the limits (and promise) of livecasting

I'm home, working on a spec wiki template and watching the Web 2.0 Expo on "TV"--Podtech's remarkable live stream courtesy of UStream.tv And before I get too fussy about content and production values, let me express my admiration for the technology. It's absolutely ready for prime time. The audio is crisp (when the mic is pointed the right way), the images don't stutter. It even works over WiFi. Too bad the connection at NAB's apparently been down.

It reminds me of the first time QuickTime really worked in a browser, or the first audio streaming over the internet: a medium that made sense conceptually but hadn't been available until now. There's no question we're going to see a lot more live video. Justin won't be the last.

Now for the problems:

The fundamental issue is that most of the time, what's happening now isn't all that compelling. In a war zone, during a violent crime, sure. At a conference, not so much. I'd rather watch Cheddarvision. Or read a novel.

Great videos, whether fiction or real world, are edited. Reality TV is cast and edited. ZeFrank is not just broadcasting live and off the cuff.

Then there's the matter of talent. A bunch of web developers sitting on uncomfortable chairs is not the ideal cast for most audiences. They wear jeans and boring shirts and practical shoes. Watch them type. Watch them slouch.

Like you and me, they aren't actors. And most viewers won't recognize them. Who is that man at the podium? Who's the woman to his right? No idea. Maybe you can match them to the tiny photos on their blogs.

They may be articulate, but as anyone who's edited a documentary can tell you, talking heads are boring. It's all about the cutaways. The good news is videobloggers are finally pointing the camera away from themselves.

Just for kicks, I tried watching with audio off. This was fun. I got to focus on doors opening and closing as people left the session in the background. Jeremiah's camera has a lot of depth of field--maybe too much.

I also tried switching browser tabs and listening without watching. This was better for paying attention. I had no idea who was speaking, but most of the time, I couldn't tell that anyway because there were no labels, no overlays.

I wonder what will happen to four solid days of footage after the fact. There's far too much of it to edit into anything meaningful except a montage of quotable quotes. And perhaps more seriously, the video is the documentation--no one's taking notes or inserting markers that I can tell. The way you edit video or audio is by logging the highlights, so you can find them again.

And yet, I couldn't help thinking...what if. Not everyone's as much of a perfectionist as I am. And thank goodness.

It's perfect for videoconferencing, or broadcasting an academic lecture, something without a lot of action-adventure shots. Maybe in the right context, one webcam (with a tripod, or balanced on a laptop or a steady ear) with a good mic can be enough.

The biggest limitation today aside from missing identifiers is the lack of interactivity. For all the claims of social media, the only attention paid was to occasionally (very occasionally) wonder if there were questions from the chat stream. "Maria wants to know if the guy in the front row is single." And then go right back to whatever anyone physically present was talking about.

It's like before we got used to having meetings with people on speakerphones, and stopped to pause now and then, so they could get a word in edgewise.

Chat's probably not the way this will work in the future. The performance is also notably better on the Web 2.0 Expo site than on Ustream's page with the Java chat window.

As I'm typing this, I'm hearing Robert or Jeremiah remark that there are more people watching online than in many of the sessions.

All this has whet my appetite for real conversation. Tomorrow I'm going to hop on BART and actually go to the expo. No telling if it will be better in person, or in browser. It is exciting to have the option.