First YouTube video experience

[Trixter]

Should I persist with my vision of keeping it all in one video, or should I break it up into a small series? I'm thinking based on script length this is going to run probably over 30 minutes. There's a fair bit to cover.

The correct answer is: You should make it as long as the videos you enjoy watching. (If you like watching all-in-one, soup-to-nuts videos, make a 30-minute video. If you get antsy at the 10-minute mark of most videos, break it up as you see fit (maybe intro/history/explanation in one video, and building/operation/conclusion in another)).

The average view length for your last video was 7 minutes, but that doesn't mean every view was 7 minutes -- some watched for 30 seconds, and others watched the entire thing. Instead of looking at that metric, look at the Audience Retention graph on the Engagement tab, which is a graph of what the engagement was across time. If there was a sharp drop-off at a particular time index, go check that time index and see if something was obvious that you think might need improving.

Also, don't get too hung up over metrics The most important thing to concentrate on for your first few years (seriously) is making the videos you feel you'd enjoy watching.

 

[falter]

Thanks guys. When I first set out I didn't think the TVT had enough there to cover more than 10 minutes. However now i can see it may easily cross half an hour, especially with my rundown of building one included. Like I said I'm not in it for the $, but I don't want to bore people to death either.

 

[Dwight Elvey]

Thanks guys. When I first set out I didn't think the TVT had enough there to cover more than 10 minutes. However now i can see it may easily cross half an hour, especially with my rundown of building one included. Like I said I'm not in it for the $, but I don't want to bore people to death either.

Make the part boundaries to hook them on the line. Leave some suspense.
Dwight

 

[falter]

What I was thinking was maybe changing up the intro format so that it contains just one or two 2 or 3 second snippets of the 'action' further into the video. Like for example, I have some footage where I'm testing the TVT power supply... on the other side of my front door... in.. er.. protective gear. The narration would be deadpan "plus I'll take you through my experience building a TVT" with a 2 sec clip of that shown.

 

[Trixter]

Sounds like a good plan. The channel The Spectrum Show does something similar, teasing the video's content. Shades of old TV programming tricks.

 

[Chuck(G)]

That explains the YT vids with endless gabbing having little to do with the subject matter. I have little patience with those, particularly those with bad camera work.

I'd like to see a YT viewer that speeds through a video at perhaps 5x speed until stopped for real content.

 

[Trixter]

I rarely watch YT videos from start to finish at normal speed. Here are some hints:

• Most youtube players (web, android app, TV, possibly others) allow you to speed up playback to 1.25x, 1,5x, 1.75x, or 2x while maintaining audio pitch. This is great for skimming through fluff, and 2x is useful for people who talk very slowly in their videos.
• Most youtube players have jog controls: On the web, you can use J and L to skip forward and backward. In the android app, double-tap on the right side to skip forward (the amount in seconds is customizable in the settings) and double-tape on the left side to skip backward
• The web YT player has shortcuts to 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. time indexes by hitting "1", "2", "3", etc. on the keyboard. Great for jumping around great distances. "0" returns to the beginning.

For YT videos that always have a lot of preamble and repeated setup/history, I know to hit "3" right at the beginning of the video to skip to the 30% mark. This has been a practice of mine since about 2008, but I was delighted to find out it has a name: The Wadsworth Constant.

 

[vwestlife]

As for how much money the "semi-big" YouTubers make, Dave Jones of EEVBlog (700k subscribers) just posted:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/msg2903572/#msg2903572

I for one could not survive if it was just Youtube and Patreon income. US$42k last year in Adsense revenue and almost the same in Patreon income. That's pretty good money, about US$80k a year, but that's before expenses and my wife and two kids. I could earn more as a 9-5 engineer. … I only stay afloat at this because of the additional product sales and extra website advertising.

 

[falter]

As for how much money the "semi-big" YouTubers make, Dave Jones of EEVBlog (700k subscribers) just posted:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/yet-another-franlab-crisis/msg2903572/#msg2903572

Yeah I don't think the middle tier people are living large by any means. AFAIK LGR for example still lives in an 800sqft house, and I haven't heard him boasting of any new sports cars. And he has storage space rented and all that. $80k usd isn't bad considering what the gig is, but it is a lot of work to do it for real, and yeah, you could make more doing other things. Only guys making serious money are guys like Pewdiepie or Linus, but I'm pretty sure most of their revenue comes from other activities and products.

 

[falter]

So I was encouraged by a lot of positive comments I got about the OSI 300 video I did (admittedly a dry subject) and decided to make a minimal investment just to fix my chronic photo lighting problems. I didn't just do this for Youtube purposes -- it has always driven me nuts that I couldn't get good quality photos of my machines. That was probably the larger reason. So I bought one of those $100 kits with a bunch of softboxes, umbrella lights and a green screen. The kids and I had a blast with it on the weekend (they had our ferret visit Paris and eat ice cream). It's pretty fun. Honestly I don't even care about the Youtube stuff anymore, there's just a lot of creative opportunities with this gear that I would have loved to have been able to do as a kid and can actually do now.

Anyway I did a short test run, just to see what it'd look like. I'm very impressed by the improvement in lighting with the softboxes! Also really impressed with the quality the Samsung Note 10's little camera can pull off when you get the conditions right. I do need to iron the greenscreen out (it was shipped folded) and figure out more of the lighting, but yeah, this is really fun to play with (except when I unsuspectingly opened the round light reflector thing and discovered it was spring loaded to open up to 5 times its size.. right in my face). I'm a big fan of 'how it's done' videos, so hands on learning is up my alley. I'm going to have some fun with this and push the boundaries of what I can do a bit more.

 

[Trixter]

Glad this is fun for you -- that's what keeps the interest level up and makes good videos.

Lighting is the one thing that surprised me when I started. It fixes all sorts of problems (less noise in the shadows, for one). And when you think you have enough light, add some more anyway

 

[falter]

Yeah it's kinda fun learning all the 'how did they do that's. Right now I'm working on a split-screen thing where I twin myself and have interaction between the two Mes. There's all kind of interesting technical thinking that has to go into that, especially if you want more than just sitting side by side.

And that's very true on lighting. I've noticed how 8bitguy's lighting started off kind of dark (like most people) and then gradually increased in intensity. I think he uses softboxes now. I just noticed that there are softboxes that do multiple lightbulbs rather than just one like I have... I'm tempted to buy one just to see the difference. But so far it's pretty awesome having so much light when I had none before.

 

[falter]

Question:

When you see Youtubers just talking to the camera - are they likely reading from a script (like teleprompter, etc) or are they just really good at memorizing or speaking off the cuff? I recorded a few sequences of me directly but I found it *really* hard to remember lines and speak in a continuous paragraph. I'm wondering if what I perceive as the youtuber just talking easily to the camera is actually teleprompted via ipad or something.

 

[vwestlife]

It depends on the context. If they're talking about history, features, specifications, etc., then they're likely reading from a pre-written script, or at least cue cards with the important facts on them. But if they're giving their personal impression of something, talking about their experience with it, etc., then it's more likely to be off-the-cuff remarks. Memorizing all the lines is unlikely unless they have experience in acting/theatre.

 

[falter]

It depends on the context. If they're talking about history, features, specifications, etc., then they're likely reading from a pre-written script, or at least cue cards with the important facts on them. But if they're giving their personal impression of something, talking about their experience with it, etc., then it's more likely to be off-the-cuff remarks. Memorizing all the lines is unlikely unless they have experience in acting/theatre.

Yeah memorizing is hard. I found getting two lines out murder, and I know my subject pretty well by now.

I've actually seen 8bitguy's script on his counter in many videos (or what I assume is the script). I genuinely can't tell if he's going off a script or just talking when he is directed at the camera.. he does it so seamlessly.

LGR I think reads off a script for certain segments (you can sort of tell by the way his voice pitch changes). But when he's just sitting there with a computer I think he's going off the cuff, which is amazing.

I can go script less in certain specific situations but I have to pay close attention to 'de-uh' myself.

I'm thinking about getting a rig I saw on youtube that has a clear screen and you project your ipad from directly behind the camera but in a way the camera doesnt catch the words.

 

[Trixter]

Technology Connections just covered this: https://youtu.be/YeRu4xYH_W0
It's not for everybody though -- his videos are quite intentionally gigantic infodumps so there's no way he could do it off the cuff, being onscreen 50% or more of the total runtime in his videos.

I've never used a script for on-camera segments because I wanted to sound natural. However, it's nearly impossible for me to learn lines, and so the end result is a lot of edits covered up with b-roll. The result is seamless enough -- you couldn't tell it was a frankenspeech -- but I think I'm going to invest in a teleprompter soon because it takes me 90 minutes of mistakes to come up with 2-3 minutes of final footage. That could be cut down a lot if I didn't have to struggle to remember what I was trying to say.

If you have poor eyesight, don't use a telepormpter -- if it's large and close to you, the audience can see your eyes moving.

 

[Dwight Elvey]

Did you follow my advice and have a real person standing behind the camera to talk to? That makes a big difference. Still, some YTs they just cut and paste over things that get messed up. Watch JayzTwoCents some time. It is just part of the persona.
Dwight

 

[falter]

Thanks guys. I haven't invited any helpers on the cue card front - I don't consider this a serious enough enterprise to be bringing in help. That teleprompter thing is very tempting though... thanks for that link! Right now I've sort of devised a system where I take a paragraph, break it up into easily memorizable chunks, and then go through one line at a time, which will then be stitched together in 'post production'. It requires a bit of care to make sure the expression at the end of one sentence is consistent with the beginning of the next, as well as voice tone - but it seems to be okay.

One thing I'm really having a hard time with is the 4k video... my computer does *not* like processing or previewing it at all. Embarassingly, I haven't gotten around to upgrading my machine in quite a while... being an internet surfer it's just a first generation Core i7 and has done that role pretty admirably. But 4k.. yipes. It loses it.

Another question if you don't mind: my next video is a brief one about my Computerland BC88, and does some historical walkthrough of Computerland itself. My understanding is that they *are* defunct as their ultimate owner, Inacom, went bankrupt in 2000. I imagine some of the CL intellectual property might have made its way over to HP by way of Compaq, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I've gotten my hands on some internal franchisee videos that are really interesting in terms of what Computerland's leadership was saying to their franchisees as things went south in the mid 80s.. and I'm wondering if there are copyright risks involved in showing segments of that? There's a fair number of CL ads posted on youtube already, but nothing internal like this. I've also waded through the murk on Bill Millard's tax evasion romp in the 1990s/2000s.. I'm assuming I'm safe from him suing me (I think he's still alive?) if I rehash that from a neutral, 'here's the facts as presented by the parties and media involved at the time' stance?

 

[Trixter]

I haven't invited any helpers on the cue card front

I don't think that's what Dwight was saying; I think he was saying that it can be easier to relax and speak more naturally if there is a real person behind the camera that you're talking to, rather than just the cold hard stare of the lens in an empty room.

Right now I've sort of devised a system where I take a paragraph, break it up into easily memorizable chunks, and then go through one line at a time, which will then be stitched together in 'post production'. It requires a bit of care to make sure the expression at the end of one sentence is consistent with the beginning of the next, as well as voice tone - but it seems to be okay.

The video I'm releasing today does this too, and I hide all but one of the edits with B roll. Seems to work, but I'd like to talk longer and not forget lines, so I'll experiment with a teleprompter.

One thing I'm really having a hard time with is the 4k video... my computer does *not* like processing or previewing it at all. Embarassingly, I haven't gotten around to upgrading my machine in quite a while... being an internet surfer it's just a first generation Core i7 and has done that role pretty admirably. But 4k.. yipes. It loses it.

Modern editing programs like Premiere Pro and Davinci Resolve let you transcode the footage to lower-resolution proxies, which you then edit with. Only for the final export does it use the full 4k footage. You can edit 4k on a 10-year-old laptop this way (although the export will take several hours).

I'm wondering if there are copyright risks involved in showing segments of that

The Fair Use clause of US Copyright allows reproducing material for educational or commentary purposes. You're fine... unless you obtained the internal documents illegally, which is a different matter: You could be sued for theft of intellectual property.

I'm assuming I'm safe from him suing me (I think he's still alive?) if I rehash that from a neutral, 'here's the facts as presented by the parties and media involved at the time' stance?

Well, IANAL... but I've talked with many, and all I can say is that people can sue for defamation of character and other dumb stuff at any time. However, you could interview him, get him to sign a release to use the interview information in your historical retrospective, and that will likely prevent any legal action.

 

[Eudimorphodon]

Anyway, I've gotten my hands on some internal franchisee videos that are really interesting in terms of what Computerland's leadership was saying to their franchisees as things went south in the mid 80s.. and I'm wondering if there are copyright risks involved in showing segments of that? There's a fair number of CL ads posted on youtube already, but nothing internal like this.

Considering just how dead ComputerLand is as an entity probably the biggest risk you'd run into posting segments of internal franchise propaganda videos is getting a copyright match from any background music they might have stuck onto them. (Obviously I don't know if these videos are of a sufficiently high production class to have music on them at all.) "Fair Use" should indeed be a thing that YouTube respects but apparently the copyright trolls are *very* aggressive when it comes to abusing the audio matching robots.

Regarding the tax thing, if you take a neutral tone and just say "it was reported at the time that so-and-so did this-and-that and bad things happened" without trying to inject your own personal hot take on it (and making sure to cite your sources) I seriously doubt there's any case to be made.