DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Show Your Work (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/show-your-work/)
-   -   Video tour for New website (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/show-your-work/104791-video-tour-new-website.html)

Travis Binkle October 2nd, 2007 01:19 AM

Video tour for New website
 
I did this project on a small budget & quick deadline and I'm looking for some feedback. I didn't write the script and I feel it is sorta long for a video that will play on a website, but the client always gets what they want, right?

I'd also be interested what you think one could charge for project like this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TjU8pDd6KM

Travis Binkle October 2nd, 2007 10:27 AM

4 Attachment(s)
Here are a few stills from the video. I know youtube isn't the best way to share, but I'm currently in the process of building a new website.

Mike Horrigan October 2nd, 2007 11:03 AM

I have no idea what you would charge but it looked VERY professional to me. The transitions that you used seemed to work flawlessly.

Nice work!

Mike

Travis Binkle October 2nd, 2007 11:16 AM

Thanks Mike, I think the keying looks a little soft on youtube, but it's razor sharp on my monitors and the DVDs I've made. By transitions do you mean when she slides in and out of the screen? or when the website flows over her?

Mike Horrigan October 2nd, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Binkle (Post 753142)
By transitions do you mean when she slides in and out of the screen? or when the website flows over her?

Both actually.

Cheers,

Mike

Dale Stoltzfus October 2nd, 2007 02:10 PM

Very nice! Clean and professional. I am assuming you used one or another form of HD? Just curious because the keying looks great.

Josh Chesarek October 2nd, 2007 02:25 PM

Very well done. I imagine it looks even better when it it is not on Youtube. For an intro video do you mean one that plays as soon as you hit the site or one hidden behind the About link? If its front and center I agree it is a little long and that a shorter one would be better up front with a link to the longer more explained video. Either way, the video was well done IMO. The keying looks good and the transitions of when you bring the site into frame flow smoothly. Good Job.

Dana Salsbury October 2nd, 2007 04:00 PM

I like your style!

What NLE are you using, and what did you use to capture the computer shots? Do you do scholarship videos?

Travis Binkle October 3rd, 2007 01:00 AM

Thanks all, for the kind comments. Still looking for what you all would charge. Doesn't have to be an end all set in stone thing, I would just like to know if I'm in the ballpark. Give me ranges.

Dale: I choose to shoot in DV for this as it is only intended for web.

Josh: The video I believe, will be on the front/home page, but users would have to click it to start it.

Dana: I primarily use FCP on my desktop and Vegas on my laptop. This particular project was edited entirely in Vegas with animated screen captures using vegas' pan and crop features. I haven't done any scholarship videos per say, but I have done high school sports videos for the collective team, which I know some have used as such. I would gladly do a video focused on one player if they wanted.

Eric Shepherd October 3rd, 2007 07:16 AM

Travis, this is very well done. I have no idea what to charge for it, but it's really nice looking.

Where did you find the spokesmodel? She does a really nice job with it, is she a professional?

One criticism I have to an otherwise flawless video. At 00:41, there's an awkward moment during the transition where she bites her lip and is just sitting there. If you could trim off a second or 2 there, it would be perfect. It looks a bit amateur with the pause there.

I really like how she goes from fullscreen to a player window within the web page, as opposed to a picture in picture, covering things up in the process.

What codec did you use for the YouTube upload? I agree, the keyed edges look soft (but not bad), but somehow everything else looks sharp, strange how that happened.

What does the UR stand for? Or is it a cool way of saying 'your'?

Eric

Bert Smyth October 3rd, 2007 11:34 AM

Really good work. How much to charge? Well, that's tough because you've got talent to account for as well. It really depends on how long it took you to shoot, edit, and what you used for the shoot. How many hours of did you put into it? Was it all your own gear or did you go to a green screen facility?

Travis Binkle October 3rd, 2007 11:36 AM

Thanks Eric, here are the answers to your questions:
1.Spokesmodel was a pro. She had the whole thing committed to memory and could incorporate any changes on the fly with no trouble.
2.The biting of the lip will be edited out, along with a few other changes once the site has a few needed design changes. (good eye)
3.Simply encoded to wmv for upload to youtube. It is odd how it handles the edge of keys. I've since noticed this on others work as well. I'll be experimenting with other codecs in the future to see which works better than wmv9. While it created a relatively small file, somethings take a hit because of it.
4. UR is indeed the clients 'web 2.0' way of saying 'your'.

Eric Shepherd October 3rd, 2007 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Binkle (Post 753705)
Thanks Eric, here are the answers to your questions:
1.Spokesmodel was a pro. She had the whole thing committed to memory and could incorporate any changes on the fly with no trouble.
2.The biting of the lip will be edited out, along with a few other changes once the site has a few needed design changes. (good eye)
3.Simply encoded to wmv for upload to youtube. It is odd how it handles the edge of keys. I've since noticed this on others work as well. I'll be experimenting with other codecs in the future to see which works better than wmv9. While it created a relatively small file, somethings take a hit because of it.
4. UR is indeed the clients 'web 2.0' way of saying 'your'.

She did a really good job. It'll be nice to see the finished version.

Yeah I'm not sure how YouTube works with these things either. Sometimes things that look great going in come out poorly, and things that look pretty good going in come out exactly the same way, like a 1:1 conversion. They're using H.264 there now, so you may want to try that route. They also accept AVI files now too, so you may want to try AVI H.264, if you don't exceed their file size and all.

This whole 'web 2.0' thing is getting so tiring. Anytime a new buzzword comes out, it's over and done with immediately, but it seems to take the world about 5-10 years to catch on. I saw a post the other day on a job forum that said "we want to design a classic web 2.0 networking site".. So now it's become "classic"? :)

Your client may want to rethink the slang/unprofessional-ness of UR (is this a text mesage?), but otherwise it's a great piece of work there. :)

Out of curiosity, what did the spokesmodel get for her efforts and how long did it take?

Travis Binkle October 3rd, 2007 12:07 PM

...Classic web 2.0 is a funny one.

I'll give H.264 a shot next time. Didn't realize they were taking that now.

The name stays. It's the name they registered and are happy with. I tried to show them some other options but the client always gets what they want whether it's right or not.

On a side note I tried to convince them not to charge users for this 'sports/myspace' experience. While they want a very web 2.0 name, they are not very web 2.0 in function. It's my understanding that you offer the registration and use for free to your users to get as many as you can with the idea of making money on the advertising / potential sale of your site should it take off.

Eric Shepherd October 3rd, 2007 12:25 PM

Well I guess the whole idea with the Internet from the beginning (well, the beginning when the general public was allowed on in the early 90's, not in 1969) was to allow people to access stuff for free. It's not really a 'new' idea. The banner advertising idea came about (I used to work with one of the guys who invented the whole banner advertising idea, from Lycos) so that people wouldn't have to pay to access sites.

I don't think people like paying for stuff. Sponsors like paying if they're getting business from it. So I agree with you, charging for membership is going to keep their community small, which is a problem when trying to get advertising. If you tell a sponsor "we have 5,000 paying members, give us your money" compared to another site saying "we have 100,000 members", which one has the better chance of getting the sponsor? If there's a click-through rate of 1% or less on banners usually, you need as many viewers of that banner to make the 1% amount to something.

I guess the name isn't as confusing as 'MySpace'. I'm so tired of hearing "go check out my myspace".. people don't have myspaces, they have profiles.. ah well.. :) Perhaps you have a better name there than Quokka.. I still remember their radio ads where they spelled out q-u-o-k-k-a in a jingle.. poor singers. :D


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network