently use video yet.

So what I would like to see them do is both audio and video. Audio for long form talks and interviews and video only when it’s necessary—when they NEED to show us something. And then keep the video well edited and short. Because I guarantee you very very few people are watching 45 minutes or more of anyone sitting around talking.

Disclosure: all of our shows, Calacanis, Scoble’s and mine, are carried by Podtech.net.

One thing I wanted to come back to was the Filmmaker/video blogger issue I mentioned last week. Interestingly this subject came up on the Videobloggers list not long after I mentioned it here. One of the most insightful observations came from Adrian Miles who wrote:

film makers fetishise film (or video) and so are much like authors in
1995 when the web first came to attention (to them). So a film maker
wants to

a) maintain control over the viewer (my work is 22 minutes and you
really should see the whole 22 minutes – what do you mean they might
go somewhere else? what do you mean they might actually be able to
rearrange *my* vision??)

b) like the author regards publication (a book) as the top of their
tree, film professwional sees TV broadcast, cinema or festival
screening as same.

c) like authors, real writing happens on white pages, serially
ordered, between covers. You are special to get there. Real film
makers produce real programs/shorts/features that are serially
ordered between credits. You are special to have your work
made/selected. On the net anyone can do it, therefore the lowest
common denominator rules, and I am not part of that (I’m a film maker
after all).

d) I own your screen. I own all of it. On the net you own your
screen. I couldn’t possibly show my film at 320 x 240, or heck, even
640 x 480.

e) the quality is too bad (this is result of bad compression but was
an issue once upon a time).

f) it might get stolen (of course if you don’t put it online and you
are lucky enough to get into a festival, your work might be screened
once at the wrap party, once at your own premiere, and once at the
festival…)

There are other reasons but I find the easiest way to explain it to
others (which I’ve done a few times in papers and conference
presentations) is that if you think about how authors responded to
the web in 1995 (you mean everyone can read my work? cool? hold on,
links, you mean they can go elsewhere? and you mean my beautiful
perfect structure should be granular with links inside, no way) is
much the same problem confronting trad. professional video and film
people right now.

Paul Schankman of Fox 2 St. Louis did a piece about me and vlogging on the 9 o’clock news tonight. I was worried it would suck, but it was pretty good. Check it out here.