 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] fester com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.
Unless you are the creator of the video (are you?) and are interested in
how you could improve it, I honestly can't understand why you are asking
that. The topic is much more interesting than the technical details on how
the video is made and its presentation, and could spawn some interesting
discussion (not about whether the germ theory is correct or not, but about
the phenomenon of denialism, which is an interesting psychological phenomenon
in the modern world).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/12/2010 1:52 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.
Made by: Powerpoint, (death by).
Audience: Fruit loops and the simple minded.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.12.2010 02:52, schrieb Neeum Zawan:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.
Too much on-screen text, cartoons etc. that don't directly relate to the
spoken text, and therefore rather distract from it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
Needs more professional voice-over, as well as more practice, to be a
professional-level video. It *is* unclear who the audience is, or what the
point is besides "how to identify a germ theory denier", which could have
been covered in 1/5th the time.
I'm guessing you want to make similar videos and you're looking to improve
your technique?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Needs more professional voice-over,
I thought that the voice was fine.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Needs more professional voice-over,
>
> I thought that the voice was fine.
Well, the recording itself could be better. Less gasping breathing, don't
overload the microphone, etc. It wasn't the voice so much as the fact that
he bobbled a few sentences that if it were a professional video would have
been re-recorded. The voice wasn't unpleasant. The performance was
excellent for a youtube video, but wouldn't stand for (say) a television
documentary.
Bobbled at 3m04s, bad breath break at 3m24s, bobbled at 3m37s, etc.
Something that you'd certainly never worry about if you were listening to
someone live (or free). Basically, he's trying to read and perform at the
same time, not always reading far enough ahead to know where the "verbal
commas" go, which professionals get around by only recording a handful of
sentences at a time.
Since I don't know why Neeum is asking, I'm pointing out trivial stuff as
well as any of the bigger things I notice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/12/2010 5:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Needs more professional voice-over,
>>
>> I thought that the voice was fine.
>
> Well, the recording itself could be better. Less gasping breathing,
> don't overload the microphone, etc. It wasn't the voice so much as the
> fact that he bobbled a few sentences that if it were a professional
> video would have been re-recorded. The voice wasn't unpleasant. The
> performance was excellent for a youtube video, but wouldn't stand for
> (say) a television documentary.
>
> Bobbled at 3m04s, bad breath break at 3m24s, bobbled at 3m37s, etc.
> Something that you'd certainly never worry about if you were listening
> to someone live (or free). Basically, he's trying to read and perform at
> the same time, not always reading far enough ahead to know where the
> "verbal commas" go, which professionals get around by only recording a
> handful of sentences at a time.
>
> Since I don't know why Neeum is asking, I'm pointing out trivial stuff
> as well as any of the bigger things I notice.
>
I liked his tone and his accent.
I did not listen to the content.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
> Unless you are the creator of the video (are you?) and are interested in
Heck, no. I think it's a crappy video (and not in terms of technical
aspects).
> how you could improve it, I honestly can't understand why you are asking
> that. The topic is much more interesting than the technical details on how
I didn't want to bias the discussion, so I was hoping to get everyone's
thoughts. But it seems I didn't phrase it well enough.
Essentially a friend and I were arguing about the video. My contention
was that the video was patronizing, and for that and perhaps other
reasons, was preaching to the choir. I think if the goal was to target
germ denialists, or even people part way there, it would fail as
well. If I were a germ denialist, I would have stopped watching soon
into the video.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> was that the video was patronizing,
I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists are
its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense, and
they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you spot a
denialist" more than anything.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/16/2010 1:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> was that the video was patronizing,
>
> I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists
> are its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense,
> and they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you
> spot a denialist" more than anything.
>
Hmm. Didn't bother watching it, so initially posted something irrelevant
to the content, but there is a strong thread of, "We have tried every
other damn thing to get these people to pay attention to facts, so lets
make them angry and ridicule them, in the grand tradition of a long
stream of people that have done so, and gotten actual results." People
don't like to have other people make them feel bad. If you treat those
completely clueless about something, or ill informed, like their
position is worthy of discussion, it almost always *strengthens* their
position, even if the only reason you take it seriously is to eviscerate
their arguments. But, sometimes, every once in a while, the otherwise
impervious *do* check their facts, if told that their arguments are not
even worth respecting. And, while there is some small number of fence
sitters that take the whole concept of "defend the underdog" way too
seriously, who will jump to the denialists perspective, far more of them
are likely to go, "Those people do research, these other people just
whine about how they don't believe the research. I am not surprised the
side with facts is pissed off about it."
The other sort, who try to debate/talk it over, because we, in their odd
vision of the universe, we need "allies" among the people skeptical
about abject, well proven, facts, pretty much always end up on the
defense, never get their point across, and when they go to a debate,
almost *always* find that the debate ends up being 10 minutes of the
denialists rattling off 5,000 objections, 80% of which have jack to do
with the subject being debated, and being given the *same* 10 minutes to
address all of them, including the irrelevant ones, or, according to the
denialist, his/her supporters, Faux News, and anyone else with a stake
in the false side of the debate, "They failed to address all of the
points brought up, so they lost the debate!"
Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo
with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice
about it!" ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
