Close enough for Current

Close enough for Current

: Current.TV blogger Robin Sloan reacts to my post on tolerance for lower-quality video opening up new content possibilities:

You know, I remember asking Current broadcast facility manager Brett Kotheimer what video quality we’d consider a minimum threshold for VC2. His answer surprised me: I expected him to say, “Oh, standard DV with good lighting” or something. Instead he said (and I paraphrase): “Hey, as long as there’s a recognizable image, it’s potentially useful.”

Brett is serious about running a facility that uses professional expertise to make sure Current’s signal is rock-solid and broadcast-quality — and puts it to work in service of all kinds and qualities of video, from the sharpest in-house field reports to the roughest (but, perhaps, most compelling) VC2 submissions.

Again: Bring on the webcams, baby.

It’s the content that counts.

1 response to “Close enough for Current”

  1. John Dowdell Avatar

    I think that’s an important point — just because we use the single word “video” doesn’t mean that all experiences of that word are equivalent.
    You pointed out how the experience could differ from investments made during production — a dedicated camera person, a skilled lighting or audio professional, etc.
    There’s another angle on the reproduction of completed content too — a Hollywood studio could easily distribute a 320×240 15fps video of each new release, complete with watermark, and dry up much of the incentive for pirate copies while still maintaining a price point for the full-resolution, surround-sound premium version.
    It’s not all the same, and that’s good.