An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
In this instance I’m talking about videocasts, vidcasts or whatever you call them, this post does not related to youtube type videos, when you’re on youtube your on their to watch “funny†videos of teenagers not being able to string a sentence together on Miss Teen America.
Anyway with the growth of vidcasts (that’s what I’m calling them anyway) I rarely actually watch them - most of them consist of some guys sitting down and talking into a video camera, not exactly interesting. So is the fact that people are producing these vidcasts because of the hype behind them? I much prepare to listen to a podcast and work on the computer. I can’t work whilst watching John C Dvorak can I? At the moment I’m listening to Cranky Geeks, whilst typing up this blog post and reading my RSS feeds. The audio is like background noise to me which I can tune in and out of whilst working - which is what I normally do when listening to radio.
Another thing that really gets me is why on gods earth would you want to watch a vidcast on a tiny screen (i.e iPods) whilst on the move? What a stupid (expletive) idea! Granted the screen on an iPod is good for browsing through music, podcasts, etc but I’m going to stick with my shuffle (I only use it for podcasts). Seriously why are vidcasts so popular? why would I want to spend thirty minutes of my life watching an old guy talking to the camera (John C Dvorak), maybe it’s because I’ve grown up without my parent’s owning a television but seriously I just don’t get it. I’d rather listen to the person and not watch them.
Last edited by William Tildesley on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:29 am; edited 1 time in total
i've actually never watched a videocast, i've listened to various podcasts but not followed tehm explicitly. i guess i never follow videocasts because as you say they are mearly a podcast with an image of some ugly bloke . its hardly your multiaward winning tv series. i think videocasts was one of those great ideas that just went al wrong when put into practice
It's not just you William. I find most vidcasts stupid.
If the vidcast is being made for a purpose that requires demonstration (e.g. a science vidcast, which may include practical demonstrations, or a dance vidcast etc) then it's certainly a useful tool.
If it's just someone (usually boring) talking to the camera, then it should just be a podcast.
Incidentally, I don't like the term "Podcast". It's just an audio file. And in most cases, not even a new file format. It's just a dumb marketing term that everyone now uses (including myself...). And what has the "Pod" got to do with it? If it's got anything to do with iPod, it should be an iPodcast. At least "Vidcasts" involve video. It should have been called a Soundcast, or an Audiocast. Or an Acousticast. Now that would be cool.
It depends on what you meqn by vidcast, and why you watch them. If you are watching "vidcasts" for entertainment of news gathering, then most likely you will not want to watch someone sitting around, or indeed a group of people sitting around - it becomes boring.
Many iTunes video podcasts, and youtube videocasts, are very good - as Andy says, trhere are many tutorials or screencasts as usually called involving most kinds of software, espexially for instance when it comes to programming - many of which have been posted on this forum. Or maybe a videocasts explaining a technology or just a short documentary. Visual media is an amazing way of communicating with an audience, though as the technology to produce it becomes more readily available, you are bound to get some boring ones or pretty much pointless ones, and obviously William you'd prefer a podcast if what you want is some entertainment or light listening, maybe news or quick non technical opinion/review.
PhotoshopTV is an excellent videopodcast; it has a mixture of 5 to 6 long and short screencasts in an episode, some hands on video/psudo documentary sections, visual advertising, and presenters, similar to a G4 TV style or other video podcast.
The medium is excellent; though as with any medium, it has its place and suits certain people seeking certain things.
I find vidcasts (vlogs?) in the sense that it's some dude (or chick) talking at a video camera are not only slightly patronising but rather boring and pretentious. I mean why do all these people assume I want to listen to them moan about how they don't like the place the work, the new shapes of the cuptops in Starbucks or how they can balance a spoon on their nose. The only time I'll watch something like this is if I'll be learning something in the process. I wish I could speak for the general population of our small planet but I want to expand my mind not numb it by watching some idiot moan about completely abitrary day to day nonsense.
Now screencasts on the other hand, now they ARE usefull (usually) I can demonstrate a bug or a new class implementation in action without having to be at a computer with all the nescesarry framework runtimes installed.
Yes I agree with you that screencasts are good, but only if they come with detailed instructions, because I find it painfull to keep going back to the video to complete a task on my computer.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
. its hardly your multiaward winning tv series. i think videocasts was one of those great ideas that just went al wrong when put into practice 
