Video “Standard” Needs a Bit More Thought

Posted by John Saddington on Jan 5, 2009

6-tapevhs Collide Magazine recently posted something about “Video Standards” that zoomed into my GooReader and intrigued me enough to read a little further.

Scott’s words were choice.

Gary Molander from Flood Gate Productions? Perhaps not so much.

Gary proceeds to outline why church’s and ministries need a video “standard” from a theological perspective, suggesting that we need to be discerning when we pick and choose the videos that we use and make sure they are theologically correct.

I’m down with that, period. Even though I apparently differ a lot about his use of scripture, I won’t nitpick… except with this:

Content is not king. Beauty is. Content never changed anyone’s life. Beauty, however, changes our lives every day. If given a video option that nails the topic, but is poorly done, I implore pastors and church leaders to not use that video.

Seriously? “Content never changed anyone’s life?”

Aren’t the words that we read in the bible considered “content?” Last time I checked, people we’re being saved because of the content of the scriptures that they read, not because the beauty of the prose and form of the psalms and gospels were anything pretty to look at (although some would say they are… and I think they are…!).

Words change lives. Nothing says “Jesus saves” like… well… the words “Jesus saves”.

But I do agree, again, that discernment is necessary and that a ministry shouldn’t buy just anything without doing some good old fashioned thinking.

I’d also submit that Gary is talking about video inside the local church worship experience. He knows far more about that than I do. And it’s a good conversation to have.

For those that are in the “online” space, we should also have the same question: Should there be a “standard” for video on the web? Gary may speak of subjective angles of beauty, but let’s talk some cold, hard objective numbers like bitrates, files sizes, streaming requirements, encoding, delay, platform technology, embedding practices, etc…

I’ll hold my comments since I’ve already given a lot here… What say you?

Related Posts
About the Author

John Saddington

John is the Chief Editor @ The 8BIT Network and Senior Blog Junkie here at ChurchCrunch.He enjoys Triple-Tall Americanos, developing Wordpress Themes, and a few other Random Things.

Follow John on Twitter

20 Responses to “Video “Standard” Needs a Bit More Thought”

tonysteward
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think I understand where Gary is coming from but I don't agree. There are plenty of stories told that aren't "beautiful", or churches that are just starting in video that don't need to be worrying about a standard like that. Of course a lot of them are going to have bad video, but so did everyone else when they started. It is okay for people to learn through the same curve the rest of us did.
Reply
- SCBubba
  Monday, January 5, 2009 at 11:52 am
  I agree. I think "excellence" should be our standard, not "perfection". I say "excellence" meaning doing the best you can with what you have and striving to always do better. We each have our stories and ofen a unique way of telling them. God can use what we have if we use it the way he calls us to.
  We can't sacrifice content for anything where Christ is concerned!
  Peace.
  Reply
JonnyGriffiths
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 11:52 am
I'm just starting in on the video line, and I'm going to have a steep learning curve. One thing I do know, the content is essential, and the form should be as good as I can make it (which is the reason I took down the first video and am waiting to replace it with something more competent when I get a team to help me!). For the tech end of things, I can only speak of the embedding/platform end. Personally, for the work I want to do, it's going to be vimeo.com all the way. The embedded player is pretty sweet, and the ability to use high def is even sweeter. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see if I can glean some bitrate/file size tips!
Reply
Adam_S
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 1:40 am
Another issue is audience. If content is king, then the real way to insure that the content is going to hit home is to know your audience and use appropriate content for that audience. That takes time and understanding. So your standard for your area won't necesarily work for my area. There may be some general principals that hold true but if you take it to specific video, then you have lost.
Reply
CoffeeWithChris
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 2:12 am
I'd say that the two, beauty and content need to go hand in hand. I am not talking specifically about aesthetic beauty here, I am talking about the beauty of the Gospel. There needs to be something deeper than great lighting, camera angles, just the right audio… Why standardize things? Like Tony said, every church is at a different starting level and I'll add that every church is in a different community with a different economic status. Could it be that a church could shoot an unedited video on an old school VHS that in the end is much more beautiful than a professionally produced piece?
Reply
ScottMcClellan
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 2:35 am
What if the underlying question in this conversation is "What changes people (for the better)?" Is it truth (content)? Is it art (beauty)? Is it artful truth, which somehow communicates the sublime beauty of a loving God to broken Man?
Honestly, I don't know. But I have my suspicions. Generally speaking, screenplays don't move me, but films do. If Beauty is king, then perhaps Content is his queen (or vice versa). God looked at Adam and said, "It is not good for the man to be alone." Maybe we as church leaders should say the same about both content and beauty.
Oh, and Vimeo rocks.
Reply
mknisely
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 2:36 am
Gary is wrong. People react to aesthetics, well polished and beautiful, it's become human nature. Communicate in aesthetics.
Coming from a 14 year Media Professional audiences today are so sophisticated and aren't willing to put up with boring production or low quality. They want to be entertained. I can tell you that quality must win over quantity, or you will lose your audience. People don’t believe me when I say this, but think about how quickly we handle a TV remote. And how little chance you give each program to grab your attention.
What is more important than either quality or quantity in video production, print, web design, or web apps are these two questions: are we producing content that people actually want to watch, read, or interact with and what is your demographic? The reasoning is knowing your demo will help you target market your audience and key on key emotions, etc.
I firmly believe It is impossible for a media to live in the church, unless it first lives in the heart and mind of the leadership. Yes, there are numerous churches and organizations doing this correctly, but for the rest of the churches out there, media is a cultural and organizational change for a church or ministry, and in many cases it is an afterthought—but the idea must begin somewhere. It usually starts in the heart of a leader, then to his leaders, before it is moved to the body.
The average church stops after the idea of media enters their heart. They think media is one guy with a Mac, a camera, Final Cut Studio, and a Photoshop license. Ten-thousand dollars later they call it quits with hopes this guy will make magic. Many change for change’s sake, only creating more problems.
So when it comes to standards within the Kingdom, I think there should be an overall understanding of basic concepts etc and believe there should be a baseline standard. If you look at Television News, Documentary, and Film there are numerous different techniques when it comes to visual storytelling, but they all have been built on core fundamental standard when it comes to capture and editing: WIDE, MEDIUM, TIGHT, and Moments. These principals can be traced back to the first video sequence, but the style is dictated by the photographer, editor, or producer and in most cases like Tony Steward mentioned every church with a different make up would be at a different place, but using visual storytelling principals very much like your small market TV station with out all the top of the line equipment.
Checkout some of the things Im talking about on my personal site: http://www.mattknisely.com
Reply
Gary Molander
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Thank God that you’re all thinking through this critical issue in the life of Chist’s Church. This is really good stuff.
Please remember… I’m writing about watching a VIDEO in a WORSHIP SERVICE. Please make that the context for tour critique of my thoughts.
And as far as the beauty vs content discussion, please close your eyes during the next church video you see in your church. I’d be interested to hear if your life is changed as a result.
I honestly believe that content serves as a change-agent only if it’s communicated in a way that’s beautiful.
Reply
Gary Molander
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 3:31 am
Thank God for conversations like this one. This is a huge and crucial issue in the life of any church. Good stuff.
I think it's important to to remember something. In the Collide article, I wrote about a VIDEO in a church WORSHIP SERVICE. As a believer (and a brother), I would appreciate it if you made that the context of your discussion here.
And as far as the beauty vs. content discussion, do me a favor. The next time you're in a church worship service, and a video comes on the screen, close your eyes. Don't watch it, but simply listen. For those of you who believe that content is king, your life will be changed, eyes closed and all.
I honestly believe that content serves as a change agent ONLY if it's communicated in a way that's beautiful. Content alone does not have the power to change lives.
Reply
- human3rror
  Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 3:42 am
  Hey Gary, appreciate you chiming in! If you had finished reading the post completely, you would have seen that I did in fact acknowledge the context from which you were referring to…
  Thanks for starting it up.
  Sent from my iPhone
  Reply
- inworship
  Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 4:52 am
  Gary, you seem upset? I'm confused. you wrote and opinion piece that others have an opinion too. That's all.
  I am a bit more confused though.
  You said,"The next time you're in a church worship service, and a video comes on the screen, close your eyes. Don't watch it, but simply listen. For those of you who believe that content is king, your life will be changed, eyes closed and all."
  Then you said, "I honestly believe that content serves as a change agent ONLY if it's communicated in a way that's beautiful. Content alone does not have the power to change lives."
  That confuses me. Telling us to close our eyes, implies that we "see" beauty. And if we believe content is King then we will be changed by the video whether we see it or not. Then you say we can't be changed by what we haven't seen?
  Maybe you could clarify a bit more.
  Reply
CoffeeWithChris
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 4:56 am
I'd simply argue that it's only God, the Holy Spirit, that changes lives. How would you begin to explain the lives that have been changed by simply opening up the Bible and reading?
Reply
- Leo Wurschmidt
  Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:05 am
  I completely agree with you Chris. Acting by ourselves, we are powerless to change lives. It is through God that we are enabled to do so… and even then it the Holy Spirit that changes their life as we interact with that person.
  Nicely said.
  Reply
- Leo Wurschmidt
  Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:05 am
  I completely agree with you Chris. Acting by ourselves, we are powerless to change lives. It is through God that we are enabled to do so… and even then it is the Holy Spirit that changes their life as we interact with that person.
  Nicely said.
  Reply
brent(inWorship)
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm
"Content is not king. Beauty is. Content never changed anyone’s life. Beauty, however, changes our lives every day. If given a video option that nails the topic, but is poorly done, I implore pastors and church leaders to not use that video."
I am reading 2 perspectives here and like the others, I disagree with Gary's statement at face value. Content is king! Without content there is nothing…period.
But, maybe his thoughts were not spoken well. I would agree with him if he is cautioning against using "anything" to get a point across. If I have something that needs to be communicated, but it is smothered with noise, content has gone no where. But if it is communicated clearly, content is heard and understood and acted on.
So, maybe Gary is trying to tell us not to use product that is too noisy for content to be heard. I'd agree with that. In that case, what's the point of using the product at all.
Reply
brent(inWorship)
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 12:26 pm
One extra add. What is beauty to one, may not be to another. It is more than editing, style, genre. it is about clarity.
Reply