[OSGeo-Conf] Video Recording FOSS4G
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 15:56:10 PDT 2018
Thanks Michael and Steven for this feedback on videos. I've picked out
some of this content into the FOSS4G Cookbook , and linked back to
this email thread. Would be good to update as you see fit.
One method I'd be interested to see experimented with is a "scrappy"
cheap alternative, where attendees are invited to record the sessions
they attend on their mobile phones, then upload to a central server
afterwards. This could be used especially for Local or Regional events
which don't have a budget for professional recording.
On 15/9/18 3:59 am, michael terner wrote:
> Steven et al:
> Thanks for relaying the message on the videoing.
> To all:
> Indeed, providing the "LOC perspective on videoing" has been a bit of
> a personal cause as it was an extremely challenging part of Boston. I
> have posted to the Conference Dev on this previously and will continue
> to do so, as I believe it is an important and challenging issue that
> other LOCs are likely to face. Indeed, both Steven and Til have
> conveyed the core elements of the challenge. Here are a few additional
> points and a rationale for having OSGeo /directly support /the funding
> of videoing:
> /Full disclosure: /As a member of the Conference Dev Committee and as
> Charter Member, I fully support the goal of videoing as much of a
> FOSS4G conference as is possible. As a conference chair, the calculus
> is a bit more difficult.
> 1. Videoing is not easy, nor inexpensive. It is to the Bonn Team's
> great credit, and also to their supplier Kaos Klub's (sic) credit
> that they /made it look easy./ And in the end, they were affordable.
> 2. The Boston Team was so impressed with Kaos Klub that we tried
> earnestly to bring them to Boston. Ultimately, they were not able
> to commit to supporting us.
> 3. The primary goal of an LOC is to provide the best possible
> experience for /those who attend the event. /Hosting a FOSS4G is
> first and foremost /for the visitors to your city/ and your paying
> customers and sponsors.
> 4. Videoing adds great value to OSGeo in being able to keep the
> presentations in perpetuity and to use them in a marketing and
> educational context. Equally, OSGeo has a broader mandate than an
> LOC to widen the reach of a FOSS4G conference to people who are
> unable to attend.
> 5. Yes, Steven is correct, in cities like Boston, there are limited
> options for videoing. At our venue, the venue /required/ we use
> their in-house video for the main, plenary room (3 screens,
> multiple cameras, etc. etc.). The cost of that was in excess of
> $50,000. The estimated cost to video 11 rooms concurrently was
> also in excess of $50,000 (although we were free to pursue other
> options for those rooms), so the overall budget would have
> exceeded $100,000.
> 6. While we knew the budget, we needed to make a decisions on the
> videoing approach 3 months before the conference. That is, at a
> time when we had only 500+ registrants and knew that we needed 800
> registrations to break even. At that time, we were unable to make
> a commitment to spend $50,000 that we did not have in hand. And so
> we chose to do-it-yourself (DIY), which was estimated to cost
> $15,000 - $20,000 including buying the equipment.
> 7. Guido led a team that did incredible work and we successfully
> captured video of 80%+ of the sessions DIY and with volunteers
> operating the equipment. But Guido's team was extremely stressed,
> almost to the point of breaking during the /entire
> conference./ And then, after the conference, we had huge piles of
> video to edit and merge (i.e., slides + speaker video) and upload.
> 8. But in the end, we achieved a very healthy surplus. Had we known
> in advance that we would have that surplus, there is no possible
> way we would have chosen DIY. We would have spent the $50,000.
> (And indeed, we paid for processing and uploading the video by
> using a contractor /after the conference./)
> 9. From my POV, *requiring videoing* while providing _no_ direct
> financial support, and as Til points out, at the same time pushing
> LOCs hard to maintain affordability, is neither fair, nor
> equitable to the LOC. Videoing is in OSGeo's direct interests (far
> more than the LOC's) and if it's very important, than OSGeo should
> be prepared to pay for it.
> 10. The scheme that Steven and I proposed in an earlier draft is a
> fair approach that would have made an enormous difference to
> Boston. Basically, OSGeo loans the LOC the money to pay for
> videoing (or a large proportion of the videoing) and then the
> first bit of the surplus is used to pay back that loan. If there
> is no surplus, then loan is not repayed, and OSGeo does in fact
> pay for the videoing, /to its own great benefit/.
> If OSGeo is not willing to pay for the videoing, how is it fair to
> have the LOC (or rather, the paying attendees) pay for it? Indeed, in
> Dar es Salaam, the DLOC made the intentional choice of only videoing
> the plenary sessions and saving money. Money that was used to broaden
> attendance /at the conference/ through discount tickets for local
> people. Part of that decision was informed by looking at the Boston
> video viewing stats. Indeed, our keynotes had many hundreds of views,
> but a typical session had 20 - 30 viewings over the past year. That is
> non-trivial, but "how much" is that worth? I believe the DLOC made the
> right call in erring on bringing /more people to Dar./
> I recognize and respect that this issue is not resolved. And the best
> possible solution (which Astrid described to Steven and myself) would
> be some kind of "video team" (or other resources) that could be
> deployed to FOSS4G conferences (where ever they may be held) and that
> could provide the videoing services at an affordable cost. I certainly
> hope that is what happens at Bucharest. But if such a solution is not
> possible, then I believe it is fair and appropriate that OSGeo invest
> in the videoing that it believes is important enough to state as a
> requirement in the RfP. Since it does not appear that OSGeo is yet
> comfortable making that commitment, then I would concur with Steven
> that video should not be made a "hard requirements" and should rather
> be listed as a "strong preference."
> I am confident we will find a good long term approach for this
> challenge. But the challenge is real and needs some action from OSGeo.
> Most sincerely, and over & out from the Dar es Salaam airport on my
> way back to Boston...
> Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> The funding of video recording is going to have to be left
>> unresolved. At the moment all that we are saying is that we want
>> recording and that OSGeo “may” provide a loan. The provision of
>> recording is quite contentious amongst recent chairs:
>> * Prior to Bonn there was no large scale video recording to my
>> knowledge. At Nottingham we had Audio recording
>> * Bonn set a very high standard thanks to the team of external
>> specialist volunteers who took on the task
>> * Boston did an incredible job using home built systems but it
>> was an enormous strain on the LOC and the volunteers to get
>> this done. An external team would have cost close on $100k I
>> believe (MT?) and that would have added $80+ to the ticket
>> price or eliminated most of the surplus returned to OSGeo
>> * Dar only recorded the keynotes and some sessions in the main
>> hall, I believe that this was due to a combination of cost
>> and organisation (MI?)
>> People outside of the LOC are always keen that the proceedings
>> are recorded and made available to a wider audience, I understand
>> why. The LOC may well be concerned at the cost of hiring in a
>> professional team to record up to 9 streams of content or the
>> administrative burden of trying to record using an in-house team
>> of volunteers.
>> I’d prefer to leave recording as a strongly desired but not
>> mandatory requirement (also seek clarity on whether all sessions
>> will be recorded) and remove the section on an OSGeo loan as
>> that will make matters more complex. Others will have a different
>> view. We need to make a decision and get the RfP out. I can edit
>> the video sections of the RfP once there is a decision.
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev